Sitting of 25 January 1979

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

    Rhodesia (Refugees)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from Zimbabwe were granted permission to reside in the United Kingdom in 1977 and 1978 to date.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.
    Mr. Hooley: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that Zimbabwean students who complete their courses in this country, and who would be in physical danger if required to return to Zimbabwe, may be given reasonable opportunity to seek employment whilst still in the United Kingdom so that they are not left in legal and social limbo?
    Mr. John: We are urgently considering that point and hope to be able to give an answer in the very near future.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Minister bear in mind that no student returning to Rhodesia after his studies here could possibly be in any danger other than from nationalist terrorists?
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I press my hon. Friend a little further on that matter? Already there are many Africans over here—some are students and some are here in other capacities—who find it extremely difficult to live and it is essential that if he takes a decision—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a statement. He must ask a question.
    Mr. Lyon: I thought that I began, Mr. Speaker, by asking whether I might press the Minister further.
    Mr. Speaker: That question was addressed to me.
    Mr. Lyon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I know that all questions are addressed to you. May I ask whether the Minister will make a public statement so that the anxieties of these people can be alleviated?
    Mr. John: Yes, Sir, certainly. I hope to make this a public statement.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of refugees from Zimbabwe come here because they are in fear for their lives at the hands of the thugs of both the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole and Bishop Abel Muzorewa? Will the Minister undertake to treat these applications for refugee status very favourably?
    Mr. John: What I can tell my hon. Friend is that no one in that category will be sent away without ministerial authority. I think that that guarantees a sympathetic consideration of each case.

    Parole Board Hearings
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision allows a prisoner or his legal representative to ensure that any material relating to that prisoner presented to the Parole Board does not contain any factual errors.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): There is no such provision. Much of the material comprises reports prepared on a confidential basis by, for example, members of the prison staff and probation officers. The basic facts are usually set out in a number of these reports as well as in the prison records and can be cross-checked. This is one of the functions of the parole unit in the Home Office.
    Mr. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many prisoners whose parole is turned down are, first, very disappointed that it has been turned down, but are also concerned that they do not know the reason? Such prisoners fear that inaccurate information may well have been

    653
    entered on their records and have swung the decision as to whether parole should be refused or granted.
    Mr. Rees: Over the years I have checked on the matter of inaccuracy and only a handful of cases have come to light. I accept that they are only the ones that have come to light. We are conducting an experiment, the results of which are now being collated, to see whether we could give reasons for not granting parole. When the facts have been collated I shall report to the House.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision whether or not to give parole can be almost as important to a prisoner as the original sentencing decision? Therefore, similar standards of evidence and natural justice should apply, the very least of these being that the prisoner should know the reasons for the decision.
    Mr. Rees: I have just said that that is why we have been conducting an experiment. One factor which should be the least worry, is the paperwork that would arise from what is suggested. I am looking at all aspects of the matter and I shall report to the House.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Home Secretary agree that these matters would be more significant if any rational basis could be detected in a number of cases when the Parole Board comes to a decision? Does he agree that much of the feeling about unfairness among prisoners is caused by the extraordinary cases that the board seems to prefer over cases which prisoners themselves regard as being much more favourable?
    Mr. Rees: I invite the hon. Gentleman to see how the scheme is worked. I shall willingly show him. I think that what he says is misconceived.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cases he has considered must have included one concerning one of my constituents? When such errors occur, they create a great, deep and abiding sense of injustice not only for the prisoner but for his relatives and friends, if they feel that in one way or another evidence presented before the Parole Board is not accurate and in some cases is absolutely misleading.
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has given one of the reasons why we are conducting the experiment of which I have spoken.

    Pornographic Material
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present laws relating to the display of pornographic material.
    Mr. John: The law in this field is under study as part of the wider review being undertaken by the committee on obscenity and film censorship under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Williams, and the forthcoming debate on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will also provide an opportunity to consider the matter in depth.
    Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that there is such public concern about the increase in the display of indecent material in public that many hon. Members are now receiving considerable representations about it from their electors through the post? Secondly, is he aware that many of us have grave doubts about the composition of the Williams committee and particularly the balance of that committee?
    Mr. John: I am certainly aware that hon. Members are receiving letters on the subject. There is legislation—admittedly of nineteenth century vintage—against indecent advertisements. If electors or others feel that a breach of the law has been committed, they can report it to the police.
    I consider the hon. Gentleman's second point to be a quite unworthy attack on a committee which, after all, includes amongst its members a High Court judge. It is just the sort of snide attack that is likely to denigrate committees set up by the Government with the welcome of the Opposition and to prevent such committees from sitting in future.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: May I ask the Minister about the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) is introducing as a Private Member's Bill tomorrow? As the Bill has the limited and admirable objective of, to use the words

    655
    of the Explanatory Memorandum, safeguarding.
    "the public against being unwillingly exposed to indecent material",
    can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill will have the support of the Government?
    Mr. John: I do not consider Question Time the proper time to rehearse a debate that will take place tomrrow.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: When does the Minister expect Professor Williams's committee to report?
    Mr. John: The taking of evidence is almost complete and the report has been promised for later this year.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we should be concerned with protecting children in particular from seeing indecent displays, we should be far more concerned about the affects of violence on children? Is it not something of a statement of the hypocrisy of our society that, judging by the mailbag, there seems to be far more concern about ensuring that children do not see pornographic displays than there is about trying to prevent handicapped children in particular from being beaten in special schools and community homes?
    Mr. John: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's depth of feeling at having Second Reading of his Bill on that subject objected to last Friday afternoon. The Government are certainly opposed to the foisting of indecent displays upon the unwilling public. The problem which affects us, and which affected the last Conservative Government, is whether the measure propounded gets to the root of the evil.

    Shoplifting (Self-service Stores)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that self-service stores take adequate steps to discourage shoplifting; and what steps he intends to take to persuade them to implement his Department's recommendations in this regard.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I am sure that many self-service and other stores can improve their arrangements for preventing shoplifting.
    656
    Together with the police we continue to encourage retailers to implement the relevant recommendations of the report "Shoplifting and Thefts by Shop Staff" which was first published in 1973.
    Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is she aware that pilferage by staff is now far higher than theft by customers, and that that will continue in line with the number of self-service stores that open? Is it not about time we in the House recognised that stores which invite the public to help themselves, and thereafter call on society to pay the cost of court and police time, should be encouraged at the very least to bring in the preventive measures about which the hon. Lady has spoken?
    Dr. Summerskill: Everything possible is being done by the Home Office, and, I know, by the hon. Gentleman, to encourage retailers to take preventive measures. I am sure that they are aware that many recommendations have been made, which they could carry out.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Will the Minister accept that there is no evidence to show that staff pilferage is more widespread than customer pilferage? Does she agree that the regrettable incidence of staff pilferage is by no means confined to self-service stores, and occurs in all forms of retail outlet?
    Dr. Summerskill: Whether it is staff or customer pilferage, it is still very serious and should be stopped.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend also agree that shoplifting occurs right across all social classes? Will she draw up a list of the ratios and percentages of shoplifting in the various socio-economic groups, so that we can be absolutely sure where the greatest number come from?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that the investigation suggested by my hon. Friend would be of no purpose, except perhaps to give him some satisfaction. I do not think that crime knows any class barriers or boundaries.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Is my hon Friend satisfied that the laws, such as they are, that apply to price control at self-service shops have been sufficiently implemented during recent shortages?
    Dr. Summerskill: That appears to be another question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

    Broadcasting (Complaints Procedure)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the complaints procedure in relation to broadcasting.
    Dr. Summerskill: The White Paper on broadcasting makes it clear that we have proposed the establishment of a single independent broadcasting complaints commission.
    Mr. McCrindle: As neither the BBC's nor the IBA's present complaints machinery appears to have the confidence of the public, will the hon. Lady confirm that any proposed complaints commission would be entitled to look into claims of unfairness or misrepresentation during a radio or television programme, and that it would be the intention, as with Press Council, to require the BBC or the IBA to publish the findings of that commission?
    Dr. Summerskill: The Annan committee recommended, and the Government agree, that the commission should be able to receive, consider and adjudicate on, complaints of unfairness, misrepresentation and invasion of privacy. I can give no positive undertaking on the hon. Gentleman's second point, but it is being considered.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend seek an interview with the Director-General of the BBC, Mr. Ian Trethowan, about the letter from the British Field Sports Society, and make a complaint to him about what it says—that they guaranteed media time to someone on the matter of blood sports? Surely, to guarantee sectional interest time is not the right way to run the BBC?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that I am right in saying that that has been denied by Mr. Trethowan, but if my hon. Friend will write to me—
    Mr. Hoyle: I shall.
    Dr. Summerskill:—and specify his exact complaint. I shall certainly have it
    658
    considered by my noble Friend the Minister of State or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Neubert: Has the hon. Lady read the recent article in The Daily Telegraph by her former ministerial colleague Lord Harris, condemning the unfair aspersions on the police in many television programmes? Does she intend to take any action on that?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman cares to bring the issue to my notice or to the notice of the brodacasting authority, in writing, it will be taken up. The whole point of the new complaints commission is to give more strength and teeth to the type of complaint that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Terry Walker: Will the new complaints procedure allow for complaints about bad television and broadcasting reception? Despite all the matters that have been raised in the House, we do not seem to be able to overcome the problem. It is a legitimate complaint in many places, especially in my constituency.
    Dr. Summerskill: Reception complaints are not specifically included in the plans for the commission. I realise that there is a good deal of feeling about reception. That is being considered by the Home Office in a completely different context and not under the complaints commission.

    Firearms Offences
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving the use of firearms were committed within the Metropolitan Police area in 1958, 1968 and 1978.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In 1969, the earliest year for which comparable figures are available, 483 indictable offences in which firearms were reported to have been used were recorded in the Metropolitan Police district. In 1977, the corresponding figure was 1,526. The figure for 1978 is not yet available.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, hardly any professional criminals carried firearms, but that last year firearms were carried in 80 per cent. of the attacks on banks, betting shops and

    659
    security guards? Does he think that the total abolition of the death penalty has been a major cause of that regrettable occurrence?
    Mr. Rees: No, I do not think that that is so. There are many causes of that in our society. I do not think that the abolition of the death penalty is the reason.
    Mr. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the shotgun is now the preferred weapon of the serious criminal in many of the metropolises? Will he confirm also that current firearms control legislation is totally inadequate, and that, if it had not been for the Lib-Lab pact, the Government would have already taken steps?
    Mr. Rees: Shotguns are an important element. Heavy penalties up to life imprisonment are available on the statute book for armed crime.
    Mr. Farr: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in recent years the classification of offences has changed, which has resulted in offences not formerly regarded as serious matters now being regarded as serious, and that the figures that he has given should be interpreted in that light?
    Mr. Rees: Whatever the interpretation of figures, the Commissioner tells me that there is a growth of armed crime in the metropolis and throughout the country as a whole.

    Mobile Radio Licences
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reducing delays in dealing with applications for private mobile radio licences.
    Dr. Summerskill: In recent weeks there has been a speeding up in the frequency assignment procedure, which is an essential part of the processing of applications for private mobile radio licences. Previously, a series of technical difficulties with the computer which performs frequency assignments had resulted in a backlog. Some applications remain to be cleared, but every effort is being made to deal with them as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Newton: May I tell the hon. Lady that we sympathise with her difficulties
    660
    over a computer? Since the tabling of the question before Christmas my constituent who was involved has told me, too, that there has been some improvement. May I ask the hon. Lady to do everything possible to ensure that pressure for the improvement is maintained?
    Dr. Summerskill: I thank the hon, Gentleman. I can assure him that everything is being done.
    Mr. Robert HughesHow quickly does my hon. Friend now expect licences to be processed?
    Dr. Summerskill: Every month we are receiving about 200 to 250 applications for licences or major variations to existing licences. If it is a straightforward matter, it should in normal circumstances be proceeded to the stage of frequency assignment in three to four weeks.

    Police Officers (Protection)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that there is sufficient legislation to protect properly the lives of police officers while in execution of their duties.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that shortly before Christmas there were two especially ugly incidents when police officers were confronted with sawn-off shotguns? Is it not apparent that heavy fines and sentences up to and including life imprisonment are not sufficient? Is there not a case for the reintroduction of capital punishment for such offences as a deterrent? What representations is he receiving from the police force on the subject?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot recall receiving any such representations recently, but I have no doubt that it is the view of the force that the penalty of capital punishment should be brought back. I shall not call in aid the figures. If one policeman were killed, that would be one too many. Under controlled circumstances police are now armed. I offer that as a fact. That is happening under very controlled circumstances and it is a factor.
    Mr. Emery: Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the fact that he

    661
    is having to mount guards in a number of places around central London—police officers wearing flak jackets and being armed—to cope with the possibility of problems arising of an international nature? Surely there is something wrong when we have to have police around the capital wearing flak jackets and being armed. That is the type of action that we have never had in the United Kingdom. We want to protect the police, but we do not want the type of action to which I have referred.
    Mr. Rees: I am not sure on what basis the hon. Gentleman makes that statement. There are people in the metropolis who are protected by armed guards. There are occasions when selected policemen, who are trained properly and wear flak jackets, are put in certain areas. Given the international situation, it is right that that should be so. We cannot opt out, and I support what the commissioner does.

    Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I met him earlier this week and I expect to meet him again soon.
    Mr. Brotherton: During the meetings with the Commissioner, has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the Commissioner's proposed changes in the powers of the police? Will he tell the House his views on the subject?
    Mr. Rees: No. There is a Royal Commission sitting and everybody concerned may give evidence on what he thinks should be the changes. I shall wait until the Royal Commission reports. I hoped to meet the members of the commission last week, but I was busier in another context. I had hoped to meet them on Saturday, but I could not go. I shall wait until the Commission reports and all the evidence is collated.
    Mr. Neubert: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Commissioner, will he discuss with him the serious matter of assaults on London taxi drivers and the growing incidence of bilking? Does he think that there is sufficient publicity of the provisions of the Theft Act? Why should not the penalties be displayed in the cabs?
    Mr. Rees: I shall certainly do what the hon. Gentleman asks. I shall discuss the matter with the Commissioner.
    Mr. Pavitt: When my right hon. Friend meets the Commissioner, will he thank him and commend him for the appointment of public relations officers, especially in areas such as mine that have large ethnic minorities? These officers are able to save a considerable amount of complaint procedure that would involve considerable time and effort by hard-pressed police officers.
    Mr. Rees: I shall do that.
    Mr. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Commissioner to the great concern in many London riverside boroughs about the cutting back of the Metropolitan Police River Division? Does he appreciate that in many respects river traffic has increased in recent years?
    Mr. Rees: River traffic may have increased, but the nature and the use of the river has changed greatly. The Commissioner must make his own operational judgment and I support him in what he is doing.
    Mr. Whitelaw: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Commissioner, will he first express the appreciation of the House for the way in which the Metropolitan Police handled the large demonstrations that took place on Monday? At the same time will he express the understanding the House of the many extra duties places on the police at a time of industrial difficulty such as at present?
    Mr. Rees: I shall do that. When I first heard the discussions in the House I thought that hon. Members were complaining about what the police were doing. I explained to the police that parliamentary procedure is sometimes peculiar and that we meant that we were praising them.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with current recruitment to the police force.
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the net increase to the latest available date in the strength of the Metropolitan Police since he announced the implementation of half the wage increases recommended by the Edmund-Davies committee.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am pleased to say that provisional figures show that for the period 1 July to 31 December 1978 the total strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by 1,267 to 109,066. This includes a net increase of 330 by the Metropolitan Police, bringing the force strength to 21,961.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is a modest but to be welcomed improvement. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what thought he has given to asking police authorities generally to reassess their establishment strengths to reach figures that would meet the increased rise in crime?
    Mr. Rees: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives a modest word of thanks. One cannot win in this place. If recruitment is falling it is bad, and when it is increasing it is "modest". I leave establishments entirely to the Inspectorate, which is composed of professional policemen working in the Home Office. They go around the country and discuss with the local police authority, or the chief constable, what the establishment should be. I think that I ought to leave it to them.
    Mr. Sims: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures conceal the fact that a large number of experienced officers are being lost to the force and are being replaced by new recruits? Does not he think that, had he accepted the recommendation of the Edmund-Davies report completely, and implemented them in full, this drain would not have occurred?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because my information is that wastage has dropped by over 30 per
    664
    cent. in the second half of 1978. A full analysis is not available, but it is quite clear that a substantial drop is caused by a deferment of retirement. Because there is a deferment of retirement, where people are waiting for their enhanced pensions which will take effect next September, because pensions were treated on the full rate, I must warn the House that there will be a problem in September since retirements will then take place.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will not my right hon. Friend encourage the police to look at their management techniques? Giving the police decent pay is very imimportant, but if they continue to use management techniques, particularly in relation to graduates, which are not acceptable to modern industrial relations, there will be considerable difficulty irrespective of the amount of money.
    Mr. Rees: There are two aspects to my hon. Friend's question. The question whether one uses graduates is a separate issue. What the police have tended to do is to send to university policemen who, in the main, come back. The police are giving a lot of thought to management. As a result of the greatly enhanced salaries, the police are now paid very well indeed. Therefore, police authorities—certainly I as police authority in the Metropolitan district—tend to use men in a better way because they cost more money.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the Home Secretary recall that the Edmund-Davies settlement was based on giving the police a substantial, immediate increase and an inflation-indexed review machinery to see that they did not fall behind again? Does he also recognise that that was based on two things—first, that the police are a vital service and, secondly, that they do not have the right to strike? Does not he think that the time has come to apply those same principles to other vital life-support services, for example, in the hospitals, in the fire service and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That goes far beyond the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a Press Gallery luncheon yesterday the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis expressed some satisfaction with the increase in police

    665
    recruitment? Does he not agree that it would be a bad thing for the police to have the return of a Tory Government and a far lower level in police numbers? Is it not a matter of great satisfaction to the police that, taking into account his free allowances and London weighting, a police sergeant in London now has a salary substantially more than Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Rees: What I am prepared to do is to take all the praise for putting up police pay.

    Jurors
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine the jury review arrangements which were set out by the then Secretary of State in 1975.
    Mr. John: No, Sir. We are satisfied with the present arrangements for the checking of potential jurors. These were agreed by my right hon. Friend's predecessor in 1975, and have since been set out in the statement of 10 October 1978 issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the guidelines in that statement, which was wrung out of an unwilling Establishment during the A, B, C trial, represent a diminution in the right of trial by jury and an interference by the secret police with the juries, which is not equally available to both prosecution and defence? Does he not accept that removal of the guidelines and this interference would be a far better option for the Home Office and the Secretary of State to take up? At least it would improve the reputation of the Home Office and its concern for justice, which is what we are all concerned about.
    Mr. John: The Home Office is not solely responsible for this whole problem. Guidelines have existed for a number of years. So far as I can trace, they have existed since 1948. They were not introduced for the A, B, C trial. The check is to see whether a juror may be susceptible to improper pressure, or is unduly biased against either the prosecution or the defence. When the prosecution believes that a juror is unduly biased, it
    666
    may use its power to stand down that juror. But when it believes that he is unduly biased against the defence, it is its duty to communicate that fact to the defence so that the defence may use its right of peremptory challenge.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the principles which my hon. Friend has just enunciated are logical, they ought to apply to all kinds of jury cases. If they do not, they ought not to apply to the group outlined in the Attorney-General's statement. Is not it right that we either go over to the American system or keep random selection and should not mess about with it?
    Mr. John: There are some very serious crimes where the stakes are so high that it is right to select those outside the normal run.
    Mr. McNamara: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is in precisely those cases where the stakes are so very high that justice must be seen to be done? If we are to interfere with the principle of random selection of jurors, we must have a clear and direct code. This must not be left to the discretion of the prosecution, as it is in these cases, or as sometimes happens, to the discretion of the judge trying the case. Does not my hon. Friend agree that this must be clear, obvious and straightforward? But basically, we should go back to random selection.
    Mr. John: The actual inquiries are left to the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or his deputy, and notification of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. But the point that I am making is that, when facts are revealed which suggest that a juror may be biased against the defence, those facts must be communicated to the defence so that it may exercise its right of random challenge.

    Official Secrets Act
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the White Paper on the reform of the Official Secrets Act.
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the

    667
    White Paper on the reform of the Official Secrets Act.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received in response to the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have received 23 representations, including 15 letters, explicitly in response to the White Paper. Eleven were from hon. Members, four from private individuals, and eight from organisations, including three local Labour Party bodies. I have also received other representations on the matters covered by the White Paper, but it is not clear that they were in direct response to it.
    Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House last Friday demonstrated that there is a wide measure of agreement that the Official Secrets Act must be reformed radically and soon? Will he give the House some assurance that in Committee his Department will not play ducks and drakes with the Bill of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) in defence of an existing law which has now been brought into disrepute?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend referred specifically to a reform of the Official Secrets Act. I should like to reform that very quickly. I have no intention of playing ducks and drakes with it. Indeed, with regard to a Private Member's Bill, perhaps I should ask those hon. Members of the Committee not to play ducks and drakes with us.
    Mr. Corbett: Can I encourage my right hon. Friend to be a little more generous as to the assistance which he can give to this Private Member's Bill? Will he say that he will welcome some legislation, however narrow, with regard to the right to information?
    Mr. Rees: I think that we must look at the question of access. We shall be discussing this in Committee. There are undoubtedly things to which the general public could have access without any problem at all. But what was quite clear from last week's debate was that there are things which are subject to the current Official Secrets Act, this applies to the American and Swedish legislation, too—
    668
    about which there can be no question of giving access.

    Juvenile Courts
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present powers of juvenile courts.
    Mr. John: Yes. These powers were strengthened by the Criminal Law Act 1977, and we are satisfied that they are adequate.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Is the Minister sufficiently aware of the simple fact that there are no courts in this country which inspire less apprehension among their customers and potential customers than the juvenile courts? Is he aware also that this situation will not be remedied until there is some power of custodial sentencing? In addition to custodial sentencing, there must be the power to set some sort of custodial alternatives to fines. At the moment juvenile courts are quite impotent in that simple area.
    Mr. John: I believe that at that age it is not right to inspire fear. This does not necessarily give adequate results. I believe that the ability to deal flexibly, sensibly and adequately with people who appear before the court is a much better weapon.
    Mr. Sims: Is the Minister aware that, if the juvenile court wants to send a child to a junior detention centre, and if that court carries out the wishes of the Home Office, it must make inquiries about availability? Quite often it finds that no places are available. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient accommodation available?
    Mr. John: Yes.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: Will the Minister bear in mind the firm views of magistrates who have to deal with juvenile offenders? They feel that they need, and should be given as a matter of urgency, new powers to deal with persistent juvenile offenders. Is he aware that without these powers magistrates feel that they cannot possibly be expected to meet the rising tide of juvenile crime?
    Mr. John: Over recent years there have been decreasing numbers of juvenile crimes. The hon. and learned Gentleman's primary error is that he is thinking

    669
    of magistrates as having to deal only with juveniles. Under any system, the local authorities have a very great part to play in the disposition of juvenile offenders. They and the magistrates together have to work on a code of conduct which, while it does not wholly satisfy the Magistrates Association, does go a long way to resolving these positions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman paid more attention to encouraging these positive contributions instead of constantly carping about the rising tide of crime and the inadequacy of society to deal with it he would be doing the House a greater service.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Is it not pointless to ask for extra flowers for the juvenile courts when there is virtually no accommodation in which to put juveniles? Surely these questions are meaningless? They approach the problem from the wrong angle.
    Mr. John: Under the Children and Young Persons Act, those who have to deal with the future of young offenders so that they will not offend again should have the say in where the disposition occurs. If the magistrates were to be given a concurrent power with the local authorities it would divide responsibility and add to confusion.

    Illegal Entry and Overstaying
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for introducing internal checks in order to prevent illegal immigration and illegal overstaying in this country.
    Mr. John: A variety of measures are already taken to prevent and detect illegal entry and overstaying, which are continually reviewed and improved in the light of experience and the available resources. However, for the reasons set out in my right hon. Friend's statement of 6 April 1978, the Government are opposed to a system of internal control of immigration.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister of State now confirm that the Government have decided to reject each of the four specific recommendations made nearly a year ago by the Select Committee on Race Relations
    670
    and Immigration, in order to control illegal immigration and overstaying?
    Mr. John: Since the Home Secretary has made a statement and we have subsequently published a White Paper, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be seeking confirmation. If he had read his parliamentary papers he would already know the Government's attitude.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear to the EEC that he finds the undertakings in its new directive unacceptable, because the evidence given by immigration organisations to this House makes it clear that they would not accept internal checks?
    Mr. John: I attended the EEC Council meeting last November. The proposal is now that the Commission should hold separate discussions with the United Kingdom about the difficulties that the draft holds for us. I have made it clear that the draft directive does hold considerable problems for this country.
    Mr. Onslow: What action does the Home Office take when it is brought to its notice that someone is making money out of illegal immigration? What is the success rate?
    Mr. John: The success rate is considerable and such people are liable to criminal prosecution.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Has my hon. Friend followed the questioning of the Select Committee in its present inquiry in which time after time it has said that it denies ever making the recommendation which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has suggested?
    Mr. John: I understand that. Our difficulty at the time when the Home Secretary made the statement was in understanding what the Select Committee did mean.

    TUC
    Mr. Corbettasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I meet representatives of the TUC from time to time at NEDC and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Prime Minister confirm with the TUC and the CBI that there is no evidence that secret ballots result in fewer decisions to strike? Is it not a fact that the reverse is often the case? Does he agree with the Donovan Commission report of 1968 that the better way to proceed is to extend individual involvement and responsibility for industrial democracy at the work place?
    The Prime Minister: It is the case that some unions already have ballots for strike action. I suppose the most prominent example is the National Union of Mineworkers. It can be argued that a ballot may lead to a more accurate result of the feelings of those concerned, but it does not necessarily lead, as the miner's ballots show, to greater industrial peace, which is what the House is particularly concerned about at present. Certainly we would be ready to discuss these matters with the TUC and the CBI and to facilitate them if it seems likely to help.
    On industrial democracy, this country is not in the forefront in involving workers in the operation of their own works and plants. We have room to move on industrial democracy, which is a shorthand term for this, and we should undoubtedly aim to achieve that.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As it is now a fortnight since the Prime Minister returned from the Caribbean, no one could accuse him of taking precipitate action. Therefore, how much more damage must be done to industry, how many more jobs must be in jeopardy, and how many more hospital patients must suffer before the Prime Minister decides to act?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Lady knows, action is being taken on a great many fronts in trying to settle some of these disputes. However, in the case of the road hauliers' dispute the Government have no standing as this is an example of free collective bargaining between employers and workers which the right hon. Lady has now espoused. We have seen the consequences of this in the dislocation caused in the country. On the maintenance of essential supplies, the regular reports that are being given by Ministers to this House every day have shown that the Government, through various means, but not necessarily through declaring a statse of emergency,
    672
    are ensuring the flow of those supplies. Although there are difficulties in a number of areas, basically supplies are being maintained.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that what he says is very complacent? Many raw materials are not getting through to the factories and many exports are not getting away. Is he not aware that the Government have a duty to enable supplies to be kept coming and going to and from the factories and they have full parliamentary authority to do that? Why have the Government not made use of that authority? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister no longer has the courage to act and, if that is so, will he not at least have the courage to resign?
    The Prime Minister: I somehow thought that was behind the right hon. Lady's real desires. She just cannot wait. There are plenty of statutory powers, but I do not know that any Government have sufficient power when the road haulage industry goes on strike to replace it. That is the simple truth of the matter. That is why the Government are using good sense to try to ensure that essential supplies are kept going. The right hon. Lady, of course, has a solution. If the claim is conceded in full, there is no doubt that the men will go back to work and, equally, there is no doubt that we would be in for another round of inflation. That is the dilemma which the right hon. Lady will never face.
    Mr. Steel: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he ask if it now realises that it would be in the interests of the greater number of its members, especially those who are the lowest paid and those who settle within the 5 per cent. guidelines, to accept that the Government should themselves intervene directly on the pay front?
    The Prime Minister: The Government do intervene directly on the pay front in relation to all public sector and public service workers, who account for about 30 per cent. of the total. One of the problems at the moment is that settlements in the private sector, under present free collective bargaining, are feeding through into the public sector. If carried through, they would have very serious consequences for our total revenue and budgetary expenditure. These are long-term

    673
    problems. I believe that the present dispute, if it focuses the attention of the TUC, as well as the Government and others, on these matters, will show that it is usually out of a crisis that we begin to get some solution in this country. I hope we shall do so on this occasion.
    Mr. Weetch: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he tell it that increased levels of import penetration are due to the fact that some sections of British industry are highly uncompetitive and that wage increases above and beyond what industry can bear will make the system more uncompetitive with a further loss of jobs?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The TUC is aware of this, as is the CBI. It is important that both should operate on this matter. Hence the importance of the industrial strategy under which we are able to communicate at plant level and sector level with all those concerned to point out the importance of additional investment, up-to-date design, good quality and proper deliveries. Both sides of industry have a full part to play in all these matters.
    Mr. Rost: As the Prime Minister has advised people to cross picket lines, why does he not take his own advice and go through the picket line at one of the ports or factories that are being blockaded and get the country moving again?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that gestures are the best way in which to handle these matters. I have stated the law as I understand it, and the Attorney-General will be making a further statement on the law, in response to the request by the Opposition, after questions. There is no reason to alter the view that I have expressed.
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Prime Minister, when he last met the TUC.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the repely which I have just given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).
    Mr. Walker: Will my right hon. Friend meet the General Council of the TUC as a matter of urgency and try to come to an agreement with it about future policy and the way in which we can overcome the present industrial situation? Will he make clear to the general council that the
    674
    Labour Government are the only ones who can overcome the present problem by agreement with the trade unions? Will he make clear to the trade unions that due to the way in which they have co-operated with us over the last three years, and mainly due to their efforts, we have been able to keep down the rate of inflation? Will he also make clear that the policy of confrontation coming from the Opposition makes it impossible for the Conservative Party to work with the trade union movement at all?
    The Prime Minister: I hope to meet the general council of the TUC on Monday. I shall point out the dislocation that is occurring in the country as a result of the present position on ay claims and pay settlements in which negotiations seem to be preceded, on occasions, by strikes and in which, contrary to the view often expressed by certain hon. Members in this House, trade unions do not seem to have sufficient control over their own members. It is a salutary reminder to hon. Members in this House that it is not the leaders of the unions who are failing in their attempt to try to co-operate. It is groups of independent minded subjects of this country who are acting on their own. I would have thought that the Opposition at least might have some lessons to learn from that.
    Mr. Henderson: Looking ahead of the present dispute to what might be coming, will the Prime Minister give the House an indication of how damaging could be a strike by Government computer operators?
    The Prime Minister: I could not do so in reply to that supplementary question. But there is no doubt, as I have said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, that our society is now so complex that an increasing number of relatively small groups of people can say to the country "We are going to hold up your operation." That is why we should examine all proposals, such as those for taking particular groups out of the strike area, if that is possible. None of us should be dogmatic, although when they were removed originally it was because it was thought that this had no particular value. We should examine all these matters, but, basically, the question is what kind of society we want in this country. This is a totally acquisitive society, and some

    675
    people are now practising what the Opposition preaches.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is not the Prime Minister's problem over the road hauliers' strike made more difficult by the fact that the Transport and General Workers' Union holds 2 million votes at his party conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "One million."] All right, a million. The union is a prime contributor to his party's funds. It controls the nomination of more than a score of his party's Members in this House. Does he find that this inhibits him in saying whether he wants the Transport and General Workers' Union to be defeated in this strike and for the employers to get their men back at the present offer?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentlemen's question was well up to his usual standard. As was rather noisily pointed out to him, he is only 100 per cent. wrong on the number of votes—not that that, if I may say so, is significant, because the Government of this country will carry out their responsibilities—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—irrespective of their affiliations to any particular group. I believe that would be true of the Conservative Party in relation to the many contributors to its party funds, just as it is true in relation to ours.
    Mr. Mellish: Again and again, the Leader of the Opposition claims that simple Government intervention is a panacea and would solve all these problems. Many people outside this House believe that. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, while the Government are prepared to intervene when they think that it is absolutely necessary, the most dangerous and terrifying result of Government intervention is that the position would get worse?
    The Prime Minister: There are insufficient vehicles at the disposal of the Government and, indeed, people to drive them, especially because of the complicated loads that exist today. Those hon. Members who shout loudly should examine this problem a little more and see what the difficulties are.
    The Government are approaching this matter in a way which is keeping the flow of supplies moving. We shall continue to do that. If there should be a real crisis, of course the country would
    676
    be far worse off than it is today. I hope that the dispute is settled soon on a basis that will not give rise to further inflation. Perhaps the Opposition will make their position clear on that.
    The longer the dispute goes on, the more certain I am that it would have been totally wrong—and a gesture—to have declared a state of emergency: it would have made things much worse. I beg hon. Members to believe that that is a judgment which is borne out by nearly everybody who has had anything to do with the dispute.
    Mr. Pardoe: Does the Prime Minister accept that if this is an acquisitive society we are making a pretty poor job of it? Even East Germany and Czechoslovakia have now overtaken us in terms of income per head.
    Will the Prime Minister tell the TUC that the only alternative to an acquisitive society is a rational incomes policy and that that must be enforced either by the TUC or the Government? Will he tell the TUC that, if it will not enforce an incomes policy, or cannot do so, the Government must do so now with a wage freeze in order to escape astronomical rates of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I take the hon. Member's point. We have been through these proposals on many occasions before. We have been through wage freezes and the rest. I cannot say that they ever form a universal panacea. I hope that Opposition Members below and above the Gangway, if they should ever come to power, will take into account that they will find it essential to work closely with the trade unions and the TUC. I beg of them, if they hope for a chance of doing that, to restrain some of their more absurd criticisms.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I call attention to the fact that unfortunately you were unable to call any hon. Member for the North-West. Many of us wished to raise with the Prime Minister the serious state of the water supply in the North-West which is becoming worse every day.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady cannot ask a question now. I am sorry that I did not call an hon. Member from the North-West. Almost every part of the country has its own problems.
    Mr. Evelyn King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask you, with due respect, having regard to the enormous number of hon. Members who wish to be called from all districts and for a variety of reasons, whether it is entirely reasonable for you to call two members of the Liberal Party?
    Mr. Speaker: One of the prime duties of the Speaker is to try to the best of his ability to guard minority rights while bearing in mind majority rights. I try to achieve a balance.
    Later—
    Mr. Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the end of Questions to the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) sought to raise a point of order and implied that water supplies in her constituency were in jeopardy. I understand that the hon. Lady has been given the same information as I have by the chairman of the water authority, which is that the water supply situation in Lancaster is perfectly normal.
    As the proceedings of this House were still being broadcast at that time and many listeners in Lancaster will have heard the hon. Lady, should not the hon. Lady withdraw her statement?
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I sought to raise the overall position of the North-West water authority. I was in touch with the chairman of the authority shortly after one o'clock. The point that I wished to raise with the Prime Minister was that the Pennine division went back on Monday after 10 days, but that it will be a week before it gets into order, that the Ribble—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go into this matter now. The hon. Lady has made her position quite clear. She has been in touch with the water authority this morning. I think that clears that matter.

QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, BIRMINGHAM
Mrs. Knight(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take to alleviate the situation at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham because of the threat of the imminent closure of that hospital; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): There is no question of this hospital being closed. Yesterday, because of concern about the supply situation, it was decided at the hospital to reduce the number of inpatients. About 100 of the 500 patients were discharged. The decisions about the discharge of patients were taken by individual consultants on their assessment of the relative medical needs.
The area medical officer, Dr. Nichol, was at the hospital this morning to assess the situation. At a meeting between the health authorities and the union officials, a list of essential supplies was agreed. The union has given instructions to its members that these supplies shall not be obstructed. I hope that this will ease the situation and I have called for a full report.
There is no escaping—as I have made clear to the House on many occasions—that any industrial action in the Health Service is liable to harm patients.
Even if workers at the Queen Elizabeth hospital had not gone beyond the union's instructions, services would have been affected. For example, many patients have had their admissions postponed. This must affect the health of some patients and this is a fact which must be faced by all those taking industrial action in the Health Service.
Mrs. Knight: Is the Secretary of State aware that the information that he has received does not altogether add up to that which has been made available to other hon. Members about the danger of the hospital being closed? Will he keep a close eye on the situation?
Is the Secretary of State aware that pickets are not only stopping food and essential medical equipment from entering the hospital but are taking upon themselves the task of judging which patients

679
shall be allowed to have treatment and which shall not? Is he further aware of the case yesterday of a dying man who was held up for 20 minutes by the pickets? When he finally entered the hospital he was immediately taken to the operating theatre. It is not yet known whether that man will live.
Is the Minister aware, finally, that some patients are being sent home to cold homes with nobody to care for them? Does he agree that that is serious? Does he recognise that the people of Birmingham are not prepared to put up with sick people-bashing? Is he aware of the large number of people who are ready to volunteer their services in order to help the hospital?
Mr. Ennals: I did not seek to underestimate the problems that are faced in the hospital because of the industrial action. The House should bear in mind that the health authority is responsible for the hospital. The area medical officer and other officers were at the hospital this morning and an agreed statement between the union side and the area health authority was issued. It read:
"At a joint meeting of officers of Birmingham AHA(T) and officers of NUPE and COSHE it was accepted that certain statements attributed to Mr. Bond director of the Radiotherapy Department Queen Elizabeth Hospital may reflect his personal view but do not represent the view of the AHA(T) which is as follows:
'Patients sent home from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, including those from Radiotherapy are those whose treatment could most safely, though not ideally be suspended in the short term'."
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made reference to pickets and interference with patients. No patient's admission to hospital has been interrupted by pickets. I have made inquiries about this. It is true that two patients were delayed at the gate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I would say, and the House would say, that that is deplorable. All I can say is that, fortunately, it has been said that there were no medical consequences from these delays.
No such delays should take place. Patients should be able to move freely in and out of our hospitals. Of course they should. However, I think that the House should get the facts right and not try
680
to blow the matter up into something that it is not. When we talk about threats of action and I hear of a consultant threatening that he will not treat someone who holds a union card, I believe that that is behaviour of almost equal irresponsibility.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend keep the House informed when and if he receives apologies for repeated allegations made by Conservative Members on several aspects of this matter? Is he aware that both the Leader of the Opposition and her spokesman on Scottish affairs, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), have made allegations in the House which have subsequently been proved untrue but that they have never withdrawn or apologised for them? Will my right hon. Friend invite them to condemn any doctor who refuses to treat any patient for whatever reason, and will he be assured that every Labour Member will condemn any action taken by anyone that jeopardises the health of any patient anywhere in the country?
Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have many times, from this Dispatch Box, condemned and deplored industrial action in the Health Service, whether by doctors, nurses, ambulance men or anyone else in the Service. In handling these grave problems, we must not discriminate between the action of one group and that of another. All of it is not only deplorable: it endangers the lives and health of patients.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Birmingham will consider his statement totally complacent and will think that the director of radiotherapy at the hospital is the man who is best able to tell the effect of this action on his patients? Since the director said yesterday:
"I am sure some of these people will die because of this action",
what action does the Secretary of State intend to take?
Mr. Ennals: I have indicated the action that is to be taken over essential supplies and have explained what action has been taken on the access of patients. I understand that there is no real difficulty, but, if any question of obstruction or the like should arise, I have no doubt that

681
the police would deal with it in the appropriate manner. The police are there today. I do not believe that anyone could say that my statement was complacent. I have been concerned to see that the facts are properly reported to the House.
Mr. Litterick: Will the Secretary of State accept that the factual part of his statement will be appreciated by his hon. Friends, being in sharp contrast to the hysterical ignorance of Conservative Members? Will he also accept that this and other events point, evermore dramatically, to the fact that the House, the Treasury and the people can no longer expect a first-class Health Service for poverty wages?
Mr. Ennals: I do not intend to go into the wages question at the moment. However justified anyone may feel his wage claim to be, there is, in my view, nothing to justify the action that has been carried out in some parts of the country to the damage of patients' lives. I say to those who take action that clearly goes well beyond the official union position that they are doing great damage to the cause that they seek to represent.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Secretary of State accept that the picketing of hospitals, whether in Birmingham or anywhere else, shows a callousness and wanton disregard for human life which disgraces a civilised society? Will he not, for once, recognise that in such a situation his statement falls lamentably short of what is expected of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State? Does he realise that the people of Birmingham and of my constituency will be horrified by his complacency in a situation that is likely to cause the death of Her Majesty's subjects in the West Midlands?
Mr. Ennals: No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to get his supplementary question on the record, but I suggest that before putting such a question he ought to have listened to the language and the words that I used.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from each side of the House before calling the right hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Grocott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the Opposition mouth concern about the need to treat sick people at times of crisis, the fact is that in the West Midlands and elsewhere the normal practice among most consultants is not to treat people strictly on the basis of the degree of their sickness? Most are always prepared to deal first with the private patients who are prepared to pay.
Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend knows the position that I take on that matter. An initiative was taken on 1 January in terms of the introduction of common waiting lists for urgent cases, whether in the private or the public sector.
Mr. Eyre: Does the Secretary of State realise the seriousness of the growing chaos affecting Birmingham hospitals? If essential supplies are denied, eight hospitals in the central area will be prevented from treating patients who are desperately in need of care. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Birmingham people will hold him directly responsible for seeing that the supplies are delivered and that services continue?
Mr. Ennals: I do not believe that the people of Birmingham will take any such simplistic view. The hon. Gentleman underestimates their intelligence. He will know that my colleagues and I want to see an end to the industrial action and a return to full service in the NHS. While industrial action is taking place, we shall act as precipitately and directly as we can to ensure that supplies get through and that the service is provided as well as possible.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State accept that we all condemn industrial action that hits at patients, from wheresoever it comes? Does he remember that the Home Secretary said yesterday that if there were a threat to cancer patients he would not be able to face their relatives and say that nothing would be done? The right hon. Gentleman said:
"We would do something about it."—[Official Report, 24 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 427.]
Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether, as a result of the area health authority's meeting this morning, it has been able to give a categoric undertaking that the cancer patients will be readmitted to hospital and that their treatment, which

683
ought never to have been interrupted, will continue? If not, what does he intend, in the Home Secretary's words, to do about it? Will he take steps positively to make sure that the food, supplies and equipment that are necessary for the treatment of these patients will be allowed into the hospital? Can he assure us that, if necessary, he will do it himself through the use of troops?
Mr. Ennals: I sometimes think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see it done in that way rather than in the ordinary way. The Home Secretary said yesterday, and I confirm, that the union accepts that essential supplies, including medical and pharmaceutical supplies, must reach our hospitals. If they do not, we will find a way to do it. As I said earlier, the health authority and the union agreed at their meeting this morning on a list of medical supplies which would not be obstructed from going into the hospital.
Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) expressed what the whole House will understand to be legitimate anxieties during the questioning of the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Minister replied to the effect that my hon. and learned Friend was just asking the question for the sake of it. Is it in order for a senior Minister to impugn the motives of my hon. and learned Friend in that way?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better move. Mr. John Peyton—private notice question.
Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the Secretary of State to answer that part of the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) concerning when the cancer patients are to be readmitted?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister has given his answer.
Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it help the position—[Interruption.] I am merely trying to be helpful, Mr. Speaker. When all supplies are available to all our hospitals and things return to normal, would it not help
684
if the right hon. Lady, the Leader of the Opposition were to make a clear statement condemning those consultants who discriminate and create queue-jumping on cold cash considerations?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members on each side are beginning to make points instead of points of order. There is another private notice question, there is also a statement to follow, and this is a Supply day.
Mr. Ennals: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to say that I am sorry that I did not answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). Having dealt, I hope satisfactorily, with the supply position—I point out that the decision was taken some time before 2.30 p.m. today—I very much hope that with supplies now flowing into the hospital it will not be long before it will be possible to resume normal admissions.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: When?
Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that these are decisions which must be taken by the health authority and the hospital authority concerned.

FOOD SUPPLIES
Mr. Peyton(by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, despite the continued and widespread blockading of the ports, the interference with the movement of foods for people and animals, particularly in Merseyside, North Humberside, Avonmouth and Tilbury, the growing shortage of packaging materials, and the steady emptying of the pipeline, he is still satisfied that there is no serious threat to supplies of food for people and animals, and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): The position at the ports since I last spoke to the House on Monday is as follows: there have been improvements in Northern Ireland, South Humberside, Sheerness and Southampton; there has been some improvement also at Tilbury, and a major improvement at Put-fleet, which is especially important for supplies of margarine,

685
which had been causing concern in Merseyside, Avonmouth and Hull there has been no change in the position, but the Government are taking this up with the unions. [Interruption.] I rather anticipated that particular titter. That is why I gave a detailed list of the improvements that have been made precisely as a result of the Government's taking up matters with the union.
There has been some easing of the difficulties in packaging materials—[Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would like an answer to his question. The House might let me get on with it. There has been some easing of the difficulties in packaging materials—for example, in glass bottles and tin cans. But supplies of packaging materials in general are not as good as I should like, and the position needs to be watched on a day-to-day basis.
As the House knows, I have never concealed my concern about the pipeline, but, as regards the supplies in the shops, there has been some improvement in butter, imported bacon, sugar and margarine, and frozen foods. The supply of animal feedingstuffs remains reasonable, though not as satisfactory as I would like.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to depart from my statement of 22 January. I remind the House that it made four important points. First, there were good stocks of food in the country and adequate supplies in the shops, even though the position was not as good in the North-West as it was in the rest of the country. Second, the Government were keeping up their efforts to ensure that there continued to be enough food in the shops. Third, the position appeared to be improving, following the introduction of the code of practice on picketing. Fourth, potentially the position remained serious, and after what had occurred the chain of production and distribution might take some time to return to normal.
Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given a rather fuller answer than he did earlier in the week. Nevertheless, I feel that the position is growing serious, and I hope that he will forgive me if I ask him several detailed questions.
686
I hear what he says about the position in the ports, and I acknowledge particularly that there has been improvement at Purfleet. Is he aware, nevertheless, that at Tilbury lorry drivers are being asked to give their names and the numbers of their vehicles 24 hours in advance? It is almost impossible to comply with that requirement.
I am asking these questions, Mr. Speaker, in order to indicate the general atmosphere. Is the Minister aware that at Liverpool yesterday the chairman of the regional emergency committee visited the strike committee and was told—I paraphrase—to go away? Is the Minister aware that at Preston the local strike leader said "We shall decide where pickets go, not Moss Evans or the regional officers in Manchester"? Is he aware that at Humberside terms are being dictated to companies which have nothing to do with the dispute?
May I particularly ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received serious warnings about the animal feedstuff position from Preston, from Shrewsbury, from Humberside and from Liverpool, all those warnings carrying the same message—that without an improvement in the position they will not be able to continue to deliver to farmers for very long?
Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that there has been an improvement in packaging materials, particularly glass? My information is that several firms have been brought to a halt for the lack of this material. I hope that the Minister will look into it as a matter of urgency.
As for human foods, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, salt is now coming out at only half the rate of last week, that is, 16 per cent. of the normal rate? In regard to oils and fats, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Bromborough is under a total blockade, that at Erith all the storage tanks are full, and that it is impossible to get out anything at all? Is he further aware that sugar is down to 45 per cent. deliveries, and that cakes and biscuits are down to 50 per cent.?
Although shop shelves may be relatively full, has the right hon. Gentleman really appreciated that the pipeline is emptying quite quickly? One substantial chain of supermarkets informed me this morning

687
that its stocks were down by 40 per cent. in volume and that its shelves were now empty of 40 per cent. of its lines.
Is this not a very comprehensive campaign, and does not the right hon. Gentleman find it very difficult to attribute it to either the capacity or the ill feeling of the Transport and General Workers' Union? Does he not believe that there are some much more wicked people involved?
Mr. Silkin: I wonder whether the House will be a little indulgent with me for about 30 seconds before I deal with those questions, because there is a point which hon. Members may not know about and which it might be of advantage to them to know. If hon. Members have detailed difficulties in their own constituencies, it would be helpful if they would get in touch with the regional emergency committees. This has happened in one or two cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is a waste of time."] It is not a waste of time, and indeed in some cases this has happened and the results have been good. If hon. Members want to look after their constituents, the first place to look after them is in their own constituencies.
Having said that, it is obviously right that I should give as detailed a reply as possible to the right hon. Gentleman. What he is telling us about is in fact the consequences of a strike, and I think all of us have been aware that there is a strike. Of course, if there is a strike. supplies get rather short. That is what happens in a strike. The right hon. Gentleman asked me, as he was perfectly entitled to do, where the areas of greatest difficulty are. He mentioned the North-West—Liverpool and Preston. I quite agree with him that that is probably the most difficult area of the lot. That is why I said, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, that this was a matter that I was continually taking up, but it does present difficulties.
I do not believe that the position on Humberside has altered very much since I gave it to the House on Monday. I believe that animal feedingstuffs, although not perhaps flowing as freely as I should like, are now flowing through. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned packaging before human food. Perhaps he was right to do so, because many foods
688
require packaging before reaching the shops. Certainly I said that I thought there was some reason for concern, as I looked at the pipeline, in the case of packaging materials. In terms of local difficulties—though I think that the Coop, for example, has a difficulty as regards bottles—in general the position is better.
Salt was another thing that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The position is better this afternoon. It has improved a great deal since Monday, and on Monday it was better than last week. The information that I received an hour or two ago was that the position is better.
Most of BSC's sugar is getting through, and that looks reasonably satisfactory. With Tate and Lyle, there is difficulty in Liverpool, but much less elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Bromborough. Perhaps I should say that in that case I understand that negotiations are going on at this moment. There may well be some hope that the position will ease.
Mr. Peyton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one major question? Is he now satisfied that there is no serious threat, as things are, to the supplies of food for human beings and animals?
Mr. Silkin: I said that I saw no reason to depart from what I said on Monday, which is that the position—and I have to look at it from week to week—over the next weekend—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman wants me to look even further ahead than that, and I am trying to accommodate him. Looking at the position over the next seven days, let us say, there are plentiful supplies—or in some cases not so plentiful supplies but in all cases adequate supplies of foodstuffs in the shops.
I am concerned about the pipeline. That is where the day-to-day watch must come in, and that is exactly what has been happening.
Mr. Corbett: May I commend the calm and reflective approach of my right hon. Friend to these difficult matters? May I ask him, in particular, not to heed the panicky advice from the Conservative Benches, which could only have the effect of making matters a lot worse than they are now?
Mr. Silkin: I thank my hon. Friend. I have come to the conclusion that the

689
necessary pre-education for a Minister of Food during a lorry strike is to have been a Chief Whip.
Sir John Langford-Holt: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention once again to animal feedingstuffs? Is he aware that the Liverpool strike committee is ignoring and not recognising validation certificates issued by other strike committees—I have in mind West Bromwich, for example—as a result of which lorries sent to Liverpool by my constituents are either, if they are lucky, being kept waiting for six hours or, if they are less lucky, being turned round and sent home?
Mr. Silkin: I am aware of that. I did say that I see a difficulty in the North-West which is not typical of other parts of the country. The matter is being dealt with very urgently, and, as I have told the House, the fact that there have been improvements in the supply position for human food and animal feedingstuffs is due to the very careful day-to-day watch that is kept.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that the situation in Southampton leaves a lot to be desired, as was vividly described in The Guardian yesterday, where perishable foodstuffs, including onions, are rotting because nobody is allowed to go in and take them?
Is the Minister also aware of the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who today was accompanying a lorry driver who, although having the right credentials, was refused entry at Felixstowe? Does he agree that that shows that the whole system is breaking down?
Mr. Silkin: No; it shows that there are difficulties that need to be overcome. Many of those difficulties have been overcome, and the prophecies made of total gloom, starvation and hunger—not by the hon. Gentleman's friends, if he has friends, in the manufacturing industry, but by the Opposition's friends in the foodstuffs industry—have not come to fruition.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some might accuse the Opposition of trying to make political capital out of this, so has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement
690
made by that non-political person, the president of the National Farmers' Union, Sir Henry Plumb, who happens to be a European Conservative candidate, about the possible loss of animals of both sorts, human and otherwise? How many cases of loss of life among animals, human or otherwise, have been reported to him since the strike started, on the very first day of which it was prophesied that there would be such losses?
Mr. Silkin: First of all, Sir Henry Plumb is no longer the president of the National Farmers' Union, but he did say that the farmers were being throttled. I was present at his farewell dinner, at which 1,000 of them were being throttled in very good circumstances.
I say in all friendliness to Sir Henry Plumb, for whom I have a great affection, that on every day that has passed in the two and a half years since I became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, there would have been a state of emergency if he had had his way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to indicate to the House what is in store for us before we get to the Supply day debate—the main debate of the day. There are business questions to follow; there is the statement of the Attorney-General; there are five applications under Standing Order No. 9. This is an extension of Question Time. I shall let it run for another five minutes and then we must move on.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The Minister said that if hon. Members have difficulties in their constituencies they should take them up with the regional committees. He then went on to say that matters were being dealt with urgently in the North-West. Is he aware that the emergency committee there is so bemused and so worried that it has totally lost control and is desperately applying to the farmers' union to help it out of its difficulties and get cargoes released, but that unfortunately the trade union leaders have totally lost control of pickets in the North-West?
There will be no meeting until Monday, and even if there is a meeting on Monday it will take a week to get this sorted out. When the Minister says that matters are being dealt with urgently, and since the local committee has lost control, can he tell us exactly what will happen in the North-West?
Mr. Sikin: The hon. Lady ought to understand that the purpose of a regional emergency committee is not actually to shift feedingstuffs or foodstuffs by itself; it is to work with those people who know what the problems are to try to solve them. In the instance that the hon. Lady cited, I regard it as great credit to the committee that it is working so well with the National Farmers' Union.
Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whilst there are difficulties in the West Country, there have been gross exaggerations about the feedingstuffs problem? Does he accept that farming interests in the West Country have told me that feedingstuffs are coming out of the port of Avonmouth?—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are wrong."] I am not wrong.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that some remarks, even by ex-presidents of the NFU, do not help the present situation?
Mr. Silkin: I have heard from a number of areas and in respect of a number of different commodities something of what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be—I put it no higher than this—a feeling on the part of some people that, unless they express apocalyptic fears, somehow or other nothing will be done. They are quite wrong. Things are being dealt with properly, as far as the Government can deal with them. The Government are doing everything that they can to help.
Mr. Emery: Does the Minister recall that I raised with him on Monday a specific instance of extortion in secondary picketing, in which money had been demanded of both the driver of a load and the consignee? I gave the exact details to the Home Secretary. As at 2.30 pm today, absolutely nothing—but nothing—had been done. Surely, if we are to try to stop extortion by strikers who are secondary picketing, immediate action must be taken.
Mr. Silkin: I gather from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with whom I have had a moment's consultation while the hon. Member was putting his question, that the matter has been reported to the police.
Mr. Henderson: It is not clear from the Minister's reply whether he was replying
692
also on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter. Does he have any news to give us on the up-to date position in the Scottish ports, particularly in relation to the fishing industry and to the supply of fish boxes, which is causing a very serious problem in getting the fish moved? Is the Minister able to give us any up-to-date information on the supply of containers, canisters and cans for food processers? Companies all over Scotland are already laying off employees in these industries.
Mr. Silkin: I gather that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement on Tuesday. I think that in the light of the Scottish situation it is probably better if he rather than I dealt with Scottish questions.
Mr. Hardy: May I endorse my right hon. Friend's advice that we should consult our regional offices, where I am sure hon. Members will receive the calm, considerate and courteous response which I obtained earlier this week? Perhaps I may also thank those offices and my right hon. Friend for ensuring that feedingstuff supplies to the farms in South Yorkshire have been maintained at a satisfactory level right through the strike, and despite the most appalling horror stories that have been circulating about imminent cannibalism from the very first day.
May I also suggest that it would be as well if my right hon. Friend gave a little attention to the supplies of certain foodstuffs to South Yorkshire? Supply patterns throughout the country are not particularly even, and housewives of Rother Valley are a little short of sugar and lard.
Mr. Silkin: As I say, there are bound to be variations between one area and another. I shall certainly see that the problem raised by my hon. Friend is communicated as quickly as possible.
Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister realise that when he says that the supply of margarine had been causing concern, and when his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says, as he did yesterday, that the position on food generally is unquestionably getting better, it gives the impression to the housewife that when she goes shopping there is nothing to worry about and that there will not be anything to worry about next week? Does the

693
Minister recognise that throughout the country there are many shops that are completely out of stock of sugar, salt, margarine and lard? Does the Minister recognise that in nearly all food shops there are now only limited supplies of canned and packaged food? Does he appreciate that these food items are of particular importance to small households and the elderly?
The reason for this situation, as the Minister surely recognises, is that secondary picketing is being resumed in some cases, and food manufacturers and distributors are unable to get on with their jobs. Will the Minister clearly tell the House now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—how food distributors—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order The hon. Member is finishing his sentence.
Mr. Sainsbury: Will the Minister make a clear statement to the House as to how well he expects food distributors to be able to replenish the supplies now in their shops, so that there is an adequate supply of food for housewives next week?
Mr. Silkin: In the shops, the position varies from place to place and from shop to shop. The fact remains, however, that there are adequate supplies of food in the shops. It may be necessary to shop around a bit. As I say, the position varies from area to area.
There are still adequate supplies of fresh meat, bacon, butter, fruit, vegetables, sugar and margarine in the shops. The position on supplies of lard is a bit more difficult.
I must tell the hon. Member that I have the authority of quite a distinguished chain of food shops to back me up on this matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. On this question I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the housewives and consumers of Britain who responded to his appeal not to panic buy, despite the encouragement from Opposition spokesmen, which was widely reported in the mass media?
694
At the same time, will my right hon. Friend explain the Opposition's attitude when Opposition Members say that there should be no Government interference with wage bargaining but then call upon the Government to interfere in this, that and the other?
Mr. Silkin: On the second point, I tried to say that when there is a strike, of course there will be shortages. The Government's intervention must be to see, as far as a Government can, that those shortages are fairly shared and that supplies are preserved as much as possible.
On the first point, it occurs to me that the housewives of this country are showing a great deal more sense than are some Conservative Members.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since many of the targets of the secondary picketing in the eastern counties have been the jugular veins of the food industry—salt, yeast, blood from the abattoirs, and packaging materials—does the Minister agree that there are some signs that part of this picketing has been pre-planned, several months ahead? What is his comment on the suggestion of a senior trade union leader that some of it is politically co-ordinated and that some of it is financed from the outside?
Mr. Silkin: It would be interesting to see from what political party such suggestions came, because at moments such as this one hears all sorts of rumours. I heard that quite a few were from members of the Conservative Party. I shall not go into political motivation at this time, any more than I went into the political motivation of those manufacturers who told us that we would be starving over a week ago.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President of the Council to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Poet): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Price Commission (Amendment) Bill.

695
Motion relating to the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemptions) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 30 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Countryside Bill.
Remaining stages of the Estate Agents Bill and of the Public Lending Right Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY—Committee and remaining stages of the Price Commission (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Motion to appoint the Joint Committee on the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions.
FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Supply [6th allotted day]: subject for debate to be announced.
Mrs. Thatcher: The Lord President has provided absolutely no time at all next week for hon. Members to discuss the current situation. He will be aware from the number of hon. Members rising in their places wishing to question Ministers about events or the circumstances of firms in their constituencies that there is a great demand for time for them effectively to be able to put their points. Will he therefore rearrange the business for next week to provide time for such a debate?
Mr. Foot: There is a debate this afternoon in which these matters will be raised. There will be a further opportunity for the Opposition directly to raise some of these matters in the business that I have announced.
The Government are, of course, eager to provide the opportunity for replies on these matters. I do not believe that anyone who has listened to the replies given by Ministers throughout this week could doubt that the Government have been most forthcoming in answering all the questions which have been put. It is very good evidence of the way in which the House can provide opportunities to deal with such problems.
Mr. Litterick: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to early-day motion 188, which draws the attention of the House to the proposed destruction of the Hillingdon law centre by the local council?
[That this House deplores the decision of the Hillingdon local authority to terminate
696
all financial support to the Hillingdon Community Law Centre from 1 April 1979; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to provide the necessary financial support to ensure that this indispensable community service will not be destroyed.]
As law centres throughout London and other parts of the country are experiencing similar problems, will my right hon. Friend provide time for the House to debate the status and position of law centres in Britain today?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise time, for a debate next week, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there are many opportunities for individual Members to raise questions.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the Secretary of State has now been under attack for some time, and since, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) pointed out, there is at least a plausible assumption that sinister elements are at work, would it not be appropriate at some time next week for the House to go into secret session for a short period in order that the Secretary of State for Defence may disclose to us what advice he has received on this matter from military intelligence?
Mr. Foot: If such a matter were to be raised, I do not think that my right hon. Friend would be responsible. In any case, that is an absurd piece of scaremongering, which merely helps to contribute to an atmosphere that ought not to be encouraged.
Mr. Ward: Has the short and simple Bill to give new powers to district councils in respect of travellers' sites been prepared? Does my right hon. Friend accept that many district councils are anxious to have this power? Will he bring forward the Bill before Easter?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise to bring it forward before Easter. However, I shall look into the representations that my hon. Friend has made over a considerable period.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I think that the Lord President heard the Minister of Agriculture say earlier that matters relating to food in Scotland should be left to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Does the Lord President acknowledge that since the Secretary of State made

697
his statement on Tuesday the situation has deteriorated? Shops in Montrose, in my constituency, have no sugar at all, evidence of which I gave to the Scottish Office this morning. In view of this deteriorating situation, when will the Secretary of State for Scotland answer questions in the House on the urgent matter of food supplies in Scotland?
Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a very good statement, as I believe the House appreciated when he made it. Of course, we shall consider when it may be necessary for him to make a further statement. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman has taken the right course of taking up the matter either with the emergency committee or with the Secretary of State. That shows that the methods of this Parliament to deal with the situation are working.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have already been standing.
Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motion 178, which condemns the action of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), who blocked my Bill to end the beating of handicapped children?
[That this House deplores the action of the honourable Member for Cheadle in blocking the Bill to end the beating of handicapped children; and urges the Secretary of State for Education and Science to respond to the feelings of all decent people by banning the cane in special schools forthwith.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that that motion has now been signed by 59 hon. Members but that there have been no signatures by Opposition Members? Does he agree that all decent people in this country would feel that this practice should be stopped? If it cannot be done through the private Members' procedure, will he urge his Government colleagues to ensure that it is done by Government action?
Mr. Foot: Next Friday the House will have a further opportunity of considering the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend.
698
If the Bill, which the Government will not be opposing, is enacted, no further action by the Government will be required. My hon. Friend knows that Bills of this nature have difficulties to encounter.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not fatuous for the Leader of the House to suggest, in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about what time he would make available next week for events that affect our constituents next week, that we can debate today events that will not occur until next week?
Mr. Foot: If we were to have a competition in fatuity, I do not suppose that there would be a better candidate than the hon. Gentleman. One of the very purposes of the House is to discuss not only what is happening this week but what might happen next week.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend consider urging his colleagues to make a statement on Times Newspapers Limited and the fact that many thousands of people have been locked out as a result of industrial action by The Times management? Will he also take into account that this morning I was searching for a suitable picket line for the Prime Minister to cross? May I suggest to him and his Cabinet colleagues that if he were to go to The Times he would, with my permission, be able to cross that picket line, which is manned by Duke Hussey and the rest of The Times management, and take with him those thousands of workers who want to get back to work, thereby reducing unemployment?
Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend. I did not know that he was such a passionate enthusiast for reading The Times, but I am glad to hear it. I agree that it is a serious matter for readers of The Times, for those who work on The Times and for the country as a whole that that newspaper should not be in production. It is the fact, as my hon. Friend stated, that this is a lock-out. Indeed, The Times has succeeded in having a lock-out without a single picket to enforce it.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: For how much longer is the Lord President of the Council going to dishonour his promise to the House that there will be an adequate opportunity of debating EEC regulations?

699
When will he stop hiding behind his promise of a debate on the Procedure Committee report, which he uses as an excuse to prevent proper debate?
Mr. Foot: I am not using it as an excuse to prevent proper debate. The hon Gentleman knows as well as I do the background to the matter. We shall have a debate on these questions. The Procedure Committee has made a report on a matter that touches these questions and at some time we shall have a debate. I hope to be able to include in my next Business Statement an indication of when we might discuss the Procedure Committee's report. I have no doubt that, had I included it in this Business Statement, I should have been criticised for not providing time for other matters. Some of the matters that we shall be discussing next week will be directly concerned with the economic situation.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend encourage his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement next week, or even provide time for a debate, on the last report of the Health and Safety Executive? He will be keenly aware—I know that he is concerned about this matter—that more time is lost every year through industrial injury—a fact that the Opposition are totally uncaring about—than through strike action. Is not that the kind of matter that we should be debating rather than will-o'-the-wisp calls by the Opposition for debates on strikes?
Mr. Foot: I agree that it would be most desirable to have a debate on the work of the Health and Safety Commission. That is of major importance for the country, but sometimes these matters are difficult. There is pressure on time, and this matter can be raised by individual Members. However, I note my hon. Friend's proposal. I am not saying that we can do anything about this next week, but I hope that in the fairly near future we shall have a general debate on this subject.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I take the House back to the extremely important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on next week's business? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that throughout this crisis, which has been the gravest crisis that this country
700
has experienced since the war, not a single day of Government time has been provided to debate the situation? Were it not for the efforts of the Opposition, we all know that there would be no opportunity for this House to discuss the crisis.
What is the point of tabling for next week a full day's debate on the Government's proposals on the Bingham report when the country is facing the present crisis? Will the right hon. Gentleman rearrange next week's business to enable the House to fulfil its constitutional function of expressing the mind of the people on the nation's problems through the representatives of the constituencies?
Mr. Foot: The House will have a convenient opportunity this afternoon to debate these matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "In our time."] Hon. Members say "In our time". I remind them that this is House of Commons time. It is the procedure of the House that so many Supply days are provided. The Opposition then choose the subject for consideration.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: What about next week?
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has a Supply day the following week. I know that he does not want to debate the Bingham report. One of the reasons for our debating Bingham is that it was asked for by a most distinguished member of the Conservative Party, the chairman of the 1922 Committee. He urgently asked for a debate on the subject. I take full account of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I also have to take account of other views.
Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement about next week's meeting of EEC Ministers of Agriculture, at which there will be pressure for MCAs to be withdrawn, which will have the effect of sharply increasing British food prices? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if such an increase occurs it will be far greater than would be the effect on our food prices of a settlement of the lorry drivers' claim?
Mr. Foot: I do not minimise the effects of the lorry drivers' strike on food supplies, and nobody should do so. I agree that this is an important matter. I am

701
not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture should make a statement next week, but some occasion must be found for it.
Mr. Tebbit: May we have a statement next week on the practice concerning Prime Minister's questions? Is the Lord President aware that considerable concern has been expressed time and again about the fact that almost all the questions tabled to the Prime Minister ask him about his engagements for the day, and similar matters? Is he further aware that although the Prime Minister in the past always answered questions about the social contract, now that we are told there is to be a new one, within a matter of weeks, not days, the Prime Minister has now resorted to transferring questions about the social contract, although at the Dispatch Box he still refers to the new negotiations for another one? May we have a little more sense injected into this matter?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. He has almost a 100 per cent. record of getting it wrong. On previous occasions such questions used to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members have criticisms about the questions put to the Prime Minister, they must take a look at themselves. It is hon. Members who table questions and my right hon. Friend who provides the answers.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that large South African funds have been misappropriated and spent outside South Africa? Is any inquiry being made on the question whether any of those funds have been used in this country, and, if so, for what purpose? May we expect a statement on this topic?
Mr. Foot: I do not propose to make any statement on that topic. I suggest that my hon. Friend tables a question on the matter.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement next week about the broadcasting arrangements for the referendum campaign? Does he agree that all these broadcasts should be evenly balanced between the proposition on the ballot paper, which amounts
702
to voting "Yes" or "No"? What arrangements have been made to see that this idea is carried through in party political broadcasts?
Mr. Foot: These matters are usually discussed between the political parties. I shall see whether it is desirable to have a statement on the subject.
Mr. Michael Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman have discussions with his Cabinet colleagues to see whether there should be a printed statement each day about the supply of food, so that hon. Members will know exactly what is the Government's information? I checked at noon today with the glass manufacturers, and I was told that every one of the Rockware factories was closed in respect of the inflow and outflow of glass bottles.
Mr. Foot: I do not think that a statement of that nature would be the best way of dealing with the matter. I insist that the way in which the House has dealt with this matter in the past week has been the best way of proceeding. It cannot be said that Ministers have been backward in making statements to the House.
I fully appreciate, as the right hon. Lady the leader of the Opposition suggested, that at times these matters interfere with some of the other business, but the House adapts itself to deal with these situations. I suggest that the House has been adapting itself fairly successfully.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the road haulage strike began, each day we have been told that there is a grave shortage of food and that everybody is starving? Does he appreciate that the press, the police and many hundreds of workers, including Members of Parliament—if they can be called workers—are in this Palace of Westminster starving every day? May we have some information on how this starvation is affecting hon. Members, and will he see to it that Members get their food? I repeat that we are all supposed to be starving in this place.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is a walking refutation of that accusation.
Mr. Michael Latham: Since there was once a time when the Secretary of State for Employment was supposed to settle disputes, could the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. Friend next

703
week to make a statement on this industrial dispute? So far that right hon. Gentleman has done nothing.
Mr. Foot: It is a very silly sneer from the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has not been in the House. Those who suggest that he has not been here no doubt were not present when he was answering questions in the House this week. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to make any such accusation. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous conciliation and arbitration facilities in the old Ministry of Labour are now incorporated in ACAS, which also has been working fully to resolve these difficulties.
Mr. Farr: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for his help in this respect? Some of us have been coming to the House since Monday to try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye to put urgent questions to the Minister of Agriculture—and possibly to the Prime Minister—but have had no success. My question relates to the loss of 1,500 jobs, tonight, of workers who will be laid off and made redundant. I have been unable to put that question to the Minister concerned. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman make a more satisfactory arrangement to meet the difficulties of hon. Members such as myself, who can do no more than comply with the rules? Next week, while the present shambles continues, could we be given better access to the responsible Minister and for a longer period of time? Why cannot the Prime Minister be available, if not every day, at least for half an hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so that we may have a greater chance of questioning him?
Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to serve his constituents immediately, he should contact the relevant Department on the subject. That is the normal method by which hon. Members seek to deal with these problems. It is misleading to people outside for him to suggest that because he has not caught the eye of Mr. Speaker he is unable to deal with these matters. Another service that the House might wish to have is a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, and I shall examine that aspect. However, the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has
704
to wait for a statement before taking action is not true.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Lord President aware that during the present desperate crisis the situation changes week by week, or even day by day? Is he aware that in the North-West tens of thousands of textile workers have been laid off or are being laid off? Will he, therefore, take the point raised quite rightly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and provide a day next week when the subject of employment can be discussed? During that debate perhaps the Government will indicate to the House whether they are prepared to take special measures—will the Lord President give an assurance on this? —to lift certain provisions of the Employment Protection Act which force employers to pay out lay-off pay. If they have to continue to do this and the lay-offs are protracted, there will be permanent job loss and many employers will go out of business.
Mr. Foot: The point that the hon. Gentleman is raising is not a question about business next week. He may be able to raise some of those matters, if he wishes, in the debate this afternoon. I presume that that is what the debate is for. If the hon. Gentleman and others suggest that they would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement to the House—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, tomorrow.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman says "Tomorrow". I shall certainly consider whether that is the most convenient time. Some hon. Members may say that they would prefer to have it on Monday, but we shall see.
Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Lord President recall saying how important it was that the House should have an opportunity to discuss what will happen next week? Does he agree that in the light of that—since we will have an opportunity, very shortly perhaps, to consider what will happen next week—it would be most appropriate for the Government to provide an early opportunity next week for the House to consider what should happen the week after? We did not get much information on the subject of food from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today.
Mr. Foot: It is extremely churlish for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he was not given any information—or that he was given very little—on the subject. He just did not like what he was told, that is all. His facts did not seem to accord with those given by my right hon. Friend. The House has had plenty of opportunity for statements to be made by Ministers. I fully acknowledge that in the present circumstances Ministers must constantly attend the House and answer such questions. That we have done and will continue to do.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to raise a matter of privilege that has arisen during the course of this afternoon's proceedings. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) is not present. I must neverthless raise the matter now.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point of order about me during the course of which I understood him to state that the hon. Member for Lancaster had been informed that there were no problems over water supplies in Lancaster. That, I submit, is information that the hon. Member could have obtained only direct from the chairman of the North-West water authority, Mr. Mann. Is it not a breach of privilege for the chairman of a nationalised water undertaking to communicate to one hon. Member a private conversation that he has had with another hon. Member?
Mr. Speaker: Although the House has now ruled that privilege applications should come to me in writing, I allowed the hon. Lady to make her privilege request to me because she obviously feels very strongly on the matter. I never answer privilege questions on the day that they are raised. I always like time to consider them.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I have my request in writing, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady will be kind enough to see that it reaches my office, I shall be much obliged and shall look at the matter very carefully.

PICKETING
The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the law relating to picketing.
It is necessary to deal separately with the criminal and the civil law. It is for the police to take action to enforce the criminal law. It is for those who suffer damage in consequence of civil wrongs to bring civil proceedings in the courts to restrain the commission of those civil wrongs or to recover damages.
Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 applies both to the criminal and to the civil law. Its ancestry now goes back over 100 years. Its effect is that peaceful picketing as defined in the section is not unlawful. Peaceful picketing is the attendance of one or more persons at or near somebody's place of work or business or anywhere else where he is except his home. The protection of section 15 is given if the attendance is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, if its sole purpose is to give or receive information or to persuade somebody to work or not to work, and if it is peaceful.
The criminal law makes no distinction between so-called "primary" and "secondary" picketing. But it does not permit acts which, apart from section 15, are breaches of the criminal law. It follows that, whether or not in the course of picketing, the criminal law is broken by violence, extortion, obstructing the highway, or obstructing the police in the reasonable execution of their duty.
Pickets may lawfully indicate to a driver their wish peacefully to communicate with him, but no law requires him to stop. If a picket obstructs the highway in order to cause him to stop, that is a breach of the criminal law and section 15 is no defence. A driver who wishes to drive past a picket line is in law entirely free to do so, so long as he drives in a lawful manner. If a driver or anyone else, including a picket, is unlawfully obstructed, intimidated or assaulted, he should report the matter to the police. Extortion of money as the price for letting a vehicle through would, of course, be a most serious offence and indeed a quite intolerable act, and anybody who is the victim of it has a duty to report it.

707
Picketing as such is not a civil wrong. But its primary purpose is to persuade those who are under a contract of employment not to perform it. If that persuasion is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, and is the only actionable wrong, section 13 of the 1974 Act gave to the persuader protection from civil action by the employer. This protection went back to the 1906 Act. Section 3 of the 1976 Act added protection from an action based on direct interference with a commercial contract. If in either case the persuasion is not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, there is no protection and the injured party can obtain an injunction or damages.
The protection from civil action therefore depends on whether the persuasion which is the object of the picketing is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. This cannot be determined by the very loose terms "primary" and "secondary" picketing. But under recent decisions of the courts the test applied seems to have been whether the industrial action complained of has been so remote from the original trade dispute as to be not reasonably likely to further it. One can lawfully seek to ensure that one's employer's supplier does not supply him. But if he continues to do so, and one then seeks to ensure that the supplier to that supplier does not supply him, the decisions of the court suggest that one is entering the area of potential remoteness, where the section 13 protection runs out. In both cases the term "secondary picketing" would be apt, but the legal consequences could be quite different.
Finally, it has been suggested that the repeal of the 1976 amendment would make a substantial difference to the balance of strength between employers and unions. I disagree. In my view, its effect on that balance would be insignificant in the light of the remoteness test, which seems to me to be a far greater potential limitation on the protection provided by section 13. The repeal of the 1976 amendment would merely restore a host of anomalies to which the Donovan report rightly drew attention.
Sir Michael Havers: The House will be grateful to the Attorney-General for his statement and in particular for his emphasising that it is a serious criminal
708
offence to extort money as the price of letting a vehicle through a picket line.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that two major problems exist? The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, as amended in 1976, is widely thought to have changed the law so as to give immunity to almost all secondary picketing—that is, immunity from civil action even when that type of picketing induces a breach of contract between parties neither of whom is involved in the industrial dispute.
The second problem is that the 1974 Act, by virtually creating a total closed shop, provided a new situation in which the pickets can threaten those who wish to cross the picket line with the loss of their union cards and thus the loss of their jobs. In modern terms, that could be called peaceful intimidation. Will the Attorney-General advise the House whether such acts or threats come within the definition of peaceful picketing, and, if so, what remedy, if any, the lorry driver may have?
We should also be grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice on whether it amounts to an offence where a lorry is only "allowed" to cross the picket line upon payment or promise of payment of a union subscription. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that the repeal of the 1976 amendment would effectively protect both employers and employees who are not involved in the industrial dispute, instead of our becoming involved in the complexities of the remoteness test.
Finally, has the Attorney-General asked the Director of Public Prosecutions as a matter of urgency to call for reports from the chief constables where such cases have been reported, so that speedy consideration can be given to prosecuting those who have committed criminal offences? I am sure that the Attorney-General will be aware that the present situation, in which in some cases the law is being construed as a licence to intimidate and barricade, is so grave and potentially dangerous to the nation's future that immediate action, action which must clearly have the full-hearted support of the Government, is essential.
The Attorney-General: I shall deal with those points in the order in which they were made.

709
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the 1976 Act was widely thought to have given immunity to all secondary picketing. I cannot comment on whether that is widely thought to be the case. All that I can say is that my statement today was, I believe and hope, sufficiently clear to make quite certain what the real position is. I hope that that will be widely reported.
As for the closed shop, I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the amendment made in 1974 either has had the effect that he mentioned or that its repeal would open the door in the way that he has suggested. Indeed, I find a certain difficulty in the Opposition's attitude. If they are saying that the position should be that where employers, members and employees agree to have a closed shop, that should be done away with and people should be a great deal freer to opt out, that would inevitably have the effect that the strength of the union would be weakened. Yet it is the Opposition who are complaining that the union is not using its strength sufficiently in order to deal with pickets. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
This is a very serious problem. The problem of pickets who do not comply with the instructions of their union has been the subject of a great many, probably the majority, of the questions that have been asked about this matter, which we have been talking about over the past week or two. Union discipline is a most important aspect, and that is what the Government are trying to achieve.
As regards the question of the threat that a person will not be allowed to cross a picket line unless he promises to pay a union subscription, that may very well be—I cannot answer directly—an offence under the provisions of the Theft Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "May?"] Yes, "may". I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the provisions of that Act at least as well as, or even better than, I do. It depends upon the mental state of the person concerned. Certainly in many cases it would be likely to be an offence, and it comes in the category of the class of case to which I referred in my statement, the case which many people will regard as being intolerable.
710
Fourthly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether I would ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to call for a report from chief constables. These are matters that are entirely within the responsibility of the chief constables. They are not within the Director's responsibility. There is no reason to suppose that chief constables are neglecting their duty in these matters.
The important thing is not the organisation at the top but that when offences of the kind to which I have referred occur, those who are injured or see them happening should report them, and then the police can get on with their job.
Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? We have had a very interesting lecture on the criminal and civil law of England, as it is to be interpreted by the Theft Act, which has no effect in Scotland. Its interpretation or its effects on any other statute certainly have no effect in Scotland. As the Lord Advocate is apparently not to make a statement, and as the Attorney-General hopes that his remarks will be widely reported, to whom are Scottish hon. Members to address their questions about the law of Scotland, and what are the citizens of Scotland to think when English gobbledegook is the analogy that the Attorney-General uses?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can tell the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) that I have had no request for a statement about Scotland.
Sir Michael Havers: I ask the Attorney-General to deal with what I consider to be an extremely important question that I put to him earlier. What is the position when a trade unionist is threatened with the loss of his card and thus the loss of his job? Is that legitimate? If it is, what remedy should lie with the driver?
The Attorney-General: It may be a matter where the member concerned has a remedy at common law. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that depends upon the circumstances and the union's rules. He knows that the courts are by no means slow to protect members of unions who lose their right to union membership as a result of action that is not in accordance with the union's

711
rules. Where a member of a union complies with the instructions that have been given by the union on picketing, and following that—it is purely a hypothetical case that has been put to me—there are threats and the actuality of loss of union membership, that would be pre-eminently a matter with which the courts could be likely to deal.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Attorney-General emphasise that no penalty may be lawfully inflicted on a member of a trade union who crosses a picket line, disregarding the instruction of the pickets, if he is acting in accordance with the directions of the committee that has control of the administrative affairs of his trade union? Will he emphasise again that the courts will protect by injunction and, if necessary, by damages a member of a trade union on whom an unlawful penalty is inflicted in that way? Will he consider, in conjunction with his ministerial colleagues, an extension of entitlement to legal aid without means test, or other legal assistance through Government-funded sources, to members of trade unions when it appears that their legal rights have been genuinely infringed as a consequence of unlawful action, and thereby ensure that members of trade unions may be certain that their legal rights will be protected and that the Government will back them if that is necessary?
The Attorney-General: I am able to confirm what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question. The remedy of injunction is one that may be obtained extremely rapidly—indeed, much more rapidly than criminal prosecution. When the courts feel that the rights of individuals have been infringed, they have not shown themselves to be slow to grant such remedies. I have noted what my hon. Friend has said about legal aid. I shall discuss that with my ministerial colleagues.
Mr. Rathbone: Will the Attorney-General clarify two matters for a layman? Does violence encompass threats of violence? Do peaceful intentions go into the future? Specifically, does the law protect a young person who is a member of a union and who is forced by that union against his will to join a group that is picketing elsewhere? Secondly,
712
do the courts protect a Red Cross worker who is instructed by her local Red Cross headquarters not to drive to her hospital because of the threat of blacking in future and the loss of her job in future?
The Attorney-General: Violence and threats of violence are equally criminal offences. Anyone who is forced to join a picket line by violence or threats of violence has the remedy of the criminal law, whether he be young or old. The hon. Gentleman asked about a Red Cross worker. I can only repeat that the problem invariably is one of the remoteness of the action to the dispute that is in question. If the action taken is of a sort that is not likely objectively to further the orginal dispute, the tendency of the courts is to say that it is not protected.
Mr. Pardoe: Will the Attorney-General be a little clearer about intimidation for a layman? Does he recognise that the most common form of intimidation for a layman would be the threat, actual or implied, of the loss of his union card and, therefore, the loss of his job? Does that amount to intimidation in the legal sense as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has defined it today? Will he make it clear whether it is a criminal or a civil offence? Does he accept that whatever the law may now say—it may have to be changed—it is wrong for anyone to threaten damaging consequences against anyone for performing a perfectly legal and lawful act?
The Attorney-General: In the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks he made an extremely wide statement, the implications of which, as he well knows, extend far beyond the industrial sector into the commercial sector. The answer to intimidation causing or being in connection with the loss of a union card must be that it depends on whether the intimidation is of a lawful character—
Mr. Raison: If it is done by a trade union, it is lawful.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) asked me a question and I am seeking to answer it properly. It depends on whether the intimidation is of a lawful character. The threat that a union card will be removed is not necessarily and of itself unlawful. That depends on the

713
circumstances. There are many circumstances in which it may very well be unlawful.
I have already said in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) that in those circumstances the courts have gone into the question whether the loss or the threat is lawful. It is something that has happened in the past and there have been cases on that issue. Where the courts have come to the conclusion that an unlawful threat has taken place, one not in accordance with the rules, and that there has been intimidation by threat of force or something of that sort, they are not slow to take action. Whether it is a criminal offence depends entirely on the circumstances of the case. In the sort of case that I have spoken about where there is a measure of extortion, of course that would be a criminal offence. However, mere threat of the loss of a union card of itself with nothing more would not be a criminal offence.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: If a driver crosses a picket line to deliver essential goods with the permission of the pickets—
Mr. Tebbit: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "permission"?
Mr. Atkinson: Is the Attorney-General saying that it is legal for the pickets to suggest to the driver that he donates his wages to a charity?
The Attorney-General: I think that it depends on the manner of the suggestion.
Mr. F. P. Crowder: Will the Attorney-General explain what he means when he says that intimidation as such can possibly be lawful? It amounts almost to blackmail, does it not?
The Attorney-General: The question put a moment ago indicates clearly the distinction that I was seeking to make. The word "intimidation" in the sense in which the hon. and learned Gentleman is using it no doubt implies something unlawful—that there is a threat of violence or a threat that something wrongful will take place. If there is such a threat, then, of course, intimidation becomes unlawful. But there again people often threaten things which are lawful. There is no criminal offence or civil wrong in threatening something which it is perfectly lawful to do.
Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he has made a very important statement today? Does he agree that the criminal law is available for many of those matters of which Opposition Members have complained? Does he also accept that no easy, snappy, redefinitions of section 13 or section 15 would solve the difficulties surrounding the picketing law? Does he further accept that the best way forward is voluntary consultations between the Government, the TUC and the CBI so that we can move on from that point?
The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I endeavoured to make it clear in the first part of my statement that many of the matters complained of in this House are matters which are within the criminal law, and that those who suffer, or those who witness, offences against the criminal law have the right, and in many cases the duty, to report them to the police if the police are not on the scene. That is by far the most proper and speedy way of obtaining a remedy. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I entirely agree that what my colleagues in Government are doing is by far the most successful way of dealing with these matters, rather than seeking to introduce a legal framework which has been shown to fail utterly.
Mr. Mayhew: Is not the definition of the word "intimidation" crucial to the whole question of policing picketing? Is it not the case that under the provisions of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875—which is still the law—it is a criminal offence to prevent somebody from crossing a picket line, which he has the right to cross, by intimidation? Is it not the case that the Court of Appeal, as recently as 1974, has held that criminal intimidation is not to be limited to violence or threats of violence? Indeed, did not an earlier court hold that the word "intimidation" is to be given its everyday meaning, and is not the everyday meaning of "intimidation" sufficiently wide to embrace a threat to take away a man's union card and, with it, his job? Should not the police be so advised when they have to carry out the difficult job of policing the picket law?
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, correct in saying that unlawful intimidation is not

715
confined to intimidation consisting of the threat of violence. I have not for one moment suggested that this is so. However, I repeat that the position in law is absolutely clear: it is that the threat to do that which is unlawful is an unlawful threat, and the threat to do that which is lawful is a lawful threat. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well, because he knows that the whole train of authority in the courts on industrial and commercial matters has been to re-emphasise that principle again and again.
Mr. Ashton: If the law was changed to ban secondary picketing, and the 135,000 drivers on strike decided deliberately to defy that ban, would the facilities be available to bring them to court, fine them, imprison them or enforce the law in any way? Is it not a fact that in 1971, when a few dockers were deliberately singled out and locked up, they had to be bailed out by the Government of the day sending for the Official Solicitor? Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be absolutely disastrous to bring in a new law which could not be enforced?
The Attorney-General: Everybody agrees that it brings the law into disrepute if one seeks to make unlawul that which cannot be enforced. Nobody would ever suggest the contrary, and, indeed, that was one of the great problems of the Industrial Relations Act passed by the previous Conservative Government. But, if my hon. Friend wants an even better example to illustrate his point, I suggest that he reads the appendix to the Donovan report in relation to the Betteshanger affair where it was sought to bring 2,000 miners before the courts because they refused to obey the industrial law. Had that situation not been so tragic in its folly, reading about it would have been extremely amusing.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend in his attempts to explain very complex legal issues, but does this not emphasise the point that we do better by getting an agreed code of picketing to be enforced by the unions rather than trying to rely upon the niceties of the barons on whether withdrawing a union card is intimidation or not? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is no legal authority of which I know which
716
suggests that the mere withdrawal of a card in accordance with union rules can be intimidation, whatever the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) may think? In confirming his view that the 1976 amendment had little part to play in what has happened in this dispute, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend may take some consolation from the fact that on that particular night the Leader of the Opposition chose not to vote against the amendment.
The Attorney-General: I can confirm that, where the withdrawal of a union card is in accordance with union rules, unless there is something unlawful about it that withdrawal is perfectly lawful. Equally, if it is not in accordance with union rules, it is likely to be unlawful. I have been trying to explain that to Opposition Members.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is not only the complexities of the law on intimidation but the complexities surrounding commercial contracts, the problems of remoteness and all those matters to which we have referred this afternoon which make it so much better that this issue should be dealt with by the kind of agreement that the Government have achieved with the Transport and General Workers' Union, and would wish to achieve generally, than that we should try to cover it by an unworkable framework of laws.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to hold the balance, I shall next call two hon. Members from the Conservative Benches. I propose to allow these questions to run until 5.30, by which time we shall have spent three-quarters of an hour on this matter. It will have been a very good run. After that we shall have to move on.
Mr. Emery: Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that he or the Home Secretary will immediately circulate this very important statement to chief constables throughout the country?
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say something about numbers in picketing? This seems to be an area which he left out of his statement. Is not this something which the law would want to ensure was illegal where size of numbers brought about either a breach

717
of the peace or ensured that intimidation was much more likely where someone was stopped from crossing a picket line merely by the actual number of pickets? Can he also tell the House something about the legal position of the strike committees, which supposedly now give permission for people to do what is already legal? What does the law have to say about the strike committees which have been issuing certificates to some and stopping others? What rights do they have to stop anyone from crossing a picket line?
The Attorney-General: If the House feels that the statement that I have made is worthy of circulation to chief constables, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would take note of that flattering suggestion. I did not specifically mention numbers in picketing, but I referred to obstruction. I said that obstruction was one of the matters which could be illegal and contrary to the criminal law. If the numbers of those picketing were such as to create obstruction, that would be a matter which brought the criminal law into effect.
As to the strike committees, my understanding is that the TGWU headquarters has sent out a code of practice which it has asked the regional authorities of the union to ensure is followed. Inevitably, that means that those regional authorities dealing with the people on the spot have to be given instructions and told how those instructions are to be complied with. These are complicated matters which involve certain priority supplies. The House has heard about certain goods about which there may be doubts, because they are components in priority supplies, as well as others about which there is no doubt. I do not see how it is possible to carry out that kind of organisation without the sort of system which the hon. Gentleman suggested was quite wrong.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal for shorter questions and, if humanly possible, shorter answers?
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Since the Attorney-General has said that neither he nor the Director is answerable to this House on prosecution policy and that it
718
is a matter for the chief constables alone, can he suggest how prosecutions and prosecution policy can be questioned by hon. Members, since it is clear that there is already a difference of opinion about the degree to which intimidation can or cannot be classed as peaceful picketing?
The Attorney-General: The particular example to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred is one specific matter which as a question of industrial law comes within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about a difference of view as to what the law is on a particular matter, and it is a question which affects general prosecution policy, of course it is a matter which can be raised with me and I shall do my best to answer it. I was concerned with the actual events on the spot, and those are matters for the police to deal with.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that ordinary lay Members who are not lawyers could be confused at the exchanges which have taken place? Will he extend his explanation of the law to explaining the situation with regard to the position of employers? What about the employers' indemnity funds or the solidarity action that takes place by the employers' federations? Why do we only ever talk in terms of pickets as though workers were the only ones who should not take action in solidarity with each other? Will he explain that aspect of the matter in order to let the country know the position relating to employers?
The Attorney-General: The position with regard to employers is precisely the same in law as the position with regard to employees. I have not myself come across picketing employers, but that may be because I have not been aware of the fact that they do picket. But if they were to do so, under the sections to which I have referred they are subject to precisely the same rules as are employees. Indeed, I emphasised that protection exists both where those who are picketing seek to persuade people not to work and also where they seek to persuade people to work.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the Attorney-General agree that behind all these legal complexities there is one very simple constitutional point, which is that,

719
by abdicating his constitutional responsibilities to Mr. Moss Evans, the Prime Minister has created the illusion that, unless one has a visa from the TGWU, it is unlawful to go through a picket line, whereas by the law of England it is the right of every citizen to go through a picket line if he so wishes?
The Attorney-General: No; I do not agree with that at all. It is really absolute nonsense for the Conservative Opposition to try to make cheap party political points of that kind. They know perfectly well that the quickest and most efficient way of minimising the inevitable disturbance which comes as a result of strike action in industrial disputes is to do precisely what the Government have done. Were they on the Government side of the House, they would be seeking to do that before they tried to do anything else.
Mrs. Wise: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, in exercising their right to attempt to persuade drivers, pickets will inevitably go much nearer to lorries than they would otherwise do? Will he emphasise that in those circumstances drivers have a, special responsibility to drive carefully? Will he condemn any statements that are made which incite drivers to run down pickets and to use their lorries as objects of intimidation?
The Attorney-General: I said in my statement that pickets have the right to draw the attention of lorry drivers to the fact that they would like to make contact with them. Lorry drivers are not obliged to respond. But I made it quite clear in my statement that the lorry drivers' right to drive past the picket line is a right which is qualified by the need to do so in a lawful manner, which means with proper care and without subjecting people to unreasonable and unnecessary danger.
Mr. Thompson: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman submit his statement to the Lord Advocate for his advice and approval? If he did, can he advise us whether there are any remedies available under the common law of Scotland in addition to those that he has described as residing in the Ark?
The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate saw my statement before I made it. Indeed, the Solicitor-General for Scotland will by now have made a similar
720
statement in another place. The Lord Advocate tells me that questions have been put to him on this matter which he has answered. I have no doubt that if there are any special matters relating to Scotland hon. Members will put further questions to him. Equally, if there is any special need to make a statement he will do so.
Mr. Rifkind: If the Attorney-General is correct in saying that it is not unlawful intimidation to threaten withdrawal of union cards, and thereby loss of employment, when a person exercises his legal right to cross a picket line, does this not suggest that the law needs changing?
The Attorney-General: I have made perfectly clear the position on the question of a change of law to make unlawful that which is at present lawful. But it is not for me, and the hon. Gentleman can take it up with the Minister responsible.
Mr. Edward Lyons: As the Attorney-General has made it crystal clear that by itself secondary picketing is not unlawful but that intimidation, obstruction and coercion are unlawful, is not the Opposition's attack on the failure to prosecute not an attack on the Government but simply an attack on the police and the chief constables? Are not such questions misplaced, because they seek to use the Government as a surrogate for chief constables?
Is it not correct that a picket has no power to threaten to take away a union card? There is only the power to threaten to report to the union conduct that might qualify for consideration for withdrawal of the union card. Is it also not correct that if the proper procedures are not followed and someone is expelled, he has recourse to the courts?
The Attorney-General: I have been concerned in the discussions throughout the history of these disputes. I have no doubt that the chief constables are performing their duty properly and adequately. I do not believe that they are in any doubt about the law. If they read my statement, they certainly will not be. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the attack on the Government is totally misplaced. I believe that it is prompted purely by the hope of party advantage rather than by the interests of the nation as a whole.

721
My hon. and learned Friend is right on his second point. I know of no threat to any body to take his union card away there and then. No such case has been reported to me. If any hon. Member has knowledge of such a case, he should report it to the police. They are the people who should deal with it. When questions were asked about the removal of union cards, I understood that they were referring to precisely what my hon. and learned Friend has said.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Is the Attorney-General prepared to say that the pickets who act against firms that are not directly involved in their industrial dispute cannot under the present law claim immunity from legal action? Does he agree that if the state of the law on this point is uncertain it should be changed? Does he agree that any uncertainty should be removed by amendments clarifying the meaning of the law?
The Attorney-General: In my statement I made the position as clear as the courts have made it, and certainly as clear as in the most recent cases involving the Daily Express and the Press Association. In due course we shall all benefit from reading the judgments of the Court of Appeal, including that of the Master of the Rolls. The hon. and learned Gentleman should find that those judgments make absolutely clear the position on remoteness. The Court of Appeal decisions are, of course, subject to the decision of the highest court, but the law is clear as it stands in the Court of Appeal. The doctrine of remoteness applies in the case of civil proceedings for injunction.
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that you are most anxious that all hon. Members should feel that they receive equal treatment at your hands and those of your deputies. However, will you give the House some assurance that, on all future occasions when a ministerial statement is made, you and your deputies will give preference to hon. Members who heard the statement?
Mr. Ron Thomas rose—
Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not called either. I shall listen to his point of order.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should hon. Members who come in after a statement has been made be able to catch your eye and put questions to the Minister?
Mr. Speaker: I will answer that at once. Normally, if I am aware that an hon. Member has come in after the statement has begun, I do not call that hon. Member until the very end, if at all. If that has happened today, it was an oversight on my part. It is my general practice to give preference to other people if hon. Members are not in their place when a statement is made.

GRAVE DIGGERS AND CREMATORIUM ATTENDANTS (LIVERPOOL)
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I raised under Standing Order No. 9 the question of
"the effect of the grave diggers and crematorium operators strike and the inability to bury the dead in Liverpool".
After you had given your ruling, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) stated that I had given
"a distorted and biased account of the strike in Liverpool"—[Official Report, 24 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 452.]
Subsequently, he told me that what I had said was factually correct. May I have your guidance as to how I can best record that he wishes to withdraw his statement?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

NATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (BIRMINGHAM)
Mr. Andrew MacKay: 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 matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect of NUPE action in Birmingham".
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a specific matter because today in the Birmingham area 300 miles of motorway around the city, heavily covered by snow which fell during the morning rush hour, were not gritted in any way because 270 motorway maintenance men, who are

723
members of NUPE, were on strike. That, combined with the fact that there were no trains today, caused considerable danger to my constituents and other road users.
I further suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is important because 46 cancer and radiotherapy patients were sent home from Queen Elizabeth hospital yesterday because of NUPE action. I am told that more are due to go home today. In total yesterday 120 patients were sent home, and a further 75 were sent home by noon today. It has been suggested to me that further patients will be sent home this afternoon. Yesterday 38 operations, some of them serious, were cancelled at the same hospital.
This matter is urgent. I quote from Mr. William Bond, the director of radiotherapy. Despite what the Secretary of State said, I consider that Mr. Bond is the man most likely to know whether his patients are in danger or at risk. He said:
"I am sure that some of these people will die because of this action."
Finally, the matter is urgent, because the regional divisional organiser of NUPE, Mr. Barry Shuttleworth, said on commercial radio in Birmingham today that he believed the matter should be debated urgently in this House because he was worried about the effects of the action that his members were taking. Therefore, I believe that the matter should receive the urgent attention of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek 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 effect of NUPE action in Birmingham."
The hon. Member has made a very serious statement, to which I listened with great care. He and the House know that it is for me to decide not whether this matter is to be debated but whether it is to be the subject of an emergency debate. That is the only power that I have.
I regret that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

RAILWAYS (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. Sims: 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 matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The continuing and worsening series of strikes on British Railways, due to an inter-union dispute."
I base my request on three grounds. First, British Railways have intimated that they are losing £5 million each day of the strike. Unless these sums can be recouped by radical internal economies, including staff reductions, the costs will have to be borne either by passengers paying further increased fares or by the people generally, through taxation.
Secondly, large quantities of raw materials, goods and equipment normally conveyed by rail are being delayed on their way to manufacturers and customers, thus exacerbating the damage already inflicted on the economy by the road haulage dispute. This is particularly serious in the case of delaying export orders to the docks.
Thirdly, hundreds of thousands of people, including my constituents, who normally travel to work by train are now back to working a three-day week. This is particularly so in London and the South-East, although it is also occurring in the provinces. It is happening for the second week running after sporadic one-day strikes for some time.
All this is because of a dispute, not so much between employer and employee but between two unions. The nation is suffering for this. I suggest that the effects of the dispute are such as to qualify it as a specific and important matter which merits urgent consideration by the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek 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 continuing and worsening series of strikes on British Railways, due to an inter-union dispute."

725
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important question to which I have listened with great care. The House has instructed me not to give the reasons for my decision when I receive an application of this sort.
I regret to have to tell the hon. Member that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Parry rose—
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), I remind the House that Standing Order applications cannot be used to answer another application that has been made, and all that one can do in making an application is to put the case for an emergency debate.

GRAVE DIGGERS AND CREMATORIUM ATTENDANTS (LIVERPOOL)
Mr. Parry: 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 matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The grave diggers' and crematorium attendants' strike in Liverpool, following the unsatisfactory pay offer."
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) made a similar application yesterday, and, although his facts about the dispute are correct, he made a vicious and unfair attack on the trade union movement—
Mr. Speaker: Order: The hon. Member cannot use Standing Order No. 9 applications for debate across the House. He must make out his case as to why I should grant him an emergency debate.
Mr. Parry: I declare an interest as I was formerly a full-time officer of NUPE and I am now a Member of this House sponsored by the TGWU. I fully understand the frustration of the manual workers in the local authorities and the ancillary workers in the Health Service over the pay application that they have made to the employers. It is time some-
726
body told the House the way in which these employees have fallen behind average earnings during the last three years.
For example, in 1975 the average earnings of a male manual worker in a local authority totalled £13·30—lower than the average earnings in other industries and services. In 1978—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: The House must be fair. The hon. Member is seeking to make the case for an emergency debate because the pay of these workers has fallen behind. This point is quite within order and it should be listened to by hon. Members.
Mr. Parry: The level of earnings in 1978 is now £22·40 a week for male employees in the industry. For females it has risen from £4·60 in 1975 to £10·10 in 1978. The figures for the porters and cleaners in the National Health Service are similar. In spite of the wide difference between these earnings and earnings outside, the employers have made the scandalous offer of £1·80 per week. Therefore everyone should understand and appreciate why these workers are going on strike. The Offer to part-time cleaners, who work a 20-hour week, and home helps is a miserable 28p.
I made a special request yesterday to the General and Municipal Workers Union to call off the strike because I feel it is wrong to cause such distress to the families of the dead. I was taught that one of the seven corporal works of mercy was to bury the dead. I said that I hoped that the workers would return to work and that the employers and Government would take note of the wide difference in earnings between the local authority and outside industries. I would hope that this would prevent any further confrontation affecting the general public.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek 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 grave diggers' and crematorium attendants' strike in Liverpool, following the unsatisfactory pay offer."
The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not decide whether a matter will be debated. I merely decide whether there should be an emergency debate. I have

727
to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (SOUTHAMPTON)
Mr. Adley: I apologise to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, for this further application, but 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 matter which should have urgent consideration, particularly in view of what we have heard earlier this afternoon, namely,
"the refusal of the Transport and General Workers' Union regional office in Southampton to allow union members freely to express their views against official union policy".
This matter is specific, because the events took place this week at Transport House, Southampton, directly affecting a number of my constituents, who are drivers employed by Ingram's, of New Milton, and who are members of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is important, Mr. Speaker, because the freedom of the individual is at stake. These drivers have had no ballot on whether to strike. They have received no approach, as local members of the TGWU, from any of their officials. Their last resort was to go to express their views at the union's regional headquarters. The denial of the right to speak, or even to attend a meeting, is undoubtedly related to their publicly expressed opposition to the strike, in which they have been joined by drivers in a number of other companies in the South of England, such as Flewin's of Andover, some of whose drivers received the same treatment at the same meeting.
To deny union members the right to attend union meetings because they publicly disagree with union policy is equivalent to stopping Members of Parliament at the Members' entrance of this House if they publicly disagree with Government policy. It is totally undemocratic.
This matter is urgent because of the escalating ill will that the strike appears to be breeding, evidenced by events at Battle hospital, Reading, yesterday. The
728
Home Secretary told us yesterday that the TGWU had agreed that there would be no reprisals against those who crossed picket lines. But that is only one aspect of the current situation. Men will work and men have accepted employers' offers. But it is employers, in many cases small employers, who will not let them work, for fear of post-strike reprisals if they cross picket lines. Few doubt the good intentions of the Home Secretary but we have not yet heard how he intends, on behalf of Parliament, to honour the pledge which he gave the House yesterday about no intimidation. As one of the strikers refused permission to attend the meeting said to me, "It is all right at the top, but it does not get down the line". Are you further aware, Mr. Speaker, that drivers who are not on strike but whose employers are frightened to let them work and who are therefore laid off are now being denied unemployment benefit?
I wish to refute in advance any allegation that I am seeking to make political capital out of this situation. I neither know nor want to know the political stance of my constituents, but I know that they have been forced not to work and have been unable to exercise their free choice to work. It is my clear duty as a Member of Parliament to voice their fears in this House of Commons. The union office should be their forum. The union rule book should be their protection. Yet their office is barred to them, their rule book is abused, and now the local branch secretary of the union has gone ex-directory on the telephone. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons must hear their case.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to discuss a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Transport and General Workers' Union regional office in Southampton to allow union members freely to express their views against official union policy".
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

PICKETING
Mr. Gow: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the confusion caused by the statement of the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on 25 January 1979 in regard to the law of picketing and the urgent need to redefine that law".
The three criteria are that the matter should be specific, important and urgent.
This is a specific matter. You, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair, and it would be a miracle if you were other than wholly confused about the state of the law, having listened to the exposition given by the right hon and learned Gentleman.
The matter is important. It is difficult to visualise any matter which is of greater concern to the overwhelming majority of our constituents than the law of picketing. Indeed, the House and the country were waiting agog to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the nation exactly what the law was and precisely what the Government were proposing to do in order to improve the law. The House and the nation, not for the first time, waited in vain.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I seek to satisfy you that this is an urgent matter. A week ago today, the Prime Minister came to the House waving a piece of paper which was the code of practice issued by the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Prime Minister then told the House:
"The code explicitly provides that…it rules out secondary picketing"—[Official Report, 18 January 1979; Vol. 960, c. 1957–53.]
Secondary picketing has not been ruled out by the code of practice agreed by the Transport and General Workers' Union. The undertaking which was given to the House by the Prime Minister has been ineffective. Secondary picketing goes on, and the statement of the Attorney-General today has done nothing to increase the prospects that secondary picketing will be removed. In those circumstances, I submit that it is urgent and vital that the House of Commons should debate the Attorney-General's statement and the overriding need to redefine and update the law on picketing.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the confusion caused by the statement of the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on 25 January 1979 in regard to the law of picketing and the urgent need to redefine that law."
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 reason for my decision. I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CROWN AGENTS
  Mrs. Judith Hart, supported by Mr. Secretary Owen, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. Joel Barrett, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Charles Morris, presented a Bill to reconstitute as a body corporate, and make other provisions with respect to the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations, including the establishment of a Board to realise certain of their assets: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 61].

  MERCENARIES
  Mr. Frank Hooley presented a Bill to prohibit the engagement in warfare or armed conflict by United Kingdom citizens save only as members of the Armed Forces of the Crown or in pursuance of specific treaty or international obligations entered into by Her Majesty's Government; to make unlawful the procurement, recruitment, enlistment or training by private persons of other citizens for the purpose of engaging in armed conflict or warfare; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February and to be printed [Bill 60.]
  Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have now been sitting for

  731
  three and a half hours and there is one matter which frequently goes without comment. A single individual, for the whole of that time, has had to be entirely at the top of his form, displaying attention, charm and ability in dealing with matters during a very difficult and emotive period in the House. I think that the House should at times pay tribute to the great way in which you take the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker: That is the best speech I have heard for many a year. I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Motion relating to the steel industry with the substitution of half-past Twelve o'clock or two and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (b) of the Standing Order—[Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [5th Allotted Day]—considered.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION
  5.59 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was wondering whether it might be prudent for me to move this business under Standing Order No. 9.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, but I should have told the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Sir G. Howe: I am sure that the House will be prepared to forgive you, Mr. Speaker.
  I beg to move,
  That this House, being deeply concerned at the deteriorating economic and industrial situation, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to fulfil its responsibilities to the nation by bringing forward measures which will restrain expenditure, encourage output, secure the citizen's right to work and restore the authority of Parliament.
  Since the House returned from the Christmas Recess there have been a large number of opportunities for hon. Members to discuss the day-to-day anguish of the changing industrial scene. For what remains of today I hope that the House will focus its attention—as the nation would wish—on the longer-term problems which have shown themselves as a result of the industrial events that have taken place since the beginning of the year.
  I do not wish to chronicle the many examples of disaster which have been debated in the House in recent days. Suffice it to say that industrial and social strife is now so widespread and so bitter that in the ordinary way any one of a dozen aspects which have arisen in the House day after day would once have shocked the nation to its core.
  It is plain to all that with every day that passes in this style more and more serious damage is being inflicted, not only on our economy but upon the unity of our society. In those circumstances, it is right

  733
  that the House and the nation should be reminded of the thousands of speeches on this subject that were made almost exactly five years ago.
  I remind the House of a speech by the Prime Minister in February 1974 in which he said:
  "The dislocation that British industry has been forced to suffer this winter was wholly unnecessary and served only to try to distract the electorate from the real problems facing the country."
  He also said:
  "If Mr. Heath's policies were pursued for another five years, the end would be two nations glaring at each other across the ruins of the British economy…Labour proposes…a return to negotiation and an end of confrontation. Under Labour we offer a new social compact which will draw this nation together."
  If events of this year have done one thing, the myth that the Labour Party has any special capacity for dealing with the other half of what used to be called the Labour movement has now been totally and for ever destroyed. All the frantic efforts of the next few weeks, in whatever fine language or dress they might be presented, will not succeed in putting that myth together again.
  That is why it is now widely recognised, even by many who have supported the Labour Party in the past, that we need to seek a different approach to these problems. People are looking to this House to find common ground on which we can achieve greater success in these matters.
  What should that common ground be? We must assume that in some way, at some time and on some terms, the present bout of strife will come to an end. The temptation then will be to relax and believe that we can go on roughly as we have before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister will have every reason to encourage people to take that view.
  The reality is that if we go on in the style that we have adopted in recent years we shall be on a course of continuing decline. It is essential to accept and recognise that in a way in which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are unwilling, understandably, to do.
  In the last three or four years, on occasion after occasion, we have had promises of golden prospects. Last year
  734
  the Prime Minister said that we could now look forward to a "golden decade Last October the Chancellor did not qualify his pledge in any way. He said:
  "Whoever wins the next election is going to inherit the best balanced economy, the best economic prospects of any Government since the war."
  Even last week he looked back at 1978 and described it as a
  "year of exceptional achievement."
  When the Chancellor and the Prime Minister present that picture of the outlook, is it any wonder that working people find it difficult to accept the harsh reality that they are not entitled to higher wages as a reward for the years of sacrifice of which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister constantly speak?
  There was a revealing moment on the programme "TV Eye" last Thursday on which appeared Mr. Moss Evans, Mr. Duffy and Mr. David Basnett. Both Mr. Evans and Mr. Basnett referred, as a justification for the present situation, to the sacrifices which the trade union movement had been making. They were echoing the theme that they must have heard often from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
  One can imagine their astonishment when the Chancellor in a "quick comment" said:
  "There was no freeze three years ago."
  He was right about that. He said:
  "There was a 10 per cent. wage increase, and for many people that was six pounds a week, which they would never have got under normal collective bargaining…there was no real sacrifice."
  That represents an astonishing change in the Chancellor's position. He went on:
  "last year we had the biggest increase in living standards for working people in Britain that's been in one year at any time since the war."
  One must examine how and why that has happened. It is misleading to suggest that we are now at the end of a period of dramatic success.
  I leave aside the fact that prices have doubled and that unemployment has more than doubled and other familiar facts of that kind. Let us examine the Chancellor's statement last week that this has been a "year of exceptional achievement". By September of last year the real net income of a family with two children was still lower than it was in 1973 or 1974. We have been going

  735
  through a period in which the volume of manufactured imports has been rising at a rate of 16 per cent. while manufactured exports have risen by 6 per cent.
  Last week the Chancellor talked about the success with which Britain was paying her way in the world. But two years ago he told the International Monetary Fund that he expected to end 1978 with a balance of payments surplus in excess of £2,000 million. In fact, he has just broken even.
  Between the second half of 1977 and the second half of the current year the non-oil balance of payments will have deteriorated by about £4,500 million. This is the year of "exceptional achievement" according to the Chancellor.
  No wonder that within six days of his making that claim the Governor of the Bank of England, speaking in Scotland, said:
  "we now see that the net contribution of some £5 billion made by North Sea oil to our GDP over the past four years has been very largely matched by the strong growth in personal consumption recorded last year—a growth satisfied importantly by imports…we cannot in my view regard the pattern of demand in 1978, and only a marginal surplus on the current account of our balance of payments, with much satisfaction."
  So much for the year of "exceptional achievement".
  That is the reality. In these circumstances, as we have told the Chancellor, the most crucial purpose of our economic policy should be to create the conditions of maximum incentive for industry and enterprise at every level in order to recreate the growth and dynamic of our economy. Industry should be given back the prospect of profit.
  Let us examine what the Government propose to do as a result of their announcement last week. They know—or they should, since they have told industry this many times—that profits are almost at their lowest real level of any time in our history. And yet they are proposing to remove the profit safeguard and to introduce a futile and profoundly damaging Bill for tightening price control.
  That it is futile is shown by the fact that the Government announced the introduction of the Bill on Tuesday and three days later the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection announced the abandonment of the only remaining price
  736
  control policies. The Bill will do great damage and is a futile gesture.
  Industry needs the prospect of rising profits, a reduction in personal taxation as quickly as possible, and low and stable interest rates. All these are rendered unachievable by the current high level of public expenditure.
  The White Paper will not be debated today. However, the House should notice that, although last year the Government planned to increase public spending by about 2 per cent., it rose by between 7 per cent. and 8½ per cent.—by more than £4,000 million. The Government say that they intend to increase public expenditure in the year ahead by 2 per cent. The likelihood is that it will rise by much more than that. Therefore, the Government, by increasing the huge burden of public expenditure in two years, will have cast away all the gain that has been so painfully achieved in public expenditure reductions under the supervison of the International Monetary Fund. They will have achieved the certainty of high interest rates—12½ per cent. now, and who knows where they may be soon?—and excluded the prospect of any significant cuts in personal taxation. Even that rosy picture will be attainable only on the assumption in the White Paper that pay settlements are kept to 5 per cent. and earnings growth to 7 per cent.
  No wonder that the Chief Secretary, who has been preparing such White Papers for the Chancellor for some years—too many years for all of us—knows his man well enough to qualify the forecast made in the White Paper. Having given three alternative predictions, the lowest one being a growth rate of 1¾ per cent., he prudently included, on the assumption that the Chancellor will remain in office, the following qualification:
  "Case (c) is therefore far from being the lower end of the possible range of GDP growth if the rise in earnings is not kept down."
  In other words, "If you watch us performing, we will do a great deal worse than either of the examples contained in the White Paper."
  The truth is that with public expenditure running at its present level, the National Coal Board about to lose £250 million, the BBC coming cap in hand for a bridging loan to pay the schedule 11

  737
  pay increase, the Port of London Authority losing £1 million per day and British Rail losing £4 million for every strike day, if the present public sector pay claims in the pipeline are settled at 15 per cent., then, as the Prime Minister said, rates will rise by one-quarter and public sector borrowing by £2 billion.
  The truth is that the cupboard on which the claims are made is bare. In those circumstances, it is no wonder that we should be disturbed by the prospect of more public spending.
  The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have all asserted the importance of maintaining control of the money supply and the borrowing requirement and the reality of cash limits. That has been underlined by the Governor of the Bank of England. My hon. Friends and I say "Hear, hear" to all that.
  However, there are two disturbing factors. First, when the Prime Minister announced last week an addition to the cash available for low-paid workers amounting to pay increases of £3·50 a week, he said that the Government will raise that sum by increasing the cash limits available to the rate support grant. More seriously, the Secretary of State for Employment gave a remarkable answer in the House on Tuesday—it was one of the rare occasions when we had the pleasure of seeing him here. He was asked by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) whether he would take note, in the light of the speeches made by the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that their speeches, implying cuts in public expenditure, were completely unacceptable to the Labour movement. The Secretary of State replied:
  "I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I am more likely to be guided by what he says than by the remarks of the two gentlemen to whom he referred."—[Official Report, 23 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 187.]
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): The Secretary of State for Employment confirms that he said that, but he also says that he misheard the question.
  Sir G. Howe: I must say that the alibi witness was very quick in coming to his feet. However, it is more serious than
  738
  that and is not to be laughed off in that way.
  The Prime Minister: That is true.
  Sir G. Howe: It may well be true, but, true or false, it is still not a laughing matter.
  The Secretary of State for Employment may have mis-phrased that, having misheard the question, but it is nevertheless on the record and the House is entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State clarifying the position. The matter has been commented upon in the press, and for the sake of his own reputation the Secretary of State should clear up the matter.
  What I now ask is whether the Government agree with the Governor of the Bank of England and the urgency of what he says. What do the Government intend to do, and when? When will they discharge their duty of seeing that their fiscal policy and public expenditure patterns conform with the discipline they have set themselves?
  There is grave anxiety about those matters. Will they stand by cash limits? Will they ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement is kept within the targets set by the White Paper and, above all, in line with their monetary policy? My hon. Friends and I wish to hear from the Chancellor about these matters as soon as possible.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: A moment ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the £3·50 that the Government have offered to low-paid workers who do essential jobs in the public sector. He poured scorn on that, referring to the public sector borrowing requirement and the increase in the monetary supply. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House where the Conservative Party stands in regard to that £3·50 for low-paid workers in the public sector?
  Sir G. Howe: I shall return to deal with with that question when I consider what the Government themselves are doing. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when this possibility was first raised in the autumn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would be extremely dangerous to inject a further amount of that kind into the public sector borrowing

  739
  requirement. The Prime Minister also recognised that it would be dangerous to introduce a further flat-rate increase of that kind. This has further implications, which I will return to later.
  I turn back to the other cause of our difficulties—the scale of the present claims on a Treasury which is almost bare and the militancy with which the claims are being pursued. They owe nothing to the decision of the House to end sanctions. Nor do they owe anything to the assumption, to which the Government are now resorting in desperation that they are a consequence of the Conservative Party's determination to restore free collective bargaining.
  Our objective throughout has been the same as that enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1977. The Chancellor described it as a return to normal collective bargaining which he thought was inevitable after two years of tight control—and after three years all the more so. We have stressed the need to return to realistic and responsible collective bargaining.
  We are unclear about the curious position of the Government. If anything goes wrong in the labour market, it is to be blamed on the return to free collective bargaining. If anything goes right in the labour market, it is claimed as a success for the pay policy which is alleged to have been destroyed.
  In some ways we are getting the worst of both worlds. While the Government seek to defend pay settlements in line with cash limits, their intervention to raise the pay of the lowest paid by £3·50 a week is a creature of the residual pay policy. It poses a threat of serious damage to differentials higher up the scale. It also raises the difficulty, which has been noted by many already, of collective bargains that have already been struck being reopened.
  If the Prime Minister was serious in his intention to return to responsible and realistic collective bargaining, he should not have made that change but should have allowed negotiations to go on within the framework of the bargaining structure as it then was.
  The reality is that this is an inevitable consequence of the prolonged attempt to maintain too rigidly a pay policy that was
  740
  foredoomed to failure. The CBI and the TUC both said that it would not work. The policy was rejected the TUC conference and the Labour Party and was bound to end up in this way.
  The shadowy survival of sanctions did not prevent the last round of pay settlements from being 15 per cent. Nor did it prevent Ford, with massive publicity, from ending up with a settlement of 17 per cent. It is clear that our present position is in no sense a consequence of the acts of the Conservative Party but a direct consequence of the Government's mismanagement of the economy.
  Mr. Robert Mellish: I have been following keenly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and he has a right to be critical of the Government's stance on wages over the past few years. However, in the interests of the nation as a whole, surely the time has come for the Opposition to say how they would deal with existing wage claims, such as that of the lorry drivers. How would they settle that dispute?
  The public want to know the answer to that question. Are the Opposition saying that the lorry drivers can have whatever they ask for under the principle of free collective bargaining? If not, what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying?
  Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a matter about which the Government's position is totally obscure. If the Government are seeking to maintain a residual incomes policy and to condemn the present offer to the lorry drivers as excessive, as the Secretary of State for Transport did last week, but nevertheless remove the sanctions that existed—apparently as a means of opening the way for a higher settlement—the Road Haulage Association must be mystified about what the Government want it to do. Is the RHA to be condemned for resisting the strike or condemned for settling at a higher figure?
  The reality that we want to achieve—and this should be beyond doubt because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has spelt it out clearly—is a return to realistic and responsible collective bargaining without Government interference. That means that the lorry drivers' claim should be handled as a

  741
  result of responsible collective bargaining in that industry without Government interference.
  As far as the Government are concerned, settlements should take place within the available cash limits. There is no escape from that. Labour Members may writhe and shrink from the reality of cash limits, but those limits represent a statement of the totality of the resources available in the public sector. If public expenditure is not to be increased beyond what can be afforded, the cash limits must be maintained.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir G. Howe: No, not at the moment. The country has learned that the side effects of an imposed incomes policy eventually become intolerable. On the other hand, as we struggle to return to collective bargaining free from Government interference, British-style collective bargaining, as conducted in the present day, seems almost equally intolerable.
  It is urgently necessary to begin reconstructing conditions in which responsible collective bargaining can take place. That means making significant changes to redress the balance of power in our labour market between the employer, the community as a whole, the ordinary citizen and the forces of disorganised labour as they are currently manifesting themselves.
  Almost everything that the Government have done has been designed to have, and has had, exactly the opposite effect. They came into office deliberately committed to a policy of withdrawing anything that might resemble a feature that balanced against the power of disorganised labour. The present Prime Minister and the Leader of the House were more committed than anyone else to a policy of appeasement of organised labour as the only way of achieving industrial peace and sensible collective bargaining.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir G. Howe: No.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Give way.
  Sir G. Howe: No. I do not intend to give way. As a result of the changes made by the Government since they came into office, they have unleashed upon British industry and, in latter days, upon our social services a tiger of labour disorganisation which they are unable and still unwilling to control. In many cases, that tiger of industrial strife is being goaded by people, often a small minority, whose express purpose is the destruction of our economy and the overthrow of our institutions.
  Let me do the Prime Minister justice. I do not think for a moment that he expected or, still less, intended to bring about the state of chaos over which he presides. He represents a constituency in South Wales and my home is in that part of the country. Throughout my 20 years of practice at the Bar, I spent the greater part of my time representing trade unionists and trade unions. I know many of them well. Labour Members may laugh, but that happens to be a fact.
  I count many trade unionists among my friends and they know, as I know and as Labour Members know, that much of what is going on in industry and our social services is a corruption of everything that used to be regarded as best in British trade unionism. The Prime Minister has gone some way towards saying that, and I only wish that more of his colleagues, including, occasionally, some of those below the Gangway, would have the courage and decency to say something to the same effect. I wish that more trade union leaders were prepared to break their silence and condemn a great deal of what is going on. Unless they give that leadership, it will indeed be difficult to restore sanity and effectiveness to our trade union movement.
  We have reached the point where words are by no means enough. We need action to change the balance of power. The Prime Minister has explained many times why he is unwilling to take the necessary action of changing the law to bring about that change in the balance.
  We know that the law has traditionally not been employed in industrial relations. As for the City of London, so for the trade union movement until about 20 or 25 years ago, self-regulation was the order of the day. Until that time, it seemed

  743
  to have worked not too badly—not because there were no rules, but because there were rules which were observed and upheld without the intervention of the law.
  All those rules and safeguards and all that framework of order which held our industrial relations system together have been swept away and replaced by anarchy and coercion. That is an unacceptable position in a free society.
  In those circumstances, it is clearly the duty of the Government, with the support of the House, to take action, however difficult it may be, to restore a basic framework of order and to see that it is upheld. If that is not done, civilisation, as well as industrial relations, is in danger.
  Tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are being prevented from going about their lawful business and going to their daily work, even though they wish to do so and would be glad to do so for the wages that are on offer. When that sort of prevention is taking place, with the degree of coercion that we are experiencing, it is not trade unionism. It is tyranny.
  The reason why the rules and the law must be changed is that this state of affairs is a direct result of changes in the opposite direction made by the Government in legislation since 1974. They have done two things. First, they have removed all effective restraints on the establishment and enforcement of a closed shop. It was subject to some checks before their time, but those have been swept aside.
  Secondly, the Government have removed all effective restraints on blacking, sympathetic strikes, secondary boycotts and secondary picketing. The balance throughout industry has been totally transformed. The result is that in many industries, if not in all, no worker who challenges, questions or fails to obey a call for industrial action can, in truth, feel safe from the possibility of an industrial sentence of death. In many industries, no employer can feel safe from the risk of a total industrial and commercial blockade.
  A power has been created which can have the effect of destroying a man's livelihood or his business for ever. The fact that that power depends on what the Attorney-General, rightly or wrongly, described as "lawful intimidation" is no
  744
  comfort to the House. If it is lawful to threaten a man, in whatever courteous language, with the possibility of the withdrawal of his union card, that is an intolerable extension of the closed shop. It is absurd that a driver should have to determine the legality of that sort of threat on the picket line.
  More seriously, the Government, in face of present disputes, have accepted the legality and reality of those powers of coercion as a form of law and have handed over the regulation of many aspects of our society to that pseudo-law masquerading as law. The working lives and daily activities of many individuals and businesses are being regulated not by the law of the land, in whatever loan, but by groups of people acting, often, with an assumed authority and with all the arrogance, but with even less true authority, of an army of occupation.
  That is what the strike committees are effectively doing. The British people could be forgiven if they had begun to feel as though they were working no longer in Britain but in a kind of Vichy France, where power had been surrendered, where the Prime Minister and his colleagues still wore the trappings of power, and were still riding in their black Rovers, but where the real power had begun to reside elsewhere in our society.
  The rules which are being applied to many citizens have been made not by this House or by any agency of it but on a single sheet of paper from the Transport and General Workers' Union. The dispensations or licences, which can be torn up at will, do not come from this House. The Lord President of the Council at one time used to be a defender of parliamentary sovereignty. He used to denounce us for setting up lawful organisa decide whether to go back to work that beards At least, we did not transfer halt the power of Parliament to some labour-only sub-contractor over which we had no, control whatsoever.
  The whole enforcement of this pseudo-law rests in the hands of the local strike committees. For what purposes are these powers being used? There are many examples before us. I will give just two or three. They are being used to deny people who wish to take part in a ballot to decide whether to go back to work that

  745
  very right. I will give one example, from The Daily Telegraph of 15 January. It reported:
  "A secret ballot by 41 drivers at Kings Lynn, Norfolk, resulted in a decisive majority to return to work. Thirty-seven wanted to end the strike, three voted against and one abstained, When they told their employer…that they wanted to defy their union the company declined to take them back. Mr. Eric Kingston, chairman of the drivers' committee, said yesterday: 'The company feared reprisals.'"
  That is a dreadful state of affairs to find in this country. The examples are legion. I will give one from yesterday's newspapers. The House will have noticed that our country is now filled with growing private armies, some of them motorised and some not, of citizens seeking to assert their right to work. The 600 lorry drivers who drove down the M6 yesterday represent a sort of counter-army, reasserting their liberties, so far as they can. Drivers have been besieging the regional headquarters of the Transport and General Workers' Union, bearing the honourable name of Bevin House. Who would have thought, in Ernest Bevin's day, that some of his regional headquarters would be under siege by his union members who are seeking the right to be consulted? The convoy which came down the M6 yesterday was advised in these terms by one of the people leading it. As The Daily Telegraph reported, he said:
  "Do not be put off by threats. We are all in this together."
  The report went on to say that Mr. Arthur Drew and seven other drivers from Shepherds Transport Company joined the convoy,
  "ignoring the threats of a shop steward who said he would suspend their strike pay and 'black' them. Mr. Drew said there was a massive demand in the West Midlands for a return to work while pay talks continued."
  He added:
  "We are the union's prisoners because we need a union card to work."
  Has the great British trade union movement been turned into a system under which we gaol people who want to go back to work? But it goes further that, because it is not merely within the trade union movement that this tryanny is exercised. In the last debate on this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) spoke about conditions in Hull. The Sunday Tele-
  746
  graph carried a long report of the activities of the group of lorry drivers who form the strike committee in Hull. Is this not an extraordinary state of affairs in a free society?
  The town, it is said, suffers strong secondary picketing, despite central union guidelines, and is dominated by the rulings of this committee. There was a man seeking to import coffin wood into the borough of Kingston upon Hull. The company representative was brought in to give details about his request. He sat before the top table, as before a tribunal, and answered questions. The report goes on to say that
  "The request was granted in principle, but the man was told to return later to finalise details…Hull strike policy is that any place previously served by haulage men—even partly—should be picketed. This includes manufacturers, food warehouses and, of course, the docks themselves."
  To have the whole commercial activity of anyone who wishes to do business in Hull regulated by application to a committee, a group of trade unionists, sitting as though it were a tribunal, is a quite intolerable state of affairs.
  It is all very well for the Prime Minister to come to the House, as he did on Tuesday, and say boldly that he would strut with courage and freedom through a picket line. I dare say that he is now sufficiently well recognised and well known throughout the country, and sufficiently well protected, to be able to do so with a certain degree of confidence. But that is not how it is for ordinary people. It is not even how it would be, apparently, if he sought to present himself at Tilbury, for in today's Daily Mail one reads that a picket there who had read the Prime Minister's statement said:
  "I'd like to see what happened to him if he tried to cross this line. What James Callaghan says does not mean anything any more. I think next week everything will come to a stop."
  That is the reality, and everything that we heard this afternoon from the Attorney-General about the scope and lawfulness of picketing, be it secondary picketing or primary picketing, confirms our fears about the danger to individual liberty in this country.
  We heard the Prime Minister say, quite rightly, that to extort payment from people before granting them the right to cross a picket line was unlawful. It was,

  747
  he said, the crime of extortion. It is happening all the time. Constituents telephoned me about it during last weekend, and the stories come in all the time. This law is being applied as if there were some customs barrier, where people present themselves in their lorries and are told that they cannot pass unless they pay £X or £Y.
  The Prime Minister: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman reported it to the police?
  Sir G. Howe: The whole language of Labour Members is to the effect that pickets have the right to stop people. The Prime Minister asks whether I have reported it to the police. I am sure that he knows that the pickets making these demands are unwilling to identify themselves or their authority. It is they who have the power to take the numbers of the vehicles being driven, and the power to trace by whom those vehicles are being driven.
  Let me put this to the Government, since they retain a residual responsibility for these matters. Whatever I should have done about reporting the incidents, may I ask whether the Prime Minister happened to see, on the front page of The Daily Telegraph last Saturday, the short report—the incident was reported almost as a matter of routine—which read:
  "Pickets impose salad 'levy'. Part of a 600-ton cargo of tomatoes and cucumbers from the Canaries was allowed to pass pickets at Liverpool Docks yesterday at a 'price'. The lorry drivers had to agree to give their pay to charity, the Liverpool Fruit Importers' Association to give £1,000 worth of the produce to pensioners and deprived children and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and importers each to give £1,500 to charity."
  I do not make any complaint about the charitable destinations of those sums of money, but I question very seriously whether those pickets at Liverpool docks have any right whatever within the law to extort payments of that kind. The Prime Minister nods agreement.
  The Prime Minister: Use the law.
  Sir G. Howe: The Prime Minister makes a very interesting observation. In the face of the facts set out in that report he says "Use the law". That is fine. That is a great injunction to get from the Prime Minister. I hope that he will ensure that the facts that I have drawn
  748
  to the attention of the House are brought as swiftly as possible to the attention of the Attorney-General, so that the matter may be investigated fully.
  If these changes are taking place and the balance of authority in our society is changing, the complaint that should be made is not by the Government about the effect of free collective bargaining but by the people of this country about the effect of unbridled collective mugging.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had a number of complaints from his constituents about intimidation. [HON. MEMBERS: "We all have."] In that case, all hon. Members share the same responsibility. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman reported any of these cases to the police? If he has not done so, will he please do so? I will draw the attention of the Attorney-General to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read out. But if the position is as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given it, he too has a responsibility, as a citizen, to report these matters and to try to put them right.
  Why should we pick a quarrel between both sides of the House about the upholding of the law in these cases, which are totally improper, for which there can be no defence? It is weakening the total attitude to the law if the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it is the Government's responsibility to do this. He knows very well that it is the responsibility of the police to take action if these matters are drawn to their attention, and they should do so.
  Sir G. Howe: I must say that I am not in the least surprised at the manner in which the Prime Minister has sought, as it were, to lay the blame for non-enforcement of the law on individual Members of this House. The reality is being reported in the papers day after day. It is a matter of common knowledge in this House and elsewhere that trade union pickets, be they lawful or unlawful, are demanding sums of money before people can cross picket lines up and down the country, like an informal set of customs officers. If the Prime Minister is seeking to shuffle off his responsibility, the Attorney-General is the senior Law Officer of the Crown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] The Attorney-General is the senior Law Officer of the

  749
  Crown. It is the function of the prosecuting authorities to investigate matters of this kind, certainly if they are a matter of public concern, as soon as they come to their knowledge. If the Prime Minister has had to wait until today to have a word with the senior Law Officer and ask him what he is doing about this, it is a very sad commentary.
  Mr. Peter Emery: My right hon. and learned Friend has been atacked by the Prime Minister about hon. Members who have not reported cases. I have reported a case. I gave the exact facts to the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House on Monday evening, having drawn the attention of the House to it at Question Time. I have actually contacted the individuals, who are willing to give evidence and to stand up, and I actually have the names of the trade union officials concerned. But at 2.30 p.m. today nobody had bothered, as far as the office of the Home Secretary is concerned, even to contact those individuals to see what inquiries should be made. So it really is not any good—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Charge and counter-charge do not help the House. Could we have a little order?
  Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. The matter that has just been referred to in that altercation in fact came up today at Question Time, and it was made abundantly clear that the police had been informed at the time and it was a matter for their action. Nothing of that kind was said, and it is important, if we are to have a sensible debate, that people at least try to tell the truth.
  Sir G. Howe: We want to conclude this matter, as far as I am concerned, on a note which I hope represents some common ground between us. We have established now beyond doubt that this kind of practice is beyond the law and that each and every citizen who is required to face any kind of demand when exercising his lawful rights in this way is entitled to complain to the police and the prosecuting authorities, on the Prime Minister's authority and certainly on mine. Let that be clearly understood, and let us begin to re-establish the rule of law in this country.
  The Prime Minister: I only want to make it clear that, as this case had been referred to the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary passed on the information to the chief constable of the area concerned in order that he might consider whether action should be taken. Every member of the Government would take the same line. But I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, and indeed to any hon. Gentleman, that he should go to his own chief constable about such matters. There is no point in going to the Home Secretary, who can only pass it on. He cannot instruct a chief constable to start a prosecution.
  Mr. Emery: As a matter of explanation, the Prime Minister is quite correct. It this had happened to a constituent of mine in the area of my own county, of course I would have gone to my own chief constable. But, because it was outside my own county I drew the matter to the attention of the Minister concerned and the Minister asked me to refer it to the Home Secretary. So it was referred to the Home Secretary at the request of the Secretary of State.
  Sir G. Howe: I must say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, having started my speech in the midst of a flurry of Standing Order No. 9 applications and having finished in the midst of a sort of mini Adjournment debate between the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend, I wish now to come to a close. But I must say this: we shall not be able to restore order or even humanity to our society until effective action has been taken to prevent gross abuse of power of the kind we have been talking about. People are entitled to look to the Government and the Parliament to restore their freedom.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made four suggestions which deserve continued serious examination: that the secret ballot should be more widely used; that the rights of pickets should be more closely defined; that we should examine whether it is possible to find areas where the right to strike could be traded for something else; and, finally, and most important of all, that the powers conferred by the unregulated closed shop should be re-examined.
  The Government, in their amendment, invite the House to support their determination to do these things, but the Government remain unwilling to take any

  751
  action on these matters. We on this side of the House—I include those on the Benches occupied by the Liberal Party—have no doubt about the necessity for such action. Many hon. Members on the Government Benches, I suspect, recognise the same thing, but the Prime Minister himself is almost alone in saying so, and he is doing nothing. If he were prepared even now to invite his Government to act on these things, if his party would allow him to take any action on these things, he could count on our support. But if, like the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) before him, he is unable to persuade his colleagues to do what he knows to be right, he should give the people a chance to choose a Government that will do what is right.
  6.48 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the deep concern felt throughout the country about the current industrial situation and supports the Government's determination to maintain essential supplies, control inflation and protect the supreme interest of the community and the legitimate rights of all sections of it."
  When the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) began his remarks, I had one flicker of hope that he intended to address himself to the real problems facing the nation. Instead, we had the same stale old party claptrap trundled out that he has given us on every occasion in the last five years to induce catalepsy in his audience. The one thing that he did was to betray an uneasy sense of guilt when he was asked about his own party's responsibility in opposing any form of pay policy and withdrawing the sanctions that the Government had been able to use for the past three years for the present situation on the pay front.
  The only positive suggestion that he was able to make—we have had this before from him—was that we should solve all the problems that we face on the industrial front, in terms of pay and inflation, by restoring the Industrial Relations Act as he introduced it when he was Minister in the last Conservative Government—the Act that failed to achieve any of the objectives that he set for it, which was described by the Director-General
  752
  of the CBI, during the election campaign, as being responsible for souring and sullying industrial relations and which was described by his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) only the other day as being not a conspicuous success. I shall return shortly to that element of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
  I believe that it is right, as both the Opposition motion and our amendment suggest, that on this occasion, after spending many hours in the last few weeks discussing the difficulties that the British people have had to endure as a consequence of the present industrial disputes, we should spend some time today directing our attention to the economic consequences of what has happened so far and to the implications for our economy if the present trend continues. I think that the House would expect me, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to deal in particular with the implications for the Government's fiscal and monetary policies.
  I believe that in some areas the human consequences of the present disputes are intolerable, but so far the strictly economic consequences have been far less dramatic than many people expected. For example, when the lorry drivers' strike began unofficially about three weeks ago, most industrialists believed—genuinely, I think—that if it continued as it had begun there would be 1 million more people out of work by the end of last week. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman said that."] Yes, I quoted these estimates. Of course I did, because there is no one from whom the Government can obtain information about the industrial consequences of industrial action except from the industrialists themselves.
  The Director-General of the CBI said that the figure could be as high as 2 million by the end of last week. In fact, however, a fortnight after the strike was made official, nearly three weeks after it began, about 200,000 people have been laid off as a result. That is an unacceptable figure, but it is barely one-fifth of the number laid off in the three-day working week. The House must recognise, in the light of earlier exaggerated estimates, that the attempts by the Transport and General Workers' Union to limit the disruptive effects of the lorry drivers' strike though far from totally effective in man

  753
  areas, have served somewhat to reduce the damage caused.
  The effect on output has been small, and it is likely to be made up quite quickly. The same is true of the effect of what has happened so far on the nation's financial situation. For example, so far as the Government can discover—our findings are broadly confirmed by the CBI's databank—all breaches of the guidelines up to and including the offer of 15 per cent. to the lorry drivers are unlikely to add more than ½ per cent. to the earnings outturn over the year as a whole as compared with what it would have been if the guidelines had been strictly observed.
  Similarly, the inflationary effect of breaches of the pay guidelines so far and the industrial disruption so far, taken together, are likely to have added scarcely anything to the public sector borrowing requirement this year. The Government are already well ahead in funding the PSBR. By mid-December, over a month ago, we had already sold £5·1 billion of central Government debt outside the banking system.
  So far I have been describing the effect of what has happened up to today. The problem to which the House and the country, and, above all, the trade union movement, must address themselves, however, is what are likely to be the consequences if some of the recent settlements in the private sector prove to have established a new level of expectation in the economy as a whole.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman said that the effect on output was small. However, the point is that in the North-West, in my constituency in particular, the effect on exports has been absolutely catastrophic. Firms are absolutely choking. They are keeping up their output to a certain degree, but they are choking because they cannot get it away. They are losing orders right, left and centre.
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Lady is quite right. There has been a very serious delay of exports at many ports. Of course, if that continues for any length of time the consequences are bound to be found in lost orders, even when the current exports have been moved away. I do not for a moment deny that. This is one of the
  754
  more serious immediate aspects of our current problems.
  However, as I say—I stick to what said—the effects of what has happened so far are likely to be made up quite quickly if the industrial troubles come shortly to an end. But the problem to which we must address ourselves is what will happen if some of the recent settlements become a new going rate, as is sometimes said—if, for example, the tanker drivers' settlement began to be taken as the going rate, as I see one trade union leader asserted that it should be taken the other day. That is the danger that the nation must now face, which it is not yet too late to avert.
  I think that the only way that I can demonstrate the dangers is by making a gloomy and, so far, unjustified assumption for wholly illustrative purposes. I stress that this is an assumption that I do not endorse—indeed, it is one that I think it must be the objective of all of us in the House to disprove. Let us assume, for example, as some pessimistic forecasters in the City are already beginning to predict, that the increase in the nation's earnings in the current pay round is as high as 15 per cent.—an outturn that some people seem to contemplate with equanimity as a reasonable one, because it is roughly the same as the outturn last year.
  They are quite wrong if they think that that is reasonable. The most obvious and inevitable consequence of this assumption coming true would be that the year-on-year increase in the rate of inflation would move into double figures in the summer of this year and would probably reach about 13 per cent. by the end of the year. So we would be back, on inflation, to where we were in 1976. We would have lost al: the ground that we have gained in the fight against inflation in the last three years.
  A 15 per cent. earnings increase would also create formidable problems for the Government's fiscal and monetary policy. The present Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to finance inflation by printing money. I reassert that determination today. We shall stick to the monetary policy which we have already announced. We shall not accommodate excessive wage increases in the public sector by increasing cash limits accordingly. My right hon. Friend

  755
  the Prime Minister has made it clear on several occasions in the House that the present Government will not finance inflation. Others of my hon. Friends have pointed out to some of those concerned in particular disputes the meaning of that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, for example, made it clear the other day that he does not intend to finance excessive pay increases in the railways out of taxation. This will be true of the other nationalised industries.
  I believe that it is, above all, because the financial markets have confidence in our determination here that sterling has remained strong through all the current troubles. I see that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) agrees with me. The Government are determined to maintain the monetary policy to which they have pledged themselves and the fiscal policy implied by the monetary policies.
  I have made it clear on many occasions that I do not think that fiscal and monetary policies alone can control inflation even at the cost of heavy unemployment. That is where I disagree with some right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. There has to be moderation in pay settlements, too, however that moderation is achieved. I know that there are differences on both sides of the House on the question whether the sort of pay policy that we have had in the last few years is the right sort of approach to moderation in pay settlements, but I still believe that it is not possible to control inflation by fiscal and monetary policy alone, without moderation in pay settlements. I also believe that if we were to add to the difficulties that we now face on the pay front by the abandonment of our fiscal stance and of our monetary targets, all our problems would immediately be made very much worse.
  On the assumptions that I have just described—which, I stress again, it is not too late to prove mistaken; indeed, I am describing the risks only, I hope, to strengthen the resolve of everyone in the House and outside to avoid them—that there will be a 15 per cent. increase in earnings in this pay round, it is already possible to make a very rough and ready estimate of the problems which the Government would face in the spring Budget. If we take the new public expenditure White Paper as a base, the effect of the
  756
  pay and price increases following from a 15 per cent. earnings outturn would be to increase the cost of the services which central Government are planning to provide by over £1,000 million in the next fiscal year, to raise the cost of local authoority services by another £1,000 million and to raise the costs of the nationalised industries by only a little less—about £3 billion in all. However, on the assumptions that I have given, the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement would be considerably less—perhaps under half as much—because of the extra tax revenues generated not only by public sector pay settlements but by settlements in the private sector.
  Faced with such increases in expenditure and in the public sector borrowing requirement, the Government would be compelled to seek reductions in the volume of public expenditure. As I told the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) recently, I do not intend next year to have a PSBR higher than that estimated in the public expenditure White Paper for the coming year.
  The consequences on public services could be severe. I have already pointed out to some of those who are involved in the negotiation of a settlement for local authority manual workers, for example, that if all local authority workers got a settlement of 15 per cent., there would be 100,000 fewer people at work in local authorities than now, unless local authorities were prepared to finance these increased wages with a doubling of the present average rate increase from 10 per cent to 20 per cent.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: My right lion. Friend raised the question of the tax revenue that the Government would get back whatever the percentage increase—whether it be 15 per cent. or some other figure. For the purposes of his argument, he was envisaging 15 per cent. Given a 15 per cent. increase in both the private and public sectors, how much would come back in income tax and indirect taxes? Would it be 45 per cent. of that total? Most people, given their wage increase, would be paying 33 per cent. on that increase anyway.
  Mr. Healey: It is difficult to make that calculation. Even when one has done so, one is liable to be mistaken. For example, one has to take note of the pattern of

  757
  spending—how much goes on goods subject to specific duties, how much goes on value added tax and how wage increases are distributed between one level of earnings and another. The broad brush picture which it is fair to give to the House is that, assuming that the increase generated in expenditure were £3 billion, there would be a much smaller increase in the public sector borrowing requirement—perhaps only half or even under half as much—as a result of the tax revenues flowing in from the larger settlements on both sides. But to estimate this exactly in advance, as the House knows—and as I know to my cost—is impossible. It cannot be done. It depends on the savings ratio and a million other things.
  I have already given the example of one group of workers. I turn now to the problem as it affects public expenditure and Government finances as a whole.
  To some extent, the reduction in the volume of public expenditure would follow automatically from the cash limits which will reflect the Government's pay guidelines when they are published in a few weeks. But there are bound to be some areas where that would be impossible without unacceptable disruption. For example, we cannot cut the number of people paying out social security benefits because there happens to be an increase in wages in that area.
  To the extent that reductions in volume were not brought about automatically by sticking to cash limits in the programmes concerned, they would have to be met by other cuts in public expenditure or by larger or earlier increases in the prices charged by the nationalised industries to cover their cost increases. The only other alternative is to raise taxation.
  Some increases in taxation would be necessary in any case since some public expenditure programmes are open-ended and cannot be subject to cash limits—for example, social security programmes. Moreover, it would be unfair to burden the public sector with the sole responsibility for offsetting excesses which had occurred no less in the private sector.
  Nevertheless, it would be impossible to achieve fiscal justice against the background of excessive pay increases on the
  758
  scale that I have assumed. For example, it would be immensely unfair to those—at least 1 million—who have already made settlements within the Government's guidelines and would in any case have to face the inflationary consequences of others' excesses if the Government had to increase tax as well. But it is not easy to see an alternative.
  I wish that the Liberal Party were right in believing that it would be possible in Britain to use the income tax system to recover excessive pay increases from those who had negotiated them. But, after repeated examination, I believe that under our pay-as-you-earn system it would not be administratively possible to do so.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: accept everything that the right hon. Gentleman has been saying in the latter part of his speech, but does it not underline his great unwisdom in allowing public expenditure to rise so much in the past two years that he has boxed himself into the position that he is now describing?
  Mr. Healey: No. First, the increase in public expenditure planned for next year in volume terms—I disagree with the hon. Member for Blaby on this point—is only just over 2 per cent. as against actual expenditure.
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: That is too much.
  Mr. Healey: This is the difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House. Even if we cut, let us say, £3 billion of public expenditure, the essential fiscal and monetary consequences of excessive pay increases would be much the same and the need for further reductions in public expenditure would remain.
  All that I have been describing is only half of the result. If this round were to produce an earnings outturn of 15 per cent., the Government would have a duty to limit the damage caused to our economy by sticking to their fiscal and monetary policy. That would inevitably mean an increase in unemployment and a reduction in the standards of public services without producing any increase in real take-home pay. This is all on top of the loss of jobs in the private sector where excessive settlements are bound to price some people out of jobs, to bankrupt

  759
  some of the firms which have agreed them and to make it likely that any new investment which takes place will be intended to reduce, not increase, jobs.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: On the assumptions defined by my right hon. Friend, including maintaining monetary and fiscal policies, can he say what effect the rate increases that he suggested will have on unemployment?
  Mr. Healey: No, I cannot. Indeed, as I have often said in the House, the most difficult thing in the world to predict at present is the effect on unemployment of measures that the Government take. As my hon. Friend knows, last year we had a fall of over 100,000 in unemployment when most economists were predicting a substantial rise. What is certain, however, is that the effect on jobs would be very severe and unwelcome to all, I think, on both sides of the House.
  There is a final irony. No one who finished up in these circumstances with a 15 per cent. increase in earnings would be any better off than if he had stuck to the Government's pay guidelines, because he would have been paid the difference in confetti money. The advantage that he thought he was gaining would be swallowed up in higher prices and taxes before the year was out.
  I cannot believe that is what the champions of free collective bargaining really want. I think perhaps that is the only partisan remark I may be held to be making at this point in my speech.
  A heavy responsibility for the risks that we now face lies on all those who have contributed to the present situation by undermining the Government's pay policy and lauding the advantages of totally free collective bargaining in a free market.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Healey: Perhaps I may continue. I have given way quite a lot.
  The point is that it is not too late to call a halt. I believe that a halt will be called only if all those concerned on both sides of the bargaining table are brought face to face with the consequences of their actions. I am seeking to bring them face to face with the consequences this afternoon.
  760
  If I have a complaint to make about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's syeech, it is that the only suggestion he put forward for dealing with the risks we run on the pay front was based on the belief—a belief that I am sure he holds sincerely—that all our difficulties in collective bargaining are due to some gargantuan increase in the rower of the trade unions brought about by the Labour Government. However, the fact is that the last Conservative Government faced exactly the same problems when they possessed all the powers which the Conservatives now ask us to adopt. All the evidence of history is against their arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hope that the Opposition will listen. They may disagree with me, but I ask them to look at the evidence.
  The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition in her television address the other night asked us to offer the unions financial support for secret ballots. I do not deny that there is a case for doing that, but, as the right hon. Member for Lowestoft pointed out, the result of that would not be necessarily what the Government or the employers might always want. In fact, it might quite easily be the reverse.
  On the only occasion when the Conservative Party used this power when last in office, under the Industrial Relations Act introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the railwaymen voted by a huge majority for a strike. The same thing happened only the other day in Manchester when the busmen voted for a strike by secret ballot. I do not deny that a secret ballot could help in some situations, and I believe that it is a democratic procedure which I wish were adopted more often, but there is no reason in history or in any evidence—and much evidence has now accumulated—that it would produce any net advantage in solving industrial disputes.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should like the Chancellor and the House to be clear about what is being discussed. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is not putting forward a suggestion for a selective, statutorily required ballot of the kind set out in the 1971 Act; she is merely proposing that there should be wider use of the ballot—publicly financed in certain cases, if necessary—at the

  761
  option of the membership. To some extent, therefore, there is common ground about the desirability of that happening.
  Mr. Healey: I well understand that the proposal is not to restore the position as it was under the Industrial Relations Act, although the right hon. Lady suggested something that would look to Labour Members very much like support for statutory sanctions—namely, that social security benefits should be denied to those who took industrial action without availing themselves of this voluntary opportunity. This afternoon we talked of intimidation. I should like to know what would be more intimidating than that.
  I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member did not repeat that suggestion this afternoon, or the general sugegstion put forward by the right hon. Lady that the families of strikers should be denied social security benefits. She was said to have argued against that proposal when it was put forward in the last Conservative Cabinet on a brief provided by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). If so, she was very wise at that time, but I am sorry that she has forgotten the arguments to which she was then sensible.
  I am also glad that we have not heard a peep out of the right hon. Lady in the last nine months on the idea that she advanced on television last year about solving all these problems by having a referendum every time there was an industrial dispute. The way in which the right hon. Lady bobs about from one bright idea to another does not give one very great confidence in the firmness of her commitment to any of them, or indeed in her real conviction that any of them will help.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the Vauxhall dispute last year, when a young man stood up in front of the crowd of employees outside the Vauxhall factory and, despite his being almost hauled from the platform by shop stewards, persuaded those men not to go on strike? That man was being intimidated. What my right hon. Friend was talking about was the right of those men to cast their votes in secret and in a democratic manner on the question
  762
  whether they would withdraw their labour. That is what we want.
  Mr. Healey: I understand that situation very well. I am merely asking the House to ponder the truth of the evidence. The evidence points to the fact that there is no guarantee that secret ballots will succeed.
  I admired enormously the young man mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. In common with others, I watched that incident on television. We are all subject to intimidation from time to time. I have had the experience at Labour Party conferences of being substantially intimidated by my colleagues. I am glad to say that the Conservative Party has never succeeded in intimidating me in that way in this Chamber. It is often unpopular to argue a good cause, and people have to show some courage in doing so. But if violence or the threat of violence is used, it is the duty of the police to intervene.
  The right hon. Lady asked the Government to use the law to control picketing, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General pointed out this afternoon, the law has already provided the State with all the powers that it can use in this regard. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft went no further in his keynote speech as Shadow Minister for Employment in Huddersfield the other day than to say:
  "The next Conservative Government will reaffirm the existing law which should be upheld by everyone. We will also seek to obtain widespread agreement on a sensible code of conduct."
  That is a wise approach to the system, and it is the Government's approach.
  At the request of the Government, the TGWU has already issued a code of practice for its own pickets, which is having some but not total effect. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is discussing the development of a more general code of conduct on picketing with the TUC as a whole.
  It is true that the last Conservative Government gave themselves the power to take further legal action against pickets in certain circumstances. But the only occasion on which they ever used the force of law against pickets was a disastrous and humiliating failure when the Official Solicitor had to send to Pentonville prison to release the men concerned.

  763
  There was a similar experience in the wartime Government in the case of the miners at Betteshanger.
  The Opposition complain that we amended the law which they introduced in this respect, but the fact is that they had exactly the same experience with their legal powers on secondary picketing when they were last in Government. Secondary picketing was first established in the form we know it today in 1972, a year after their Industrial Relations Act, had come into force to prevent it. The Opposition took a firm decision not so long ago not to restore the Industrial Relations Act, and it is not surprising that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft described it on television only a fortnight ago as not a conspicuous success.
  The fact is that there is no answer to this problem which does not involve the Government co-operating with the trade union movement to try to secure that union power is used with more regard for public interest. We must do that and we are beginning to do it. The insensate and uncontrolled hostility to the idea of trade unionism which is displayed by so many Conservatives on Front and Back Benches would make such discussions particularly difficult—not for all but for some of them.
  The right hon. Member for Lowestoft—I am glad that he is not here to blush when I quote him so often—was right again on this matter. On the BBC on 8 January he reinterpreted his leader's new industrial proposals by saying:
  "It was not our intention to go for a whole range of legislative change but to approach this quite gradually, and to approach it in a form of embracing union power rather than trying to defeat union power."
  Those are his words and not mine. I doubt whether I would have been quite so incautious in my choice of verbs. Nevertheless, the Leader of the Opposition's approach to the problem, as defined by her employment spokesman, is to embrace union power and not go for a whole range of legislative change. How wise he is! How regrettable that—temporarily no doubt—his influence in these matters seems to be eclipsed on the Front Bench opposite!
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: When the Chancellor dismisses the need for any legislative form whatsoever, is he saying on behalf of the
  764
  Government that they are content to leave it to strike committees to be the ultimate arbiters of the question whether persons or goods shall pass between pickets and the factories to which they wish to go?
  Mr. Healey: The courts can decide, as was made very clear. I was very interested to notice that the Shadow Attorney-General, who asked the first questions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General this afternoon, did not choose to intervene later in support of any of the points made by his hon. Friends on the Back Benches. That was because he knows perfectly well that the legal situation is as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General defined it and that it is not possible to escape from difficult questions of judgment in deciding what type of picketing is lawful and what is not. Everything must depend on the circumstances.
  We had discussions, for example, about the closed shop and about the threat of being expelled from a union being intimidation. Threats of expulsion from different bodies often play a role in our political life. Winston Churchill had the Whip withdrawn by the Conservative Party in the 1930s. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] I am sorry; he changed his party twice. Perhaps I am wrong about him. But the Whip has been withdrawn from Members on both sides of the House. It is a serious penalty. There are many situations in which membership of bodies can be withdrawn by the governing corpus in a way which constitutes intimidation but which may not be illegal intimidation. Everybody on both sides of the House must know that.
  It is precisely because it is so difficult—I know both parties have tried it at different times—to find a useful role for changes in the law to improve this situation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has accepted the request of the general council of the TUC to meet him on Monday to discuss how we can together best find a way out of the troubles which the British people have been suffering from in recent weeks, and the even greater dangers that still he ahead. That is why all Ministers are in constant contact with the leaders of our trade union movement, not just on pay disputes but on all the issues which are of common concern.

  765
  We know that pay is not the only cause of inflation, but it is an important cause. We have no objection to big pay increases if they are fully earned by increases in productivity. We are trying to increase productivity throughout industry. We have been discussing it with the trade unions and the leaders of industry for three years in the industrial strategy and we want to continue discussing how we can help. But I am bound to tell the House that there have been too many cases recently where settlements have been reached way beyond the Government's guidelines and those concerned have not accepted any undertaking to increase productivity in order to pay for them.
  I do not believe that we can go on in that way. I believe that the Government are right to seek to reach a voluntary agreement with the trade union movement, because nobody has succeeded in persuading me that there is any other way of finding a solution to these problems. We must find a solution to the question of the way in which the trade union movement uses its powers in industrial disputes. We must seek to avoid some of the abuses by small minorities in disputes, abuses which the general secretary of the TUC rightly criticised the other day.
  We have, I believe, already made some progress in this connection in the code of practice, though there are many areas where we have not made progress. However, nobody can deny—least of all those who were telling us that there would be malnutrition throughout the country, that there would be starvation and that we would have 2 million unemployed—that the code of practice now being brought into operation by the Transport and General Workers' Union has reduced, though it has not yet eliminated, some of the abuses that I was discussing.
  We must also develop the commitment that we have already made, with the TUC, to reach an annual agreement on the desirable course of pay and prices in the coming year. I know that the Opposition Front Bench and the CBI also agree with this objective. We must see whether we can extend this type of agreement over a longer period with the target of getting inflation down to an acceptable level, which would certainly be a much lower level than that at which it stands today.
  766
  Most important of all, I believe that we must persuade the trade union movement to pause and reflect before moving further towards the precipice over which we so nearly stumbled only four years ago. We must find some way of reducing the current expectations of grossly excessive pay increases—expectations fed not only by some breaches already made but also by the rhetoric of some hon. Members and many people outside who have promised an earthly paradise out of free collective bargaining and have pursued the case against any sort of responsible pay policy.
  I know that it will not be easy. It was not easy in 1975 or 1976. But we did it then by reasoning together. We saved our nation from catastrophe, and we can and must do it again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I must draw attention to what I think the House already realises, that the debate on the first Order of the Day—Supply—did not begin until 5.59 p.m. I make a special plea, there fore, on this occasion to hon. Members to speak for 10 minutes only, in their own interests and in the interests of the Chair, which has to maintain some balance. If this were done we could manage perhaps nine Members before the time for the winding-up speeches.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I do not make a habit of speaking in economic debates. I speak today solely because I think that this debate is as much about national strategy as it is about economic policy.
  I entered the House in May 1964. Since then our country's performance has been one of steady deterioration, broken only by brief periods of raised hopes which only too soon have been dashed to the ground once again. In comparison with other countries, our performance has been at best inadequate and often abysmal. Apparently it is our turn in history to be the sick man of Europe.
  Therefore, it is not the least surprising that the British people are in a mood of disillusionment and frustration, probably such as never before. There is little or no confidence in the future, and less in the ability of national institutions to overcome our malaise. Dissatisfaction is immense and manifest in many ways,

  767
  but clearly above all at present in the current wave of industrial unrest.
  Of course, it is easy for me to say that the trouble stems simply from the fact that we have had a Labour Government for 11 of the past 14 years. I believe that to be a major part of the trouble, but it is by no means all of it. What is to be done? There was a report in one newspaper yesterday on the Government's annual report for 1979: 4 per cent. real economic growth, unemployment rate to decline to just under 4 per cent., an inflation rate of 3 per cent. The Economics Minister told a press conference that he expected no miracle. The country was West Germany. That type of performance may be no miracle to Germany, but for us it would be Heaven on earth. Yet that kind of performance is what is required if we are to restore our pride and self-respect and regain confidence in our future.
  What is to be done? As a country we certainly must do better. I want to emphasise three requirements that I believe to be paramount among many.
  The first requirement is the obvious one of economic expansion. I do not think that anyone will disagree that if we are to have it we must have more incentive and less direct taxation and more encouragement to investment, and that also requires more confidence. To say that is, for all Conservative Members, to state the obvious. Would that that were so for all Labour Members. They will have to learn, as never before, that it is not so much that you cannot have your cake and eat it but that you cannot have your cake unless you actually make it.
  The second requirement is more controversial. It is a policy for incomes. I wish that it were not necessary, but I believe it to be unavoidable, for two reasons. First, I think that it can play a major part in the restraint on expenditure to which the motion refers. Cash limits and monetary policy alone are not enough. Few people who want more pay know or care about the existence of the former and fewer still comprehend the latter.
  Secondly, in my view Governments are elected not least to reconcile what at first sight seem to be irreconcilable interests, to act as a referee. Given that, as the Chancellor pointed out, wage increase
  768
  expectations are invariably in excess of what can be afforded. If someone is not to get hurt or if many are not to lose their jobs, the Government must try to ensure fair play for those with no bargaining power. If incentive is to be maintained, those people are not exclusively the lower paid, although the claims of the lower paid are undoubtedly most justified.
  The third requirement is the most fundamental, perhaps the most controversial, and certainly in my view the most necessary if we want permanent and not merely temporary solutions. It is a degree of reform of our political system.
  I am convinced that the problems of our country are not capable solely of economic solutions. They need a political solution, but I doubt whether our system or this House in the form in which they exist today can consistently and continually provide it.
  We are very properly loth to make constitutional changes or to discard the form and characteristics of this House, as we know them so well. But for too long our system has failed to provide a basis for adequate and acceptable government. It is no use pretending otherwise, so change we must have. Without change in this House, I have no hope of a restoration of the authority of Parliament, to which the motion refers, or of consistent and continuing political and economic solutions to our country's problems.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: I have risen to address the House on a number of occasions in the past 12 or 13 years when only a handful of us have been present, but I think that to be the solitary representative of the Government Back Benchers is unique. I can only assume that the class struggle must be going on elsewhere, perhaps upstairs. I shall do my best to support the Government.
  One of the interesting things that has been referred to already is that the period through which we are living comes at the end of what was without any doubt the fastest period of growth in real disposable income this country and its people have known since the end of the war. It was nearly approached in that period of "We've never had it so good" around 1959. but the 8½ per cent. increase in real disposable income is something that

  769
  we certainly have not experienced in a long time. It is rather paradoxical that we now have more turmoil, "aggro", call it what one will, than ever before and that people are questioning whether the country is really governable.
  Certain disparaging references are made to North Sea oil. There is no doubt that, whatever grand designs we have had, or that certain members of my party have had, for using North Sea oil for the regeneration of British industry, a good deal of it is going on the import of candy floss, although a good deal is also going on the import of machines. All that is for real—an increase in our living standards.
  I am not a supporter of incomes policy. I am also not a sponsored Member. I have no obligation to any organisation to put up my hand this way or that.
  As Samuel Brittan pointed out in an interesting article this morning in the Financial Times, we face a profound imbalance in our society. One aspect of that imbalance has been shouted about at great length in the House this afternoon. I refer to the alleged relative growth in trade union power. I do not want to discuss that. I merely make the comment, by the way, that I have never tried to explain any phenomenon by means of reference to something that I regard as a relative constant. If one is trying to explain why an upheaval has taken place, one must look at the things that have changed, not at those that have relatively speaking remained the same.
  Therefore, we come to the second imbalance to which Samuel Brittan referred, the imbalance that has taken place in the whole area of rewards to different kinds of workers. That was graphically illustrated in The Guardian yesterday, where we saw what had happened to different kinds of workers during the period for which the present Government have been in office, from 1974 to 1978. Workers' incomes were expressed over that period in terms of a percentage of the average income enjoyed. There was an interesting little diagram, which taught me something. It showed why so many workers are worrying about the absolute size of their incomes but are also now worrying perhaps even more about the relative size of their incomes compared with those of other people.
  770
  Samuel Brittan illustrated that in more general terms when he stated that earnings increased on average by 14 per cent. at the last pay round, that percentage embracing an increase of about 11 per cent. to 12 per cent. in the public sector and 15 per cent. to 17 per cent. in the private sector. Much of the stress and tension that now exists in our society is a consequence of that imbalance.
  My second argument stems from what I have already said. Surely there must be an ignorance of the facts and realities in the body politic, among workers both by hand and by brain. If we accept wage increases of 5 per cent.—that is five times as much as Swiss workers are to accept—in the next pay round, we can look forward, given all the weaknesses of the real economy, to a future that has some hope. If we insist on 15 per cent., I am afraid that on the basis of simple arithmetic we shall be faced with many problems. I believe the theory that some spectators at a football match are determined to jump on to the backs of those in front of them to get a better view. I accept that if that practice continues and develops among the football crowd there will be chaos and no one will obtain any advantage.
  Our position this year is aggravated because we have no bonanza from a strong pound, low commodity prices and low rates of interest. We have no help from that quarter. The relationship of prices and wages is stark and simple. The Government let slip through a disgusting wage settlement with the BBC on the ground of comparability. The Government should help the BBC to get out of the red by buying time with a vast education programme to ram home some of the stark truths about the present economic situation. We must overcome the present economic difficulties. Others may inherit the mantle of office. Whoever they may be, certain facts must be underlined.
  What should the Government do about the Budget? If the worst comes to the worst and 15 per cent. wage increases become the norm. I do not think that that will lead to massive inflation. However, it will pose some serious problems.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer should act on a number of fronts. I am worried about the rate of interest. There is much talk about an increase in the

  771
  minimum lending rate. It is clear from the back pages of the Financial Times that yields are already over 14 per cent. in one or two areas. That is preposterous. I was a critic of the Chancellor when MLR increased to 12½ per cent. I spoke to as many in the City as I could and they were staggered by the Chancellor's action. There is no case for increasing MLR now. I am glad that nothing happened today in that direction.
  Mr. John Pardoe: It will.
  Mr. Cant: I know that it will. However, I am full of hope. I make these statements and occasionally somebody listens. That has happened about twice in 13 years.
  Since 1968 I have always been an arch advocate of money supply and the need to get it under control. I am not in favour of cuts in public expenditure. I know that the cutting of public expenditure is the new orthodoxy. If incomes go way beyond what is acceptable, we should claw back the extra income by increasing income tax.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Like Roy Jenkins did, only to throw it away.
  Mr. Cant: That is better than putting men out of work by reducing public expenditure.
  Thirdly, my right hon. Friend should reimpose hire purchase controls. Hire purchase is getting out of hand. In the 12 months to the end of November 1978, hire purchase finance increased by 30 per cent. That may not have a bearing on money supply today or tomorrow, but it will have a long-term consequence.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: It is a pleasure to be called after the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). I do not share the hon. Gentleman's hopefulness about interest rates or the effect of the general realisation of the public of the link between wages and inflation on the latest wage round. Is it right to assume that the public have never been more cognisant of the direct link between excessive wage increases and high price rises? We are in an astonishing position that I suspect
  772
  few hon. Members expected to arise, especially at the end of a period of an unprecedented increase in living standards and take-home pay.
  We witness the second Government in succession who now bid fair to end their days in somewhat ignominious industrious chaos. Why is that? That is a fundamental question. Many of us will have different answers to offer.
  One of the conclusions drawn by many following the events of 1974—it was drawn publicly by some Labour Party Members—was that the United Kingdom was ungovernable by Conservative Governments because they could never learn to live with the trade unions. They argued "We need a Socialist Government because of the special relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions."
  I never accepted that argument. I considered that we could not remain democrats and believe in one-party government. I believed that it must be possible for the trade union movement to learn to live with parties of complexions other than its own. I could forgive Conservatives for being slightly pleased, perhaps against their better nature, at the turn of events that has disproved the whole idea that Labour can govern Britain. It may be that their pleasure comes sadly. It may be that they are slightly pleased that the Labour Government have failed to govern Britain because of their special relationship. I do not think that this is anything to be pleased about on either side of the House. Just because the country has now proved to be ungovernable by Labour, that does not make it governable by the Conservatives or, indeed, any other Government. It may be that the country is ungovernable by any Government.
  I do not accept that argument, but Labour Members must realise that this is what our friends and enemies abroad are saying about us. Anyone who picks up a foreign language newspaper today, or even a North American one, will find comments of that sort right across the front pages, not just on the pages inside.
  That was the feeling that got around the world in 1974, as those of us travelling around the world then discovered to our horror. That feeling is once more widespread. However, I do not think that

  773
  that is the right conclusion. My conclusion comes very near to that of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). It is not that this country is ungovernable but that it is ungovernable by the present method of politics and the system of government which we have. We therefore need a fundamental political change.
  Another conclusion which emerged from the 1974 situation was put forward by some optimists who said—and it follows what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said just now—that Britain had looked into the abyss of mass inflation; it had looked into the total horrors of wage push and 25 per cent. inflation but had turned back from the brink so that things would not be like that any more. We are now seeing this astonishing rush for wage inflation all over again, and I think that it shows that the lessons of 1974 have not been learned, and cannot be learned, as long as we have the present system of governing the country.
  Mr. Swain: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pardoe: No, because I would rather make my speech. Mr. Deputy Speaker has said that he wants to get in as many speeches as possible, and I want to keep within the limits.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of political reform and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The Conservative motion talks about restoring the authority of Parliament, but before we can restore the authority of Parliament in the country we have to make Parliament worthy of that authority. The fact is that this old-hat 19th century debating chamber—the Leader of the House like it that way but he is rather an old-hat 19th century figure—is not an efficient method of bringing together the various forces in our society and of harnessing them into any kind of collective social action. It certainly is not an effective way of controlling and making efficient public expenditure, as we know constantly from the right hon. Gentleman who is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It is not even a good way of improving legislation, as any of us who take part in Standing Committees know to our cost.
  What is economically necessary has become politically impossible in Britain.
  774
  We can pass legislation, but it will have absolutely no effect in the country. The Conservative Party learned that the last time, and it may have to learn it all over again.
  The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Conservative Party has been led by this conclusion to make a quite astonishing offer. In her television broadcast last week she talked about making common cause with the Government on a limited programme. That offer comes from the leader of a party that has spent the last 18 months castigating the Liberals for having made common cause in a limited pact with the Labour Government. She is now offering precisely the same sort of thing, not joining the Government but making common cause with them on a limited programme. I am naturally very pleased that she should have moved towards the realisation that single-party Government has very limited effects. The question is, what measures would any Government pursue, even if they could find common cause among the parties? My view is that the measures which have been put forward by the right hon. Lady do not begin to deal with the immensity of the problem.
  I am glad that the right hon. Lady has discovered the fact of trade union monopoly power, a fact which has figured largely in the Liberal Party's analysis of Britain's problems and in its efforts to devise various policies for controlling inflation, with particular reference to a prices and incomes policy. But trade union monopoly power is not new. It did not happen because of the measures that have been enacted in the past few years. It was, I think, the Macmillan Government that set up the three wise men as a response to trade union monopoly power. Since that time Governments have been trying to grapple with the problem represented by trade union monopoly power and the effect that it has on wage inflation.
  We had various answers such as "In Place of Strife" and the Conservative Industrial Relations Act. Both proved to be an impossible dream. Now the right hon. Lady proposes postal ballots, public sector agreements, the withholding of social security payments from the families of strikers, and the abolition of the closed shop. I am entirely with the Conservatives on the question of the closed shop, but

  775
  they will find on the question of social security payments exactly the same arguments as faced the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for Social Services in the last Conservative Government. The question of these payments is not new. The question of social security payments for strikers' families has been examined by several Governments, and it was certainly looked at in the early 1970s. The conclusion then was that it was not possible to withhold them.
  Though postal ballots have some beneficial effects, they also have some disadvantages. One can see that the question of the postal ballot has not stopped the miners from using their power. As for public sector agreements, I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is really proposing to legislate. I cannot make out from the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) this afternoon whether the Conservatives are now committed to legislation to ban strikes in certain public sectors. I would point out to the right hon. Lady that at the time of the electricity supply industry dispute in 1970 I said to the then Secretary of State:
  "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are circumstances under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 and the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919 in which the present action of electricity workers could be construed as being in breach of the criminal law?"
  I suggested that he might use the law which had not been repealed by the Industrial Relations Act. He replied:
  "We on this side of the House do not believe in the detailed application of the criminal law to industrial relations. We do not believe that our problems of industrial relations in Britain will be solved by the application of criminal law."—[Official Report, 11 December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 821.]
  Why has that changed, if it has changed? I ask the Conservatives to consider that these various measures, attractive or unattractive as they may be, simply do not measure up to the size of the problem. On the problem of trade union monopoly power, I wholeheartedly endorse the various pronouncements of our ambassador in Washington over the past few years. I believe that the "Jay formula", which is a natural extension of Liberal industrial democracy, would face up to the problem of monopoly trade union power by creating competing worker co-operatives. I think that is the
  776
  long-term answer. I do not believe that the solutions proposed in the motion are the answer. We must think far more in terms of controlling and making public expenditure efficient than restraining it.
  There are people who think that amendment 13 in California is a great solution to the problem, but of course what the Californians are discovering—as are other states which have followed them—is that, if one cuts back on public expenditure, one cuts back on services but not so much on public servants. The bureaucracy will always protect itself. There will always be more and more bureaucrats. All that one provides is fewer services. That is exactly what voters are finding in California and that is what we shall find here if we try to deal with our problems in the way that the Conservative Party is suggesting.
  Nor does the Conservative motion deal with the immediate problem, which is runaway inflation. We can talk about amendments to the law of industrial relations, and I see that Sam Brittan is talking today about setting up a Royal Commission. We have had one. We had the Donovan Commission. The Donovan Commission in the last few weeks has been quoted with approval on both sides of the House. It is a great pity that neither Government eventually decided to adopt the recommendations of the Commission. We would all be better off if they had done so. Having set up a Royal Commission, they might at least have accepted its proposals instead of casting them into the waste paper basket of history. That is what both Governments did. They legislated on their own pet schemes and had to withdraw them as a result.
  If we are to avoid runaway inflation, we need a long-term incomes policy for as long as it takes us to overcome the power of trade union monopoly. The Jay formula will take time to set up, as will the sort of legislation that the Conservatives are suggesting. But this must be an enforceable incomes policy, and the best way to enforce it is through the tax system.
  This afternoon, the Chancellor made the most forthcoming response to the Liberals' position on the selective taxation of excessive wage claims that I have ever heard him make. The only trouble is that, after a whole number of tutorials

  777
  on the subject, we do not seem to have got the message through to him. We are not suggesting that people should have selective income taxes made according to whether they get a high or low increase. Of course, the PAYE system will not allow us to adjust people's income tax according to whether they have a high or low wage claim. But the national insurance contribution is fully computerised. It is a straight percentage, and it is a simple administrative thing to do. It is the national insurance contribution that we are suggesting should be surcharged. In that respect, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central got it absolutely right.
  It will be even simpler if, instead of imposing a levy on those who exceed whatever guidelines are decided, we do what President Carter has suggested and offer a reduction in tax to those who abide by the guidelines, particularly if the reduction is self-administered and the individuals have to claim back the rebate. We could combine both, but in the latter respect it would be very easy administratively.
  From time to time Ministers accuse the Liberals and the Conservatives of joining together to side with free collective bargaining. That is now a new accusation against us—we are all free collective bargainers now. Yet that comes from a party whose national executive is totally committed to free collective bargaining, whatever the Government Front Bench may think. Most Labour Members below the Gangway are free collective bargainers. Indeed, the Leader of the House was a free collective bargainer during the last election and for the first year or so afterwards. He knows perfectly well that ever since 1967 the Liberal Party has said that a statutory and enforceable prices and incomes policy is the price that we must pay for full employment and stable prices. That remains our position. The only question between us is what constitutes effective sanctions.
  The sanctions which the Government were using were totally ineffective. They did not deter the Ford management or unions. They did not deter the transport employers from offering 15 per cent., which is a ruinously inflationary offer anyway, at a time when they felt that these sanctions would be used against
  778
  them. They were ineffective sanctions and were imposed on the wrong people. We cannot stiffen the sinews of the employer to withstand trade union monopoly power. We can do it only by taxing those who actually get the increases. That means increasing the surcharge on the employee as well as the employer.
  In the meantime, we are now faced with a riotous scene of wage-push inflation which will take us to 12 per cent. price inflation by the end of the year, rising to 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. in 1980. Although I believe that we need an incomes policy, I say now that, unless we have a wage freeze immediately, inflation will take off and we shall be back to 15 per cent. inflation in the first quarter of 1980.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Mellish: During the Christmas period, by way of using up my leisure time, I read a book by a Mr. Wilson—not Harold—which described the downfall of the Liberal Party. It was a book based on the historical past of that very great party at the turn of the century. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), I must say that at the present time I see no future for that party.
  The hon. Gentleman's speech was illogical and rubbishy. In so many respects it defeated itself. I suppose that the greatest failure that this country has, and the greatest difficulty we face, is that we live in a democracy. The democracy in which we live is the hardest and most difficult system of government to operate. It gives men and women the right to do a number of things. Every man and woman in this country has the right to withdraw his or her labour. Any man who attempts to institute legislation to stop that is on the downward path of Fascism, or Communism in particular. There are no strikes in Russia, not because they are all very happy boys and girls there but because they are not allowed to go on strike. That is the law of the land.
  I say to the House seriously that as a system democracy is hard to work. I speak with some qualifications. I did not join the trade union movement in order to become a Member of Parliament or a union official, because I was only 15 when I joined. By the way, this year I

  779
  qualify for my union's golden medal if I choose to apply. I have respect and affection not only for this country's past and present but also for its future. The question now is to get common sense into this great trade union movement so that it will operate under the difficulties that we are now facing.
  I was taught by one of the great trade union leaders—Ernest Bevin. As a trade unionist I always understood that one did not go on strike until one had to. That was the last thing that one did. Any fool can withdraw his labour. The great heartache is getting men back to work with a settlement that is honourable to those who come out on strike. The other thing which Ernest Bevin taught was that before one went on strike one tried to earn some public sympathy in order to get the public to understand what one's case is all about. If one's case is strong, then, if and when one is compelled to go on strike, one at least carries a large measure of sympathy when the strike takes place. I only wish that was remembered by trade unionists today. It is a story that I have never forgotten.
  So far as I can see, the Conservative Party approach is to criticise these strikes. What would the poor Tories do if they did not have these strikes to criticise? They certainly have not put forward measures that would deal with them. All they have done is to criticise them in a completely and utterly irrelevant way. I find that extremely sad.
  Both the Conservative Party and the media have picked on the case of one trade unionist who said that a three-year-old child should be allowed to die. They have picked out the case of one hospital worker who made certain remarks. But they have not taken note of the demands of the whole mass of people involved in the present strikes. That is an absolute disgrace.
  We have heard about one member of the medical profession who has said that he would not treat a man because he was a member of a trade union. That is also a disgrace. I know many consultants who are good and honourable men, whose only concern is to treat people because they are sick and not because they belong to a trade union.
  The vast majority of trade unionists are unhappy with the situation with
  780
  which we are at present faced, and no organisation in this country has played a greater part in trying to get stability in this country than the trade union movement. It has shown a patriotism that I did not believe was likely. It has agreed to stages 1, 2 and 3 and totally co-operated with the Government. It has accepted many restrictions.
  In return, this Government have been more tolerant, fair and honourable to the trade union movement than ever before. They have taken away every possible restriction objected to by the trade union movement. In the last three years the Government have received in return the greatest co-operation possible.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) would have us believe that what is happening today has never happened before. I do not know where he has been living for the past 40 years. In dockland we have had as many strikes as we have had Sunday dinners. Pickets have always existed. A man has a right to be a picket and to stand outside a factory and stop people entering. The trade union movement was built on that principle.
  There are abuses of the rights of the trade union movement. I am hearing words that I have never heard before, such as "secondary pickets". Moss Evans made the road transport strike official because it was the only way in which his union could gain control. The abuse that the Tories have thrown at the trade union movement over the last few months is scandalous. The Liberal Party has not done much better. The trade union movement makes strikes official in order to control them. It could be argued that its control is insufficient. But one cannot talk of lack of official control by the trade union movement and then criticise a monopoly by the trade union movement.
  We should be talking of responsible trade unionism. The vast majority in the movement are responsible trade unionists. If today I were a worker involved in an official dispute, I would not be at work. By my very nature, I could not be a blackleg, but I would be doing a darned sight more than is being done now at the local level to examine the decisions that are being made. This is the root of the matter. Individual trade unionists should take action.

  781
  We have heard the economic arguments today. The Tories support free collective bargaining. But we have had collective bargaining ever since I was born. The unions with the greatest muscle get the greatest wages. That is a fact of life. That is why there are lower-paid workers. That is why those who do not have the muscle do not get the wage. It cannot be denied that the trade union movement is an established way of life in this country. Nobody will destroy this position, unless one turns to Communism or Fascism. That being so, how do we get these people together?
  The first move has been made and it must be strengthened. The Prime Minister has talked about a new concordat with the unions. We must establish an understanding of what the nation can afford to pay long before disputes occur. The Government have had to be more flexible in the last few weeks. The 5 per cent., as even a starting point, was never on. It could never have been applied after the unions' patriotism over the years.
  Anomalies have inevitably been created. I come from a part of the country where low wages are prevalent. For example, in hospitals there are male nurses earning only £40 to £45 a week. No one in the House can justify that. We must say to the trade union movement that the time is long overdue for those at the lower end of the wages scale to receive special priority, not from the Government but from the union movement. There must be a change of heart in the trade union movement.
  The Tory Party may come to power tomorrow. The aftermath of the disputes may rub off on the Labour Party. But the Tory Party does not solve the problems on the day that it comes to power. I do not believe that the Tories have a prescription to change the heart of man and to get everyone back to work. If I were a member of the Opposition, I, too, would have some lively criticism. The Conservatives are exploiting the present situation to ensure that this Government's nose is rubbed in the dirt. They seek power at the end of the day.
  The fact remains that this Britain is a democracy. Britain has a trade union movement which has struggled over the
  782
  years to get where it is today. It will not be overthrown. However, we must get the finest elements in our trade union movement to understand the argument that although some of them, because of their muscle and their strength, get much higher wages than the country can afford to pay, in the end it is the nation as a whole—including those unions—that has to pay the price.
  I appeal to the railwaymen. I am not a railwayman, and I know nothing of their arguments. However, we know that this row has been pending for a long time. I do not know why the problem has not been solved before now. We already know that ASLEF has the power and strength to inflict hardship and agony upon millions of people. I appeal to that union not to prove it again, and to get off our backs. ASLEF has done it once, it has shown us how strong it is, and we know what agony it can cause. Therefore, it should stop now.
  More than £5 million a day is being lost to the railways. I do not understand that sort of economics. If ASLEF, the NUR and the British Railways Board—they are all in this together—want a future and want an industry that will pay the sort of wages the men have a right to demand, they must get off our backs.
  Trade unionists should realise what they face if they insist on throwing out this Government. The Government have tried desperately hard to co-operate with the trade union movement. They have given this nation a stability which it has not had for a long time. They have reduced inflation to 8 per cent. If trade unionists throw out this Government they will have to live with a Government in power which, since the unions were born, have been their enemies. The Conservatives loathe and detest the trade unions. If they come to power they will do everything they can to destroy everything that has been built up. Their policy will be to use blacklegs and to devise ways and means of bringing the police into industrial disputes in every possible way. I know their style. They will do it in the name of patriotism and claim that they are benefiting the old, the sick and the young.
  In fact, the truth of our history is that the trade union movement has, through its efforts from 1900 onwards, improved the position of the old, the young and the

  783
  sick. The trade union movement saw that the Labour Party was born. I do not deny that. I do not deny where I came from and I do not deny where I must return. I plead with the trade union movement not to destroy what has been created.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Some years ago a man called Alan Paton wrote a book called "Cry, the Beloved Country". He was writing about South Africa, but that title might be applied to our country today.
  I hold none of the views that have been attributed to Conservatives by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I regard trade unionists as fellow citizens, and I have just as much wish as he has to see our country established as one nation. I want to see us all working together—the trade unions and the employers serving the public interest. I regret that in an otherwise sincere and eloquent speech, as we have come to expect from the right hon. Member, he spoiled it by descending into class warfare.
  A lot of things are happening in our country that are shocking. I shall give three examples. First, in my constituency cruelty is being visited upon the sick and elderly, not by the majority of NUPE trade unionists but by a few of them. Secondly, bullying is rife among ordinary men and women who want to go to work, do their jobs and earn their wages but who are frightened to do so because they dare not risk losing their union cards and therefore their right to work.
  Thirdly, there is blackmail on a very wide scale. I want to tell just one story of a director of a middle-sized firm which, over the last 20 years, has collected 20 tons of sugar every week from a British Sugar Corporation store. His lorry was not loaded last Friday despite Government statements about the free movement of food. The man telephoned the union and asked if he might go along to plead his case. When he arrived in Ipswich, he found himself on the stairs with about 20 other business men waiting to plead their case to obtain sugar for their factories and to keep their employees in work. After waiting for about an hour, he was admitted to a room in which 13 members
  784
  of the Transport and General Workers' Union sat as a court. He was expected to—and did—plead with them for the sugar to keep his plant operating. He is not a man of politics. He is a straightforward man of business. He told me "I went there prepared to grovel. I got on my belly like a worm." But his plea was refused and he was sent out with no sugar for his factory.
  In the event, one of the more sensible shop stewards took him by the arm, and he returned to the room. There was a further debate. He was finally given a chit across which was written "20 tons". He took the chit to the sugar plant and was at last able to move the sugar. That kind of humiliation is not the England I know. It is far more reminiscent of Russia.
  We are in a crisis. It is a crisis with four separate aspects. There is the physical threat to our food, our fuel, our jobs and, soon, our trade. There is the threat from certain militants within the trade union movement to the freedom of the individual and to the rule of law. I do not believe that is the wish of the overwhelming majority of members of the TGWU. But there has been infiltration—Ministers will soon have the evidence—of some picket lines by political elements financed from elsewhere.
  Thirdly, there is a credibility gap. Minissters say one thing in the House and the public know perfectly well that the reality is very different. For example, it is no good the Prime Minister giving us homilies about crossing picket lines when the reality is that ordinary men and women are frightened to do so for fear of losing their jobs. It is no good the Prime Minister, as he did today, calling on the police to do their job—the police, incidentally, who so often have been attacked and denounced by Labour MPs—when they cannot get evidence because people are too frightened to give it for fear of intimidation.
  The worst problem is political paralysis. The Prime Minister is unable to call in the soldiers to move the necessities of life because he knows that his party would not back him. His 5 per cent. policy is dead, but he cannot go for a statutory one because he knows that his party would split. So our country faces a crisis. We need a new initiative.

  785
  That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on having the courage and the generosity to offer the Prime Minister the assistance of the Conservative Party in putting through measures that the vast majority of our countrymen know the nation needs and want to see enacted but which the Labour Government have rejected because they know that they would split their party wide open.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is the one national leader in the past week who has shown a national initiative and has sought to bring the parties together. She was right to do this. I hope that the Prime Minister will think again about her offer, because there will be no end to this crisis unless her approach is accepted by all concerned.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: At first I thought that the debate would be a re-run of the others that we have had and that that would be no great advantage, but the speech by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) was like a breath of cold air. He took a commonsense approach, but towards the end of his speech he tended to imagine that he was on a public platform. Perhaps that was in preparation for the coming election.
  We are being asked to make a choice between the Opposition's motion and the Prime Minister's amendment. There are flaws in each of them. There is a lot of codswallop in the Prime Minister's amendment. It talks of
  "the supreme interest of the community and the legitimate rights of all sections of it."
  That is empty phraseology which pads out the amendment and is an attempt to encourage hon. Members to vote for it.
  The motion has a fatal flaw. It assumes that there will be restrictions in public expenditure. Those of us who live in areas which are dependent on public services can see that there will be considerable unemployment as a result of such a policy.
  We are dealing with the worst series of strikes that we have had for five years. These must stem from a fundamental reason. Other countries do not experience the same pressure. There must be a reason why people in the United Kingdom
  786
  feel that they must withdraw their labour and become militant in order to improve their standards of living.
  If we were able to secure a general rise in the standard of living, year by year, out of increased productivity and increased competitiveness, there would be fewer industrial disputes. In those circumstances the workers in the various industries would know that as a result of their efforts they would receive an increase in their standards of living and that their families would be taken care of better.
  I was struck by a written reply yesterday about the United Kingdom's position amongst the top 25 economies. In one year the United Kingdom dropped from 17th or 18th to 20th. The United Kingdom is now behind East Germany and just ahead of Israel, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Spain and Poland.
  We must deal with our decline in living standards compared with other countries. Just 20 years ago the United Kingdom was fourth in that league. It is inevitable that disputes will take place under those circumstances. There is no easy way of stopping the crises. We can expect them to occur, although, perhaps, not every year. Disputes will grow and there will be an increase in bitterness because of the difficulty those who work in the public sector find in obtaining more money. I believe that criticism can be made of the way in which the Government have dealt with the crisis. Certainly, there has been a political paralysis, and it seems that the Government were taken aback by the way in which the disputes grew and their impact. They were unable to find a solution.
  I believe that if the Government had relaxed the 5 per cent. policy in September or October and set a limit of 8 per cent. or 10 per cent., many of the advances would have been held back. Last summer it was clear that there was no possibility of the Government securing an agreement with the trade union movement to limit wages to 5 per cent. I believe that that is where the Prime Minister made his political error.
  The Government cannot find any answer to the crisis except on a care and maintenance basis—that is, to secure the supply of food and to make sure that commodities such as pharmaceuticals reach the factories. In practice, that is the extent to which the Government can

  787
  move. They are clutching at solutions and do not seem to have reached any.
  Last year there was an increase in the standard of living of about 8½ per cent., but my impression is that that was not applied levelly over the whole working population. Certain classes of workers received 18 per cent. and 22 per cent. rises through various legitimate methods of negotiation. Others, for example, the jute workers, were limited to the bare minimum—and less—recommended by the Government at that time.
  I criticise the Government for the delay in producing statements about how the dispute affects Scotland, where the haulage strike began earlier. However, I am entering into matters which are not germane to this economic debate.
  The failure of the United Kingdom to provide an increase in the standard of living in line with expectation has resulted in these troubles. The problem is not new. I have already quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures which appeared in Hansard. One of my predecessors in Dundee, East was Lord Thomson of Monifieth. In a recent article he said that, during his period in public life, all forms of public expenditure had increased. He said:
  "When I went into Parliament in the early 50s our share of world trade and manufacturing was 19 per cent. as against West Germany's 15·5 per cent. The figures today show West Germany 20 per cent. and the United Kingdom 9 per cent."
  Further on, in relation to the comparabilities, he said:
  "By the time I left Westminster for Brussels in 1972, France had nosed 15 per cent. ahead of us but the G.N.P. for Germany had shot 50 per cent. in front. Today in G.N.P. per head terms France is now 50 per cent. ahead of us and Germany 100 per cent."
  He went on in that vein. In my opinion, Lord Thomson spelt out one of the main reasons for our present difficulties. We cannot look for an easy solution.
  Of course, the SNP looks at the problems from a Scottish point of view. Two days ago, it was announced that unemployment in Scotland had increased by 18,500. I am well aware that that is partly due to Christmas school leavers. This does not occur in English and Welsh schools. Nevertheless, on analysis, the increase seems to be exceptionally heavy.
  Professor Donald MacKay of Heriot Watt university gave some bleak information
  788
  in a recent review. He criticised the Government for using North Sea oil revenues to finance the consumer boom at the expense of industrial investment. He claimed that over the past two years Government spending on regional policy in Scotland appeared to have fallen by about 40 per cent. and said that between 1976–77 and 1977–78 expenditure on regional policy appeared to have fallen from £216 million to some £144 million. This represents a fall of one-third in money terms and of 40 per cent. in real terms, allowing for inflation. His view is that there will be a drop in investment and we shall all continue to get poorer in 1979 unless firm action is taken on the country's economy. That is a bleak view from one of Scotland's premier economists.
  Other reports have suggested that Scotland's economic growth has been lower than was thought and that it has increased by 1·6 per cent. while the United Kingdom growth has been 3·8 per cent. I could go into that in greater detail if time permitted, but I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to the Financial Times which contained that analysis.
  All this contrasts with what is happening in the Republic of Ireland. The House used to sneer at Ireland because it was a poor country with no industrial structure. It is now moving ahead in leaps and bounds. I accept that that is partly due to the agricultural boom that followed entry to the Common Market, but the Irish have a large number of people employed on the land who are expected to lose their jobs in line with the trend in most developed industrial countries. However, in 1978 the Republic approved the creation of 30,000 manufacturing jobs and managed to expand exports by 20 per cent.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Foreign investment.
  Mr. Wilson: Of course it is related to foreign investment, and much of the investment going into the Republic could have come to Scotland, the North of England, Wales or other parts of the United Kingdom. The economy of the Republic of Ireland seems to be better managed, but I wonder, too, whether the incentives attracting that foreign investment may be producing investment starvation in the United Kingdom.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): The SNP policy on land is that a majority of companies in Scotland will have to be resident and live in Scotland. That would not attract foreign investment. If the hon. Gentleman is now in favour of foreign investment, he will have to change his party's policy on land ownership.
  Mr. Wilson: Not at all. Apart from the fact that companies do not live anywhere, if we follow the Minister's argument to its conclusion, we must accept that the Labour Party's policy of land nationalisation would result on the extinction of foreign investment in Scotland. The Minister is not as unintelligent as his intervention may lead people to believe and he knows that most companies are looking for factories from the Scottish Development Agency and do not own land. Most incoming firms prefer to lease their premises. One of the key factors of Government policy in relation to the SDA was that such factories would be built to house incoming investment. The SDA is not doing enough in that area.
  We have sluggish growth in Scotland and do not seem to have any prospect of improvement. There has been a 40 per cent. fall in regional development aid. We want to see the revenue available to us from our own oil resources ploughed into our economy and, since the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury are failing to provide industrial and economic growth in Scotland—just as they have failed to provide that growth throughout the past 20 years—we want powers to be given to the Scottish Assembly so that we may produce in our own country the economic expansion which we so badly need.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) criticised the Prime Minister. He also criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for making a divisive speech. I find that rather rich, coming from the hon. Member, as he represents the ordinary police of this country and was guilty of one of the most offensive, vulgar and uncouth attacks imaginable on the Royal parks police. It has caused great anxiety in their union. It was a most uncalled for attack on those police officers.
  790
  It annoyed not only them but many ordinary policemen as well. When the hon. Member chastises other people in this House for being divisive, he should consider the mote in his own eye now and again.
  This should have been a very important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I regret to say—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Molloy: Following the example of the hon. Gentleman, I shall not give way. That is the only thing in which shall be careful to follow him.
  It should have been a very important debate, but, alas, it did not get off to a very good start, because of the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). One hopes that the Opposition spokesman will do better in reply. He will not have to try very hard. The whole theme of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was that if the damage to this nation means damage to the Labour Party, he welcomes it. He was loudly cheered for introducing that theme.
  How does this tie up with the submissions that we have heard earlier at Question Time in recent days from Conservative Members showing their concern—I am sure that it is quite genuine—about the ambulance men and the ambulance service in London, about the patients in our National Health Service hospitals, the difficulties of housewives, and so on? Are they to be seen as merely imitation flowers? On the one hand, we have Conservative Members expressing their grave concern about these issues. On the other hand, we have the right hon. and learned Gentleman—speaking, I presume, on behalf of the Conservative Party—making an appalling speech in which the major theme was almost to welcome the serious condition in Britain today because he thinks that somehow or other the Conservative Party will get considerable political gains from it.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could see, from what has happened in the past few weeks, that the Labour movement would be damaged, but never once during his remarks did he mention what happened in the few preceding years of the Labour Administration. In fairness to the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for

  791
  Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), I am bound to say that he referred to that period. For four or five years there was remarkable collaboration and co-operation between the trade union movement and the Labour Government. The real tragedy is that we were getting almost to the last lap, when we could have won the battle, or made a magnificent contribution to winning the battle against inflation, only to find ourselves in this difficult position.
  There is no doubt that the trade union movement has made a magnificent contribution. One might have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was guilty of so many sins when his party held office, would have had the humility to acknowledge the extent of that collaboration. Regrettably, he was concerned only with trying to make cheap political points. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will read his speech very carefully. If she does, it should cause her to dismiss him from any hopes of office if this country should suffer the really major tragedy of having a Tory Government at any time in the next 40 or 50 years.
  It is very difficult for a Labour Government to operate, bearing in mind the bias of the free press of Great Britain, which has such a strong leaning towards the Conservative Party. Indeed, I once heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons say that even the streams in Wales were running on the Conservatives' side. There is no doubt whatever that the newspapers in this country run on the right-hand side, with a heavy bias against the Labour Government. We are proud of our free press, but when people in other countries read our newspapers they find it remarkable that they all seem to be the voice of one party, the Tory Party. Of course they are, and this does not do us much good.
  When the hon. Member for Corn-wail, North spoke of the effect that this is having, and of the kind of thing that he hears from our friends and our enemies overseas, he was careful not to say whether he supported our friends or our enemies overseas.
  No one has mentioned the hard fact that when the Labour Government in 1964 took over they inherited a massive deficit from their Tory predecessors. Then, when we were defeated in 1970, our Tory
  792
  successors inherited a handsome balance of payments situation, with a massive profit. When we came back in 1974 the Tories had recklessly squandered that and left us with an enormous debt, which contributed to the runaway inflation, confetti money and ridiculous situations such as the three-day working week. Those were all the things that we inherited, and that must go on the record as well.
  In this situation, ordinary people want to know where the Tories stand and what they would do. I listened very carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, and I have not a clue as to what the Conservatives' policy would be, except perhaps on one thing, and that is prices. They might consider some holding down of wages, but they would be in favour of a price explosion, and when the ordinary housewife complained that she needed more money and her husband went to the trade union, and it was told there was noting doing, so that industrial action was taken, there would be the usual hypocritical reaction.
  On public expenditure, it seems to me that it is not that the Conservative Party has no policy but that it has 200-odd policies. The Front Bench has one policy—to cut public expenditure—but we all know that on various occasions at Question Time, when hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen opposite speak for their constituencies, they want better rates, better hospitals, better schools, better pay for firemen, better standards for the police, and so on—but only for their own constituencies, because otherwise, of course, it would mean a massive increase in public expenditure. So they have roughly 200 different policies and collectively they constitute mass hypocrisy.
  If, for example, the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East on pickets were to be carried out, imagine what would happen. I should like to remind the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier reminded the House that the Prime Minister had said that he had the same right to walk through any picket line as had any other citizen. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted what some picket had said would happen to the Prime Minister if he dared to do that, and all the Tories laughed. The party of law and order was thrilled to bits at the idea of the British Prime Minister getting the thick end and

  793
  the rough end of a bunch of pickets. That is another hallmark of their supreme deception.
  In their motion the Tories list the alleged failures of the Government, but there is not a word about what they would do. I have been listening to speeches about the failures of the Government and about the trade union movement—everybody except themselves. Not a word on alternative policies have they uttered. Never has so much funk been wrapped up in so much evasion.
  What I believe we must do is campaign for co-operation in our industrial and economic endeavours, not for the sake of the Tory Party, the Liberal Party, the Labour Party or anything else, but because co-operation by all sides of industry is absolutely vital if we are to win the war and avoid the real defeat of Great Britain, which is the threat of massive inflation. If we get that co-operation, it will be to the credit not so much of the political parties as of the country, and it will be a triumph for Great Britain.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Silvester: The great benefit of the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) is that it is convenient whatever the subject before the House, and those of us who have heard it before will be forgiven if we find it not very satisfactory to have a wide polemic of that kind when we are concerned about situations throughout the country to which that kind of polemic is particularly inappropriate.
  Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that this debate has gone a little wider than some of the matters before the House this week. It nevertheless remains true that in the country outside this House, however much we may change the nature of the subject in this Chamber, we are faced with a situation that is bearing down on people day after day with a gloom, despondency and despair which is growing.
  As hon. Members will know, I come from a constituency in the North-West. It is noteworthy that there have been several mentions from the Front Bench that the North-West is the part of the country worst hit by this series of strikes. It has been said by the president of the chamber
  794
  of commerce in Manchester—perhaps not too cynically—that if the South of England, particularly Whitehall, had been suffering in the same way as parts of the North-West have been, there might have been a greater concentration of effort.
  However that may be, the fact remains that we are faced there with a continuing series of dislocations which have nothing to do with a number of the alibis that are being put forward. It is true that there is a problem about low pay in the public service which has gained a great deal of attention from Labour Members below the Gangway. It is true that whenever we get a strike of any kind there is dislocation of one sort or another. In addition to that, we are facing a whole series of actions which are of a different kind and a different order from those that we have seen previously.
  When the statistics are published by the Department of Employment, I have no doubt that a nice little niche will be found and that we shall find that the numbers of people involved and the number of stoppages will not look particularly bad. However, one must add to those figures of people actually involved in the stoppages not only those who have been laid off but those whose work has been seriously impeded. One must consider the small companies that are stockpiling stuff that they cannot move, and the even worse-off companies that have got people doing jobs that they are not paid to do. They are simply having to fill in time because the employers do not want to lay them off.
  In the North-West the latest figure for lay-offs was 31,513, as at last night. It is expected to be 50,000 by the end of this week. They are not exaggerated figures. They are the current figures.
  In my constituency we have still got our schools closed. A primary school not far from my house has been closed since before Christmas. It may not sound very much, but if one happened to be a child aged five, so far, by the coming half-term of this term, if the school still has not reopened, one will have lost about one-tenth or one-twelfth of one's whole infant schooling. That is a very large part of a child's school life.
  I am still waiting for news—I do not know what the result was—of the meeting at the complex of Withington,

  795
  Wythenshawe and Christie hospitals, one of which is the leading cancer unit in the North-West and one of which is the leading heart unit in the North-West. A meeting has been taking place all day between COHSE and NUPE on the question whether they will continue the strike which has gone on since Monday. The surgeons involved there are already restricting admissions.
  With what is happening in the North-West and elsewhere in the country, we are faced with an endemic epidemic of strikes of various kinds—large and small. Sometimes they are quite small in number but very large in effect. What is particularly sinister is that they are designed particularly to be small in number and very large in effect.
  Many reasons will be advanced for that. I join those hon. Members who believe that the pent-up effects of prices and incomes policies, particularly in respect of differentials and in the public service, are a major cause of all this. But, in addition to that, we must take note of the different nature of the present circumstances. This debate, particularly the opening speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), has made clear that we are faced with a situation which has been made considerably different from the circumstances which hon. Members have discussed when talking about Donovan and about 1971 and when the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) was talking about the days of Ernest Bevin.
  We are in a different world, and that different world is involving new circumstances about which this House and the Government must decide what action to take.
  Many times in the debate mention has been made of a substantial movement of the safeguarding of the rights of people in this country from the normal law-enforcing bodies and places where they would expect authority to be found—the House of Commons, the police, the courts and elsewhere—to self-established courts which do not have the right to function. It is no use saying that these things have happened in the past. Of course they have. But they are now on a much bigger scale; they are run of the mill.
  There is no point in quoting examples from my constituency. We have had them
  796
  time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) started on Monday with a clear description. Such examples can be duplicated. They have been verified and are known to exist. We have met the people who have suffered humiliation in these circumstances.
  Within the whole industrial scene there is a growth of unreason and a contempt for the law and the standards that we have come to know. Of course, the Government cannot solve these questions overnight. The Conservative Party, just like the Labour Party, will have to work in co-operation with the unions. But, in addition, the Government must take steps and give leadership. It is all very well to be brave here. But it is difficult for a man to be brave when he is alone in a lorry, stopped by a picket line and threatened with being done over or threatened with having his union card taken away or whatever it may happen to be.
  The people who wish to take action, who wish to solve this crisis, are being asked always to act alone, in the dark, in odd places in all parts of the country, whereas the people confronting them are all together, carefully organised and orchestrated.
  The only place to which the people about whom I am talking can turn for a lead is here—the Government. It is up to the Government to ensure that the docks in Manchester and Liverpool are unblocked. They have the power and the resources to do it. It is no use saying that it is cosmetic to introduce emergency regulations. They are available and can be used in this situation. It is about time the Government got off their backsides and did something about it.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) began by saying that he did not wish to make any partisan political points. Yet he and his hon. Friends have been doing just that for the past two weeks with a series of hysterical statements, none of which in any way contributed to industrial peace, all of which exacerbated the situation.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that the

  797
  people of this country will not stand for it any more. Who are the people we are talking about? Are they teachers, hospital doctors, nurses, airline pilots, air traffic controllers, social workers, civil servants, local authority workers, miners, enginers, railwaymen or car industry workers? If so, all of them, and many more, have taken industrial action in the past few years.
  The people we are now talking about who are supposed to be at the end of their tether and losing patience with the current spate of industrial disputes pursued similar activities in furtherance of their industrial and economic interests in the past, whether they be hospital doctors or nurses, teachers or social workers, miners, dockers or local authority officials. Therefore, it ill becomes them now to complain about their colleagues in the low-paid sector of public industry who are pursuing their legitimate industrial and economic interests.
  It ill becomes the Conservative Party, which is officially in favour of something called free collective bargaining and which has in the last few years been giving great encouragement to the spread of this new, fashionable, unfettered, free collective bargaining, to complain when it does not like the results. Opposition Members are in favour of free collective bargaining at one moment, but they resort to their traditional refuge of hypocrisy when the results do not conform to their expectations.
  Low-paid workers in the public service who are now taking industrial action have legitimate and real grievances. They feel a deep and genuine sense of bitterness and resentment. Hon. Members would feel a similar bitterness if they were asked to take home a pay packet of £40 or less per week on which to bring up their families.
  Many of these workers have lobbied the House this week and they have shown their representatives in the House wage slips setting out such low wages. They know that their case will not be treated on its merits and that it will not be examined objectively or rationally. They know that their case will be taken seriously only if and when they use political muscle in order to make the Government listen to their grievances.
  798
  Unfortunately, that is the message that has gone out throughout the period of this Government on pay policy. People have come to believe that they will get what they deserve only if they have the political or industrial muscle to get it for themselves. It is no good relying on somebody to give them extra money, because their case is just and equitable.
  We see the present consequences of free collective bargaining. I find some of these consequences totally indefensible. I cannot excuse or defend the holding up of food supplies or essential medical goods. I find it totally reprehensible that a hospital should be picketed or that school-children should be prevented from entering school. That is no part of traditional trade unionism as I understood it. It cannot be condoned and should be thoroughly condemned.
  At the same time, it is fair to point out that many who are engaged in industrial action have legitimate and genuine grievances, not only because they have been ignored but because of the anomalies which have arisen following a rigid pay policy, with all its unfairnesses, imposed by the Government. It is always the same people who are discriminated against. The same sections of working people are always called upon to make sacrifices. However, it is the select few who can escape the rigidities of pay policy by phoney promotions, perks or by determining their own salaries, fees or commissions. It is an anomalous and unfair situation in which we have asked people in the past three years to make sacrifices, while others have been allowed to go their way at their will, willy-nilly.
  The present situation is also a consequence of the continuing affair in the corridors of power which many of our trade union leaders have conducted with Ministers in that period. Many people on the shop floor and in their places of work have lost confidence in their trade union leadership. They have seen that trade union leadership is an oligarchic, corporatist embrace with the Government. Decisions have been taken by the Government, CBI and TUC with little courtesy of any reference to Parliament—and still less by taking into account their members' interests. On many occasions the trade union leaders have been seen as the apologists for Government policy, the purveyors of Government propaganda,

  799
  rather than as articulating the grievances of those whom they represent.
  Ironically, we have had exactly the same call from the Opposition. They do not want trade union control in the context of the closed shop, they utter fine phrases about the freedom of the individual, yet when unofficial strikes occur the Tory leading spokesmen call for the trade unions to impose discipline on their members. Suddenly, the trade union has become a respectable adjunct to the policy of the Government or that of the Tory Party. The trade unions are expected to take on the role of industrial policemen—which should only be the function of a trade union in a country such as the Soviet Union. If such a role is adopted in this country, it will lead to a great deal of inter and intra-union disruption and discontent.
  The trade union leaders are elected and paid by members to represent their interests. However misguided they may seem to the rest of the country, that is the function of trade union leaders. That is why the trade unions were formed, it is why they exist, and it is why trade union leaders are elected. It is certainly what they are paid for. They are not paid to do the bidding of any Government, of whatever party, or the bidding of the CBI, the Tory Party or the media. Yet that is what many Opposition Members want them to do and, unfortunately, that is what too many of our trade union leaders have allowed themselves to be conned into doing in the last few years. The result is a loss of confidence in the trade union leadership on the part of the membership and the loss of proper and adequate communication between the top and the bottom of the trade union movement.
  It is not surprising, therefore, that the strike is official now only because of the unofficial movement from below. It is breaking through the three years of pay policy and pushing the trade union leadership in the direction in which the members want it to go, not in the direction in which many of those trade union leaders would probably—as they might privately admit—like to go. They like the warm, cosy embrace with Ministers in the corridors of power, in Whitehall. It is easier. It is much more comfortable and it gives them a great deal of importance and status.
  800
  We are now, in a very real sense, witnessing the real industrial democracy of the work place. For that reason, if for no other, the present crop of industrial disputes is a very welcome intervention. If we do not like—and I do not like—the selfish, grasping consequences that flow from, and are necessary to, collective bargaining, we must change it. The only way in which we can do that is by the introduction of a Socialist incomes policy which takes into account all forms of income, and all forms of wealth, where the nation's resources are distributed fairly and rationally according to an individual's worth to a community and not, as at present, on the basis of the Tory philosophy of the rewards going to the most powerful, most selfish and most grasping.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Moore: Because of the limited time, I shall not take up the points raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), except to say that although I was attracted by one or two of his gentle rebukes to the aberrant trade union leadership of the past two years—and I accept some of his points—he sadly lost the House at the end by his pursuance of his peculiar new dream called the Socialist incomes policy. I thought that he and many Labour Members had a sound point when they talked about the problem of the low-paid. We are, after all, in a country in which people earn too little, and we should reiterate this point frequently.
  I shall not spend time on our present difficulties, because I think that we have become obsessed with debates about picketing and picketing law. I shall try to understand why we are in the present situation. I believe that there are two fundamental reasons, related to the immediate past, which have produced the present wage explosion. One relates essentially to the failure, as opposed to the supposed success, of the past four or five years. The scecond—which is interrelated—concerns the contortions on incomes through pay policy. I shall not speak in the macro-economic terms that are usual in economic debates but shall try to relate the subject to the real life of my constituents.

  801
  I am proud to represent a constituency in which over 50 per cent. of my constituents are council house tenants. As a representative of an urban, industrial, marginal seat, I have some knowledge of the problems facing my constituents. I wish that some of them could have been here earlier to hear the statements about the apparent successes of the past four or five years, because my constituents do not happen to live in that successful world. I shall try to define for Labour Members the reality of those five years. I shall tell them about a typical average industrial manual worker with two children who lives on one of the large council estates in my constituency.
  Let us see what happens when that worker goes home. He says to his wife "Here is my pay packet for the week. I am an average industrial worker and I have been given an increase, after four and a half years of Socialism, of 96·7 per cent. I have £71·55p in my pocket." He gives the whole wage packet to her. As they sit down at the supper table, the wife says "That is a 96·7 per cent. increase, but look at the bread in front of you." These are the real things in the lives of the people in my constituency. She says "The bread has gone up by more than 100 per cent. If you think that that is enough, look at how the price of butter has increased."
  Mr Kilroy-Silk: That is because of the common agricultural policy.
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman should look at his own Minister's response on the CAP earlier this week, when he attributed 10 per cent. of the increase to the CAP, not the other 90 per cent.
  The price of the butter on the bread has increased by 172 per cent. It is a special night for that worker. In the world in which we now live we do not see meat very often, but this man has a little rump steak. At 188p a pound, that has gone up in price by 106 per cent. The price of his tea has gone up by 156 per cent., and before he puts more milk in his cup of tea his wife points out that their two children like to drink quite a lot of it. The price of the milk has gone up by 143 per cent. [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like the reality of five years of Socialism,
  802
  but these are the prices that my constituent is paying.
  My constituent is spending more on less food. He is a little disconcerted by his wife's drawing the realities of life to his attention, and he leaves the dinner table. He tries to put up his feet and watch television. [An HON. MEMBER: "People are eating better."] The hon. Gentleman should speak to my constituent. He is not eating better. He is spending more for less.
  Before my constituent turns on the television, he is told by his wife "Turn off one of the lights. You may have had a 96 per cent. increase, but I have just paid the electricity bill, and it has gone up by 177 per cent. in five years of Socialism". He has just paid his television licence, and that has increased by 108 per cent.
  By now my constituent is exhausted by the prospect of trying to live with any more Socialism. He lights his cigarette and turns to his pint of bitter. The cost of cigarettes has increased by 111 per cent. in the past five years and his pint of bitter now costs 107 per cent. more.
  A pay increase of 96·7 per cent. does not begin to look like proof of a successful five-year period to my typical, average industrial worker. His wife asks" What will you do about it? Why don't you write to your MP?" He goes to do so, but then realises that postage has increased by 157 per cent. He thinks to himself "The matter might be urgent, so why not telephone him?" But the telephone bill has gone up by 200 per cent. [Interruption.] It is hard for Labour Members to listen to reality.
  The average increases in the cost of the 12 items that I am talking about is 136 per cent. Therefore, that worker's 96·7 per cent. pay increase does not begin to look worth while.
  My constituent is often told by Labour Members "Forget the wage in your pocket and think of the social wage." He has a grandfather aged 68 who is trying to have a hip joint operation in one of the Croydon hospitals. I ask Labour Members to tell him about the four-year waiting list there. He has children at local schools. He is concerned about standards, but beyond standards he looks at the kind of figures on education capital expenditures produced the other

  803
  day after five years of Socialism in response to a question on 18 January by one of my hon. Friends. Capital expenditures have gone down by 38 per cent. on primary education and they are 42 per cent. down on further education. They are only 49 per cent. of what they were on universities, in real terms. That is the worker's social wage.
  The reality of the kind of Britain that we have produced after the past five years of Socialism is that we have seen a reversal, a stagnation. In a normal postindustrial society one begins to assume that the basic necessities of life start to take a smaller and smaller proportion of the net wage. Under Socialism, the proportion has increased. The average industrial worker and his family are spending more on food than five years ago. That family is now spending nearly 29 per cent. of its budget on food as against 27 per cent. five years ago. It is spending more on fuel. It is spending less on clothing, less on durable consumer goods and slightly less on services.
  Five years of Socialism has produced a society that has materially hurt working people. I know that the Lord President finds it hard to listen and has difficulty in accepting what I am saying, but the reality of price increases is for all to see. Five years of Socialism has hurt working people materially. It has brought to a standstill Britain's attempt to progress into the post-industrial world from the industrial world.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: We are probably all aware that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) has been supplied with a brief from Conservative Central Office—
  Mr. John Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for taking more of the time of the House. I neglected to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the figures that I quoted were produced by the Library.
  Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman made a first-class case in support of the lorry drivers' claim. I noted that he did not say that the Conservative Party has been opposed to price controls since the Government took office. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), a Conservative spokesman on prices and consumer affairs, has made it clear that the
  804
  Opposition are opposed to any form of price control. It comes ill from a party that is opposed to any degree of price control to use the House of Commons to talk about price increases. The common agricultural policy has had an adverse effect on food prices. The CAP and other influences have contributed towards increased costs. That has led to a cutback in the living standards of working people.
  It is obvious from the speeches of Opposition Members that they have had no regard to the real issues that have been debated in the House during the past 10 days or two weeks. If they believe that the lorry drivers' dispute came to the attention of the public only 10 or 12 days ago, they have failed to recognise the long negotiations that took place earlier. The road haulage workers were obliged to take action. Opposition Members have not attempted to highlight the claims of the road haulage workers and to give chapter and verse.
  There are two parties involved in the dispute. No comment has been made by the Opposition about the Road Haulage Association. Not one word has been said by them about the second party in the dispute that has had the backing of the CBI—the secondary picketing that has been taking place by employers against road haulage workers. The dispute has been used by the Tory party as a political weapon. The Tories are not looking for a settlement. They are seeking a confrontation with the trade union movement. The are seeking to defeat the trade union movement. During the past 12 days they have pursued a consistent policy of bashing the trade unions.
  The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that she wants not settlements of the road haulage dispute and the dispute of public sector workers but a confrontation with the trade union movement. The Tories think that they could win if a confrontation took place and that they could reduce the powers of the trade union movement. We have heard from Opposition Members about the monopoly power of the trade unions. They did not mention the power of monopoly capitalism.
  The performance of the United Kingdom has been compared with that of other countries. The Dunlop company recently decided to close a factory at Speke.

  805
  The Company has invested in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Poland. However, British workers are using machines that are 60 years old. That is the equipment being used by Dunlop employers at Speke who are engaged in the manufacture of motor cycle tyres. If one wanted replacements one would have to go to the British Museum to get them.
  That is the role that has been played by British capitalism in the recent past. Conservative Members talk about patriotism, but there is no patriotism on the Conservative Benches. They are the people who send their money to the Cayman Islands, to the Soviet Union, to Czechoslovakia and anywhere else in the world where it can accumulate—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman promised to finish by 9.20 p.m. I merely remind him, because I know that he is being carried away.
  Mr. Loyden: As I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion on which I have asked to speak for five minutes. I do not think it is fair. If anything, Members of the Conservative Front Bench have abused normal practice tonight by making speeches lasting 15 to 20 minutes. I appreciate the point that Mr. Speaker has made, and I shall be as brief as possible.
  No Conservative Member has made the point that the lack of investment in British industry is one of the principal causes of today's problems. The Tories are asking British workers to compete with investment in Europe when they know that monopoly capitalism can shift a factory to other parts of the world. Opposition Members all know of the power that exists, where monopoly capitalism can take a firm from the United Kingdom and transplant it to any part of the world.
  While that situation remains we can expect, and will get, a development of monopoly power within the trade unions, because that is the only way in which they can combat the power created by capitalism, which is supported by the Conservative Party. They can combat that power only by creating the same situation for themselves.
  The hypocrisy expressed by Conservative Members has shown the trade union movement quite clearly that a future Tory
  806
  Government are not interested in working with the trade union movement. It has shown that they are out to defeat the road haulage workers and the trade union movement. A future Tory Government will create greater confrontation in this country than has ever been experienced in the past.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. John Nott: Although the motion refers to a number of vitally important economic issues, I do not think that this is strictly an economic debate. May I say that we welcome a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), even in an economic debate, and I was glad that he opened this debate from the Back Benches on this side of the House.
  This country is not suffering from a financial crisis—yet. That was the message from the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the debate. However, we are suffering from a crisis of authority, and it is on this theme that I want to close the debate from this side of the House.
  The problems which now confront the Government as a result of the events of the past fortnight are, I believe, partly attributable to their economic policies. It is not just that the Government have created an irresistible force by their trade union and labour legislation. It is also because, as one newspaper stated last week, having created that irresistible force, they have sought to turn employers into an immovable object. The Government have sought to do that by their incomes, prices and sanctions policies. Because we have, one the one hand, a near-irresistible force and, on the other, an attempt to create an immovable object, an explosion had to occur. The reservoir was bound to burst.
  Perhaps the rigid 5 per cent. policy was chosen for electoral purposes. We do not know, but there has been no election and it has back-fired upon the Government. I think it would have been remarkable, if past experience is anything to go by, if the usual struggle for differentials and relativities had not generated the serious conflict from which this country is now suffering. The Conservatives were right to criticise the Government for the rigidity of their incomes policy. As for the phrase "a return to free collective bargaining", I see from

  807
  the tomes in front of me that that phrase is used much more frequently by the Leader of the House than it has ever been used by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It was used by him in successive debates not more than a year or two ago.
  The causes of our inflation are many and various. I do not atribute all of them to the Labour Government. I believe that they have had great difficulties with the quintupling of oil prices. But the fact is that they fought the last election by encouraging wage expectations. Then, when the situation exploded in their face, they entered into an arrangement with the TUC—in fact, they sub-contracted the running of this country's economy to the TUC—for two whole years. They have now sub-contracted the enforcement of law and order to the Transport and General Workers' Union.
  Of course, not all the problems that we face today are created by the Government. But, just as they have faced these problems, it is also worth reminding the House that they have also had unique advantages. Just as we have suffered from the greatest inflation in British history, so also have we experienced possibly the single sharpest addition to our national wealth that has ever occurred. I ask the House to remember what was being widely forecast and believed in 1974, namely, that whoever won the 1974 election would be likely to govern this country for at least 10 years because of North Sea oil. Many believed that at the time, and many hon. Members of both parties were saying it.
  The Chancellor today made one of the most useful speeches that I have ever heard him utter. Apart from the opening and closing, which were full of his hectoring and bombast, it was an excellent speech. Its central core was absolutely right. He clearly spelled out the position facing the country and where we stand today if the current crisis is not settled. If only the Chancellor had adopted that tone, instead of pretending repeatedly that every major defeat was a minor victory and that the future contained miraculous recovery, some of our problems would not be so severe today. While he made his predictions, our industrial base has been shrinking and shrinking.
  I do not want to go into the Government's spending plans. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
  808
  Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said, last year the Government said that the increase in real terms would be about 2 per cent. In fact, it turned out to be between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. I believe that this year the Government's expenditure plans will have to be revised, whatever the settlements. I leave that there. But, since the outset of the present industrial chaos, the Government have come forward with only one new proposal in relation to economic policy. I believe that proposal to be an insult to the intelligence of the House. We debate it on Monday.
  The Guardian, which is not a Tory newspaper, has described the proposal to abolish profit safeguards as "a futile gesture". Its leader also said:
  "There are occasions when the irrelevant becomes positively insulting".
  That was The Guardian's view of the Bill that we debate on Monday. In fact, its impact on prices in the short term will at the most be about one-tenth of one penny in the pound. Again, this is an exercise in electoral and trade union cosmetics and is an affront to those who look to this Government to arrest the nation's decline by firm action and words.
  At the heart of our dilemma is the fact that, if we erode the incentive to acquire a skill, to work overtime, or to work at all, if we are prepared to go on accepting the immobilities of restrictive practices and the rigidities of the economy, so many of which have been encouraged by the Government—the Employment Protection Act, rent restriction and the Land Commission—that will ensure that our productive potential, which is what this is all about, will in the end keep us at the bottom of the league.
  I could embark upon a whole host of woeful economic prophecies for the future. I shall not do so as the Chancellor's speech has done that effectively. But I would like to assure a sense of balance in the debate by making a short reflection on our history.
  As believers in the authority of government and the rule of law, surely the whole House must find it profoundly disquieting to know that in the past few days this nation has been effectively controlled by strike committees. In common language they might well be called workers' soviets, because that is precisely what they are. At present, these soviets have come near

  809
  to total dominance over the processes of distribution in the country, even if they do not totally control production and exchange. We live in a world of validation certificates. To use the phrase of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), we live in a world in which the permission of the pickets is required to allow essential goods to move in and out of our hospitals, schools and docks.
  We have an elected Government in office, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say a Government who are occupying offices. They are not in office as such. The Government are openly choosing to run the country through these soviets, thereby acknowledging their authority and giving them a legitimacy. That is wholly bad. It is not only bad for the authority of the Government but it is bad for constitutional government in the country in future.
  If I may say so, the occasional mutterings from the bogs of South Down are always a significant echo of some area of public concern. It is appropriate that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) should choose this week to enjoin us to form ourselves into an alliance with the Soviet Union.
  If I were to seek some comfort from the present situation, it would be this. From the days of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, there have been constant lamentations about the crises of confidence that have arisen in our affairs, and contemporary historians have continually predicted the imminent collapse of ordered society. The saying in the history books
  "God Almighty have mercy on this wretched place. May Christ establish counsel for his wretched people"
  is almost the repeated authentic voice of contemporary historians since the foundation of our nation.
  In one respect I have been singing the Prime Minister's song. As far as we can see, he believes that it is only by divine intervention, rather than by any act of his, that the good sense of the British people will be restored. If I may say so, in this he resembles a bland and rather elderly suffragan bishop who, as he approaches retirement, displays a rather cynical resignation about the frailties of the human condition. The Prime Minister does so
  810
  of the frailties of the people in this country.
  At the heart of the problem is that, whether we think of the law, medicine, Parliament, the Army, the Church or, now, the trade unions, in this country we have traditionally organised our affairs in a clublike way. In varying ways, the clubs, now the trade unions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The trade unions are clubs. Like many other of our professional bodies, they enjoy some sovereignty over their members. They decide recruitment and expulsion. They possess legal immunities and privileges, and they maintain their own courts.
  Of course it is true that the justice dispensed in a diocesan court or by the Jockey Club varies somewhat in style and quality from a kangaroo court in a factory—and that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). But each and every one of these bodies believes itself to be the best judge in its own cause. It defends its privileges with relentless self-interest, achieving benefits at the expense of people generally, according to strength and ruthlessness.
  The question facing the electorate at this election, no less than in 1974, is whether the British people will accept that another turning point has arrived in our history when a strong central Government must reassert their authority over the private franchises. The British people will have to decide whether they seek a new Government that actually will change, to try to bring it about and perhaps fail, or whether they prefer to face another five years of sermons from a suffragan bishop pussyfooting around the problems, while things increasingly run out of control, giving more and power to militants and Marxists and the small number of people who are out to destroy our society.
  I wonder what the Prime Minister is really thinking. The Labour Government have presided over record inflation, a doubling of our debts in three years—and it took 300 years for them to reach the figure of £26 billion—near-record unemployment and a falling of real incomes. The Chancellor must be about as enthusiastic to present his next Budget as Labour Members are to go through the picket lines, as recommended by the

  811
  Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for Employment has been defended by the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State said that he preferred the advice and recommendations of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) to those of his Cabinet colleagues, but the Prime Minister said that his right hon. Friend had misunderstood the question. I want to know what question the Secretary of State misunderstood.
  Not many weeks ago it seemed that unemployment, inflation, debts and stagnation could all be borne for the friendship, trust and co-operation of the trade union movement. But I turn to Mr. Peter Jenkins to see his comments in The Guardian about the current sitution. The Prime Minister himself presented Mr. Jenkins with an award the other day and in doing so he said that he looked to Mr. Jenkins for enlightenment. He also said:
  "I also read him to find out what I'm thinking."
  The previous day Mr. Jenkins wrote in The Guardian:
  "The trades union connection in which so much has been invested, to which so many concessions have been made, on which so much fulsome praise and favour has been lavished, has turned into an inflationary and disorderly travesty."
  Can anybody doubt that that is the truth?
  I come, finally, to the most important part of the debate—the whole subject of picketing and the rule of law. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that it would be dangerous and terrifying if Government intervention made things worse. He is an ex-Chief Whip and is in a position to comment on the competence of the Government should they intervene. But, taking the point seriously, this is an uncertain and difficult area of the law. It is why we have consistently demanded a clear and unequivocal statement from the Government and the Law Officers of the Crown about what the law really is. But we have had to wait until today. Why did we have to put down a private notice question to get a clear and unequivocal statement. When we were faced with troubles of a rather different sort in 1972 our Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, made a statement setting out the law.
  The Home Secretary, who is interrupting me, says he has no power to instruct
  812
  chief constables. We know that perfectly well. In 1972, the then Conservative Home Secretary called the chief officers of police into the Home Office and talked about the need to ensure that picketing was peaceful and lawful. The whole world knew that the Government were behind the forces of law enforcement. The chief constables knew it; the public knew it. But, frankly, until the Prime Minister's personal statement on Tuesday, at Question Time, the Government's position was ambiguous, to say the least. Even now, the whole world knows that the Prime Minister does not speak for a united party. Ultimately, he chooses to remain the leader of the Labour movement and not the leader of the nation.
  I turn againt to Mr. Peter Jenkins, who in that same article said:
  "Mr. Callaghan's dilemma is a grave one. The plight of the country indicates one course of action. The crisis of his party in an election year remains another. Perhaps the tragedy of the current crisis is that Mr. Callaghan is the one person with the personal authority to take the measure of the trade union problem in Britain and carry the public with him—and yet he is constrained by the politics of his party from doing so."
  I believe that is true. It is a really damning indictment of the Prime Minister and his position.
  We had a statement today from the Attorney-General on the law of picketing. I must confess that I think most hon. Members are even more confused now than before he made his statement. The Attorney-General was asked whether intimidation was lawful or unlawful. His reply—I think I paraphrase it more or less correctly—was that it depends whether the intimidation is lawful or not. That is effectively what he said. It was left to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) to tell the House about the recent findings of the Court of Appeal and how the Court of Appeal had defined intimidation. Until today, not even Members of this House had had a clear expression of the law from the Government. It was left to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) to make the simple point that, if the law is uncertain, as I believe it is, it should be changed.
  In layman's terms, what we have now is not the rule of law but the rule of lawlessness. It is a shocking thing for the people of this country. There are

  813
  those who say that it is no use passing laws that cannot be enforced; and that, of course, is true. But who is so sure that a clearer and narrower definition of picketing would not be respected and could not be enforced? If the laws of England really cease to express the will of the British people, as expressed through Parliament and developed by the courts, will not the law be brought into greater disrespect? Where else can a free people and a free nation look but to the impartial workings of our courts?
  Throughout the day and throughout the week, my right hon. and hon. Friends have questioned the Government on industrial, legal, economic and commercial questions arising from this crisis. And the Leader of the House is one of the principal architects of this crisis. It is no use being told today that the Government seek to bring forward a voluntary code on picketing. We put forward that proposal during the passage of the Employment Protection Bill. It was the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment who rejected our attempt to bring in a voluntary code for picketing. He turned it down.
  It is no use the Government lecturing us now about a voluntary code. We tried to put one on the statute book. When that measure was going through the House, the Leader of the House actually apologised to his own hon. Friends because he could not revise the law on picketing to enable pickets to stop lorries.
  The Leader of the House was an echo of the trade union movement then and he and the Prime Minister are echoes of the trade union movement now. What the country wants is not an echo but a voice. The country wants to hear the voice of leadership. That is not what is it getting from the Government.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) began his speech with a reflection with which I agree. He said that we were debating matters today which are partly political. They are not solely concerned with economic affairs. I agree with him. We must examine these matters in that light. The country
  814
  faces great political questions as well as great economic dilemmas. The Government have taken that view throughout.
  I have listened to the debate and tried to discover exactly what the Opposition are asking for when they urge the Government to act. In some respects I suppose that they have been asking for the Government to declare a state of emergency. I understand the argument. It is a reputable argument which has occurred on many other occasions in our history. But it is a debatable question.
  Prior to Christmas, particularly when we were confronted with the tanker drivers' strike, we considered carefully, from day to day—as we have continued to consider from day to day—whether it would be wise and right in the interests of the nation as a whole to declare a state of emergency. Of course, if the Government had reached a view that we thought it right, we should not have been deterred for a moment. Indeed, prior to Christmas we made all the arrangements for the declaration of an emergency and for the recall of the House which is required to confirm that declaration.
  If the tanker drivers' strike had continued for 24 hours or 48 hours longer, we should have asked for that declaration of emergency. We could see how the powers of such a declaration would have enabled us not to overcome all the problems of the tanker drivers' strike but to take the elementary powers and requisitional measures to deal with the situation.
  We were fully prepared to do it. We are still prepared to declare a state of emergency if, on balance, we believe that it is the wisest course. We surveyed the situation carefully before and after Christmas. The care with which we approached the situation helped us to overcome the tanker drivers' strike.
  If we had introduced a state of emergency too early, it is possible that we would not have had the considerable co-operation that we had in overcoming the strike. I do not know whether the House thinks that that was wise, but I believe that anybody who examines the facts will accept that it was wise.
  Let us also apply that to the other matters. Indeed, all these considerations overlapped. We had the indications beforehand—before and after Christmas

  815
  —of what the scale, consequences and implications of the road hauliers' strike would be. We examined those day by day as well. We had to make a calculation. Some of the factors that we had to weigh in making that calculation were the consideration of the amount of goods getting through under the present arrangements and the amount of goods that would get through if we made arrangements to prevent picketing that would hold up the operation altogether.
  We had to weigh up those matters against what would have been a small amount of assistance for carrying out work—which could have been provided in any circumstances—by the introduction of the Army. We carried out all these calculations very carefully and we make no apologies for this. It is not the case of a Government not being prepared to take stern action. We had to calculate what the consequences of the action would be and whether that action would achieve what we wanted. Therefore, we believe that on all those grounds it was advisable to take the course that we did.
  We have taken that decision, but I repeat that we continue to examine the matter day by day. If a situation is reached where we would have to take essential measures, we would of course do so. Let me say to Conservative Members that, having taken that decision and having made calculations on the essential supplies and services of the nation—for example, food and pharmaceutical supplies—we were confronted with the situation, which anyone of common sense could see if he applied his mind to it, that if we had discussions with the organisers of the strike, the leaders of the Transport and General Workers' Union, we would get many more goods through. Were we wise to take that course of action?
  If no such discussions had been held, fewer goods would have got through, more people would have been faced with difficulties and more people would have been thrown out of their jobs.
  The implication of the Opposition's remarks is that there is something wrong in the Government's discussing with the trade union involved how we were to deal with these emergency matters. I make no apology for doing so. Any responsible Government faced with that situation would have taken the course that we took
  816
  —especially if such a Government had in its midst the eminent right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who, I am sure, would have given the honest advice that he gave in public a few weeks ago. He said that there must be a voluntary agreement and a voluntary code. If there is a need for a voluntary code in general circumstances, is it not needed in a crisis as well? Of course it is. Conservative Members are not facing up to the problem.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and the hon. Member for St. Ives presented a complete travesty of what is happening in the country. I agree that some of the things that have happened—I am not referring to the road hauliers' strike as much as to some of the other industrial actions that are taking place—are a wicked caricature of trade unionism, and are not genuine trade unionism. I have no compunction about saying that. However, that is no reason why anybody who wants to take wise measures to deal with the situation should listen to the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey. East has been giving advice to the Leader of the Opposition and has, apparently, been listened to rather more than has the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. The House and the country must remember that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East has given us advice on these matters before. He gave us advice on how to deal with the closed shop, but the result was that after his Industrial Relations Act had been in operation, the closed shop extended over a much wider area of industry than it had before. There were many more closed shops at the end than there were at the beginning. Why? Partly because of the poison spread in our industrial system by that Act.
  The advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey East is not, therefore, the wisest advice to take on these matters. Take secondary picketing. So successful was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Act and the advice he gave to the nation, which, unfortunately, was accepted for a year or two, that secondary picketing was given an enormous impetus. Under his Act, there was a great extension of the closed shop and a great extension of secondary picketing. Whoever else we should listen to, we should not listen to

  817
  the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, any more. One of the problems that we had to face in this area, as in all others, was clearing up the mess left by that Conservative Government.
  I am sorry that many of my hon. Friends were not able to be present to hear the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. It would have been of great assistance to them, because he gave us one piece of information about pay policy. Although we are discussing political questions, we are also debating the way in which they are interrelated with economic questions, and one of the major aspects of the problem that the House and the country have to face is low pay.
  I have criticised some of the things done by a few trade unionists, but the House and the country have a right to take credit from the lobbying of the House that took place on Monday. No one can complain that that was violent or a breach of law and order. Those public employees came to present their case, and it is a case to which the House must listen.
  For the benefit of the hon. Members who did not hear the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, let me pass on what he said. The Government have taken steps and are
  taking steps to try to ensure, within the bounds that confine us, that we get fair play for low-paid workers, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, rejected that whole proposition. It is right that the House should know that.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in favour of free collective bargaining, but under his dispensation there would be no free collective bargaining for low-paid workers. We were told that the cause of our problems was the £6 limit, the across-the-board arrangement and the fact that we had secured agreement with the trade union movement. We believe that the trade union movement still occupies and will always occupy a major position in our democratic society and we believe that it is the function of any truly democratic Government to go out and get that co-operation.
  The Conservatives are the dictators. They are the authoritarians. Fortunately, the British people will not give them the chance to do what they intend. When we go to the electorate, we will get a full majority to continue to rule this country on the basis of democratic principles.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 273.

  Division No. 51]

  AYES

  [10 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dewar, Donald

  Allaun, Frank

  Campbell, Ian

  Dormand, J. D.

  Anderson, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cant, R. B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunn, James A.

  Ashley, Jack

  Carter, Ray

  Dunnett, Jack

  Ashton, Joe

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Eadie, Alex

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Cartwright, John

  Edge, Geoff

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  English, Michael

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Coleman, Donald

  Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)

  Bates, Alf

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Bean, R. E.

  Concannon, Rt Hon John

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Conlan, Bernard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Corbett, Robin

  Flannery, Martin

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Cowans, Harry

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Boardman, H.

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ford, Ben

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cronin, John

  Forrester, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  George, Bruce

  Buchan, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Deakins, Eric

  Ginsburg, David

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Golding, John

  Cailaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Dempsey, James

  Gould, Bryan

  Gourlay, Harry

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Graham, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Magee, Bryan

  Sillars, James

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mahon, Simon

  Silverman, Julius

  Hardy, Peter

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Snape, Peter

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Meacher, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon (Fulham)

  Home Robertson, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stoddart, David

  Hooley, Frank

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Horam, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Strang, Gavin

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

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Molloy, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Huckfield, Les

  Moonman, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hunter, Adam

  Morton, George

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Tierney, Sydney

  Janner, Greville

  Newens, Stanley

  Tilley, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Noble, Mike

  Tinn, James

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Oakes, Gordon

  Tomlinson, John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tomney, Frank

  John, Brynmor

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Tuck, Raphael

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ovenden, John

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Padley, Walter

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Judd, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Park, George

  Ward, Michael

  Kelley, Richard

  Parker, John

  Watkins, David

  Kerr, Russell

  Parry, Robert

  Watkinson, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Weetch, Ken

  Kinnock, Neil

  Perry, Ernest

  Weitzman, David

  Lambie, David

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lamborn, Harry

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Lamond, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Radice, Giles

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Whitlock, William

  Lee, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Litterick, Tom

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Luard, Evan

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Roper, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Woof, Robert

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ryman, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Sandelson, Neville

  McElhone, Frank

  Sedgemore, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Selby, Harry

  Mr. John Evans and

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Sever, John

  Mr. Bryan Davies.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Biffen, John

  Buck, Antony

  Alison, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Blaker, Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Arnold, Tom

  Body, Richard

  Burden, F. A.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Kenneth

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Channon, Paul

  Banks, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Beith, A. J.

  Britten, Leon

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Clegg, Walter

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cockcroft, John

  Benyon, W.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  820

  821

  Cope, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Costain, A. P.

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Critchley, Julian

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

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Crowder, F. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Raison, Timothy

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Durant, Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rhodes James, R.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Elliott, Sir William

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Emery, Peter

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Eyre, Reginald

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Farr, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Fell, Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lawrence, Ivan

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fox, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Luce, Richard

  Silvester, Fred

  Freud, Clement

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sims, Roger

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Speed, Keith

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spence, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Godber, Fit Hon Joseph

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stainton, Keith

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Steel. Rt Hon David

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Maudling. Rt Hon Reginald

  Stokes, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Gray, Hamish

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Tapsell, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mills, Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Monro, Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hannam, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Viggers, Peter

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Wakeham, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mudd, David

  Wall, Patrick

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Walters, Dennis

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nelson, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neubert, Michael

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Newton, Tony

  Wells, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Whitelaw. Rt Hon William

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Whitney, Raymond

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hodgson, Robin

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Hordern, Peter

  Pardoe, John

  Younger, Hon George

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Amendment accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the deep concern felt throughout the country about the current
  824
  industrial situation and supports the Government's determination to maintain essential supplies, control inflation and protect the supreme interest of the community and the legitimate rights of all sections of it.

  STEEL INDUSTRY
  10.18 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of EEC Documents Nos. R/1135/78, R/1221/78, R/1292/78 and R/3454/78 on the Steel Industry.
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley).
  Mr. Judd: I shall try in my opening remarks to put these documents in their general context and also comment in some detail on the proposals themselves and the attitude which the Government have taken towards them. However, the main responsibility for our steel policies lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry.
  Mr. John Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us are vitally interested in this matter, but with hon. Members leaving the Chamber it is most difficult to hear the Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I kept the Minister waiting a little while while hon. Members were leaving the Chamber after the earlier debate. Perhaps I called the Minister a little too soon. I have begun the system of waiting until the House is cleared. It was not done before my time, as the House knows, but I shall follow that rule more rigorously in future.
  Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry will reply to the debate and will be able to deal with the detailed Questions raised by hon. Members on this important subject.
  The European steel industry has been particularly hard hit by the world recession. In the light of this crisis, the European Council decided in December 1977 that the steel industry was one of those whose problems warranted tackling at Community level. The first step was to give the industry a breathing space during which the necessary restructuring could take place. To achieve this, the Commission has negotiated a series of anticrisis
  826
  measures, which include agreements on prices and quantities with third countries and on certain minimum and guidance prices for the intra-Community market.
  We in the United Kingdom have always shared the view that anti-crisis measures go hand in hand with the process of bringing capacity more into line with demand. However, we feel that the social aspect of the problem must never be lost sight of and that we must retain control over the way and the speed with which we respond to a developing situation.
  In an attempt to co-ordinate restructuring of the Community steel industry, the Commission has drawn up a set of general objectives. In order to ensure compliance with these objectives, and with the Commission still has to produce, the Commission is seeking agreement to a draft decision intended to enable it to monitor and control all State finance, in whatever form, advanced to steel undertakings.
  The main reason given to justify this proposal is the inflexibility, in the Commission's eyes, of the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty dealing with State aids to the steel industry. The Commission's purpose in proposing this decision is to establish a Community regime for aids and to prevent member States from using such aids in a way which could thwart Community objectives.
  At the last meeting of the Council of Ministers at which the State aids decision was discussed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry explained why this Government have been unable to assent to the Commission's proposals as set out in the draft decision in document R/1135/78.
  The decision would effectively give the Commission overall control of the British Steel Corporation's investment plans and annual operating plan. We have made considerable progress with our national restructuring policy as set out in the White Paper on the British Steel Corporation's road to viability. But it is up to the British Steel Corporation to negotiate closures at its discretion in prior consultation with the Trades Union Congress steel committee and the local work forces. We cannot agree to any procedires

  827
  which would be likely to interfere with this arrangement. Moreover, we are by no means satisfied that the Commission has the resources to deal with the proposals which would have to be notified to it. For this practical reason alone, quite apart from objections of principle, we cannot agree that the Commission should be in a position to hold up advances of finance to the British Steel Corporation pending investigation.
  We have shown ourselves ready in the past to consult the Commission over major new investment projects by the British Steel Corporation. But the present decision seeks specifically to bring advances of working capital to nationalised industries under Commission control without imposing on them any of the penalties to which the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom taxpayers are liable as a result of wrong decisions or undue delay.
  The draft decision also seeks to increase Commission control over regional aids. Again, this gives rise to difficulties. We have in general resisted Commission attempts to intervene in the matter of regional assistance, although we accepted a compromise in the special case of the fourth shipbuilding directive.
  The draft decision seeks to ensure that all restructuring of the European steel industry complies with the Commission's restructuring plans. But we do not yet know what these proposed plans are. We must have agreement on these first. Restructuring, particularly closures, raises issues of great social as well as industrial importance. Restructuring decisions cannot, in our view, be taken in a vacuum. This Government will always have high among its priorities the need to deal effectively with the wider social and economic consequences.
  Our legal advise is that the decision as drafted would effect a change in the balance of power between Community institutions. But such a change may be brought about only by a full-scale amendment of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. It cannot be done under article 95 of that treaty as the decision seeks. To do so would, in our view, be contrary to the wording and intention of article 3.
  These, then, are the arguments against the decision as at present worded which my right hon. Friend the Minister of
  828
  State, Department of Industry has been putting forward with eloquence and conviction—I have had the good fortune to hear him doing it—at meetings of the Council of Ministers.
  At the last Council meeting, a resolution was passed to the effect that the Council is determined to take as soon as possible, and by 1 April at the latest, its decision on Commission proposals concerning State aids for the steel industry. The decision is at present unacceptable to at least one other member State as well as the United Kingdom. It requires the unanimous consent of the Council of Ministers before it can be implemented. This resolution set out general principles on steel aid but gave no Council commitment on procedures or further Commission proposals.
  As hon. Members are aware, the resolution was accompanied by a statement from the United Kingdom to the effect that our attitude to the Commission's proposals was governed by the extent to which the Commission's actions were in accordance with the treaties. We shall continue to examine carefully all proposals put forward by the Commission to ensure that they do not represent a further unacceptable extension of its powers. We shall also contend that article 232 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of articles 92–94 of that Treaty to European Coal and Steel Community industries, since article 232 specifically states:
  "The provisions of this Treaty shall not affect the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, in particular as regards the rights and obligations of Member States, the powers of the institutions of that Community and the rules laid down by that Treaty for the functioning of the common market in coal and steel."
  We shall particularly resist any attempt by the Commission to increase its powers with regard to regional aids and any attempt to require prior notification of advances of money to our steel industry.
  I now turn to draft decision R/1292/78. which the Select Committee on European Legislation recommended for debate with R/1135/78, although the adoption of the decision by the Council need not await the debate.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: My hon. Friend has told the House that the Government cannot accept certain proposals of the Commission. Will he

  829
  assure us quite clearly that the Government will not accept them?
  Mr. Judd: I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that I made it perfectly clear that we are not prepared to breach the provisions of the treaties as we understand them.
  The effect of that draft decision would be to allocate to the Community all the receipts from customs duties levied on imports from third countries of European Coal and Steel Community products. At present those revenues, unlike the receipts from customs duties on EEC products, are retained by member States.
  The reason for this proposal is the substantial additional expenditure incurred by the Commission in order to counter the effects of the steel recession. This consists mainly of a Community contribution towards resettlement aid to redundant steel and coal workers, and interest relief grants given on European Coal and Steel Community loans made towards the cost of projects to modernise steel and coal production and to employ redundant steel and coal workers. An example is the ECSC loan of £78 million recently approved towards the cost of the Ford Motor Company's projected new engine plant in South Wales.
  It is not surprising that the large numbers of redundancies in the EEC steel industry have led to increased expenditure. Indeed, a problem has already been faced with the 1978 European Coal and Steel Community budget. Expenditure, at about £103 million, was about £26 million more than in 1977, even though the contribution made by the European Coal and Steel Community to the general EEC budget towards the administrative expenses of the Commission was reduced from £12 million to £3 million.
  Under the treaty, Community expenditure is financed by a production levy on the steel and coal industries. The current difficulties of the steel industry make it undesirable to raise that levy. The Council of Ministers therefore decided in principle on 20 December 1977 that member States should make an additional contribution totalling 32 million European units of account. The allocation first proposed by the Commission was in proportion to national receipts from customs duties on
  830
  European Coal and Steel Community products. The Commission later proposed an allocation based on gross national product. It was in this form that the Select Committee on European Legislation considered the proposal—the relevant document was R /674/78. I refer to the 27th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, Session 1977–78.
  Agreement was finally reached only in October 1978 in a last-minute compromise under which the United Kingdom share is 17·4 per cent. The United Kingdom will benefit and is expected to receive some 34 per cent. of the total Community expenditure on resettlement aids and interest relief grants in 1978, as well as a continuing share of European Coal and Steel Community research grants.
  The contribution towards the 1978 budget takes the form of an ad hoc decision by member States meeting in Council on 30 October 1978. An Order in Council specifying this decision as a treaty under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 will shortly be presented for parliamentary approval. No agreement has, however, yet been reached in the Council on the proposal to transfer future receipts from customs duties on European Coal and Steel Community products to the Community. This would provide something of the order of 60 million European units of account a year.
  We and a number of other member States have reservations. It is not certain that Commission expenditure need be maintained at such a high level over a long period, and it does not follow that the deficit in any year will be matched by the customs receipts. Moreover, the amount of duty collected does not correspond necessarily to individual member States' ability to pay or the needs of their industry.
  However, the Commission faces a problem in balancing the 1979 budget. At the Council on 18–19 December last, member States, other than France, were willing in principle, but subject to the necessary budgetary and parliamentary procedures, to make a further ad hoc contribution in 1979. This will, of course, need further discussion in the Council.
  The Select Committee on European Legislation also recommended draft decision document No. R/1221/78 for debate, although it said that adoption of the

  831
  directive need not await the debate, and on 17 January it likewise recommended document No. R/3454/78. The purpose of the former instrument was to amend an earlier decision which required iron and steel dealers to conform to Community producers' list prices when making ex-stock sales of the steel products for which Community producers were subject to mandatory minimum prices. It also required dealers to issue certificates of conformity.
  Document No. R/1221/78 provides for the extension of these requirements to direct as well as ex-stock sales. This was clearly only reasonable, as otherwise the mandatory minimum prices could be undermined by dealers' sales. I think that it is still as important as ever to ensure that the minimum prices for producers are not undermined at a time when market conditions are still putting heavy pressure on steel prices. Document No. R /3454/78 adds certain other products to the list of those for which dealers must not charge less than the Community producers' list price.
  I hope that this introduction will have helped to clarify what the Government regard as the main issues raised by the documents under debate. Of these three proposals, it is the steel aids decision that causes us the greatest difficulties. The success of the anti-crisis measures show the value of tackling the problem of the steel industry and the world recession at Community level. Naturally, there has to be some co-ordination of the restructuring that must follow these measures. But we in the Government are not prepared to accept proposals that would go beyond the powers provided by the treaties in their present form or lead to interference with our policies for dealing with the problems of the United Kingdom steel industry as we ourselves see fit.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): May I remind the House that the debate can last for two and a half hours only? Almost every hon. Member present in the Chamber has a steel interest, and in order to accommodate as many speakers as possible I appeal to hon. Members to make their speeches reasonably brief.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
  'but cannot accept proposals which would curtail assistance to and investment in the iron and steel industry and would damage employment in that industry.'
  This is an extremely important debate. Should the Council of Ministers by any mischance approve the decision that we are now discussing, and which in effect is set out in document No. R/1135/78, the matter would be out of the control of the House altogether, and so would the steel industry. In that event, no legislation by this House would be required if by some mischance this decision were approved.
  The key to the matter lies in article 1 of the draft proposal. I should like to quote part of the text, which states:
  "Aids and interventions in favour of the steel industry, financed or provided by Member States or through State resources in any form whatsoever, may be considered compatible with the orderly functioning of the common market if they satisfy the provisions of this Decision and if they do not affect competition and trade between Member States to an extent contrary to the common interest. Such aids and interventions shall only be put into effect in accordance with the procedures established herein."
  Therefore, wide—ranging powers over the steel industry would pass from the control of this House and this country to the Commission should this decision in any way be implemented. In some ways, the interesting part of document No. R/1135/78 is not so much the text of the decision as the preceding memorandum, which makes a number of quite astonishing statements. For example, it states that it is necessary.
  "to create new rules… for the supervision and control of aids and interventions in favour of the steel industry".
  Apparently, the powers which already exist do not satisfy the Commission. It makes an equally remarkable statement with regard to regional aids. It states that regional aids
  "are not always in the real interest of the regions".
  In other words, it suggests that the Commission in Brussels should have the power to determine whether the regional aids that this House may wish to give to particular regions are actually in the interest of those regions. I suggest that that is

  833
  a matter for hon. Members to judge, and not for the Commission.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: When the hon. Member speaks of the Commission imposing rules on us, does he not appreciate that British officials are involved in the Commission? All the member States are involved, and the Commission therefore represents all the countries. When there is gross overcapacity in the steel industry, it is rational and sensible to act in concert to reduce the difficulties.
  Mr. Hooley: I still do not accept that the Commission has superior wisdom in considering regional aids. That wisdom lies with this House. The power should be exercised by the House and not by the Commission.
  Mr. David Watkins: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), will my hon. Friend bear in mind that members of the Commission are not there as representatives of their countries? They have to renounce such representation as members of the Commission.
  Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is absolutely correct.
  The memorandum goes on to say that it is
  "unacceptable for Member States to have complete discretion to use their regional aid systems"
  That is an astonishing doctrine. It further states that
  "In the case of public undertakings the provision of finance must be supervised by the Community".
  In other words, in important respects the operations of the British Steel Corporation would come directly under the supervision and control of the Commission. But it goes beyond State finance. It states that
  "aids and interventions by local authorities or parastatal institutions"
  have to be brought under control. That means that if the NEB became involved in the steel industry, its activities would also fall under the control of the Commission.
  My hon. Friend the Minister in opening the debate did not mention the cost level at which this control would apply. I understand that it is 5 million units of account, which is around £3 million. Any
  834
  project in the steel-producing industry which exceeded £3 million would therefore become subject to control.
  I am not sure whether aids for social costs and closures would be controlled by the Commission, but they would have to be monitored and reported to the Commission. Likewise compensation, financial arrangements or reduction in capacity would fall under the control of the Commission. The most astonishing aspect is that, even if a country had to take emergency action to rescue a plant or sort out some other difficulty, the Commission would insist that that action was strictly controlled and confined to the immediate difficulty.
  The impact on our law and rules would be considerable. That is fairly pointed out by the covering document which the Department of Industry has provided for the House. It would limit the powers of the Secretary of State to provide funds under sections 17 and 18 of the Iron and Steel Act 1975. It would limit regional development grants under sections 7 and 8 of the 1972 Industry Act, which was passed by the Conservative Government. It would have an impact not only on the British Steel Corporation but on private steel producers.
  The covering memorandum from the Department of Industry points out that as long as we belong to the EEC these limitations will apply to any other present or future United Kingdom legislation. This decision would have a far-reaching impact on important legislation already passed by the House in respect specifically of the iron and steel industry and, more generally, aids to industry at large. About 50 per cent. of the British Steel Corporation's investment programme over the next five years would be affected. Government assistance to private sectors would be subject to Commission control, and the operation of loss-making undertakings also would be affected.
  The British Steel Corporation has made it perfectly clear by its policy and its actions—which have been thoroughly debated in this House—that there is a need for restructuring in the industry. Very hard decisions have been taken and more difficult ones may he ahead. I am quite sure that the Corporation, the Department of Industry and this House recognise the far-reaching restructuring that needs to be done and has already been done.

  835
  Apart from restructuring, there is the question of modernisation and new investment. This is extremely important. In 1976–77, £579 million new capital investment was carried through. In 1977–78, the figure was £480 million. In Sheffield we have the enormously important stainless steel project at Shepcote Lane costing £140 million, which is now coming on stream and proving extremely effective and successful. We have the arc furnaces at Aldwarke, the continuous casting plant at Templeborough and the River Don works, which five years ago were almost run down and are now operating very successfully and capturing contracts in the international market in the face of international competition.
  In the period between 1970 and 1976, £160 million was invested by the special steels division in Sheffield, and last financial year the figure was £74 million. There have been important investments in the private sector in Sheffield as well. In Johnson, Firth Brown and in Dunford Elliott we have had very expensive and highly sophisticated forging machines, electroslag refining equipment and vacuum degassing equipment as well as other important investment. This would certainly have fallen under the supervision and control of the Commission had these projects been carried through when this decision was effective. I must emphasise that if this provision were carried through, the House would have no further control. No further legislation would be needed to put this into effect once the Commission had taken the decision.
  In some ways, document R/1292/78 has a more fundamental principle than the other. It wants to extend to steel the absurdities that we have encountered from the levy system of finance which exists in the common agricultural policy. This would be a new departure—a very important and dangerous one, because the customs duty which is at present applied to steel products by the individual member States would then form part of the "own revenues" of the community and would pass totally out of our control. The only way one can control this bureaucracy is to control its money. If we allowed the principle set out in R/1292/78 to go through, an important precedent would be established. Not only in agriculture, but also in industry we would have the levy and the own resources
  836
  principle pushed in and the Commission would have its foot in the door.
  These documents have very important constitutional and financial implications for this House. I believe that they set a dangerous precedent, and I hope that the Government will accept our amendment. I hope also that they will continue to indicate that we will resolutely resist the propositions contained in the documents.
  10.49 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: It is easy to find objections to the proposal to put aids to the steel industry on a European basis, but the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has done so with his customary moderation, eloquence and knowledge of the industry. I have no doubt that he will be followed by others producing objections in less restrained language, portraying not so much an anxiety about the future of the steel industry as a determination to get Britain out of the EEC. We shall hear a good deal in the debate, and, indeed, we have heard from the hon. Member for Heeley—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He has made two suggestions to the House, one on the future of the steel industry and the other relating to Britain coming out of the EEC. I remind him that the debate should centre on the likely effectiveness of the Community proposals. I hope that hon. Members will address themselves to that matter.
  Sir A. Meyer: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I intend to stick closely to the matter before the House.
  We heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Heeley and will, no doubt, hear more about the importance of allowing the British Steel Corporation to decide its own strategy. This makes a change. I have heard many objections from hon. Members on both sides of the House and I have myself voiced objections to the determination of the British Steel Corporation to push ahead with plans for the modernisation of the industry entailing massive closures of out-of-date plant. One of those plants, Shotton, is near my constituency. It is likely to be affected by the determination of the Corporation to phase out the production

  837
  of steel except at five integrated steel plants.
  Despite the plausibility of the objections to the proposals of the Commission for putting aid to the steel industry on a European basis, nobody can now seriously argue that the United Kingdom can sustain a steel industry on anything like the scale envisaged at the time when the 10-year strategy for steel was drawn up in 1972.
  Mr. Jay: It is a temporary recession.
  Sir A. Meyer: No, it is not a temporary recession. It is very far from being a temporary recession. It is not a cyclical recession but a permanent shift in the balance of production on a global basis.
  Mr. Jay: Nonsense.
  Sir A. Meyer: Hon. Members fail to realise what is happening in Korea and other developing countries. With modern plant and a highly skilled, work-devoted labour force, they will push not only British but also European steel production over the edge unless we can consolidate and concentrate and hit back at that competition with the most modern equipment and the most modern methods.
  It is nonsense to suggest that this is a temporary recession caused by a fall in world demand. If any kind of steel industry is to be maintained in the United Kingdom, it will have to be a protected industry. Anyone who supposes that this nation alone can afford to protect a steel industry even of the modest size that we will need for our strategic needs and to provide employment in the areas where there are no other job possibilities is being wildly unrealistic.
  It is an immensely expensive business to protect a steel industry. It requires a vast transfer of resources from the profits of other industries. It is beyond the capacity of this country to protect a steel industry of the size, even the small size, that we shall need for the two purposes that I have outlined—namely, for our essential strategic need and to provide employment in the areas where there is no other source of employment.
  If there is to be the protection that will enable us to keep the steel industry going, clearly it must be on a European basis. A British share of a European
  838
  steel industry, although small, will be a great deal larger than the type of British steel industry which we could maintain and protect by our own unaided efforts. That means that we have to accept the concept of a European basis for a British steel industry.
  I have no hesitation in advocating that and accepting the logic of it. I do not pretend that I do so without misgivings. Of course I have misgivings. I am not at all happy about the spirit in which the Community has approached the problems of regional aid so far. We do not consider that the Community attributes enough importance to the need to develop the outlying regions where so much of the British steel industry is situated.
  In this matter the Commission's record is a good deal better than the Council of Ministers' record. If I had to rely on the good intentions of one body rather than the other, I should much prefer to rely on the good intentions of the Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I sometimes wonder about the cloud-cuckoo land in which Labour Members live. They seem to imagine that because the United Kingdom has a right to veto in the Council of Ministers, we can somehow protect our interest better there. They forget that there are eight other members who also have the power of veto and who are equally determined to maintain their vital interests by using that veto. They ignore that the Commission, which has no such power of veto, is dedicated to the well-being of the Community as a whole. A body which seeks the common good inevitably brings greater benefits to its members than one in which the principle of dog eats dog operates, as it does within the Council of Ministers.
  I have reservations. I wish that the Community had a better track record on regional development. Aspects of the document make me uneasy. But I have more confidence in the ability of the Community to protect the British steel industry than in the ability of Britain alone to do so. And I have 10 times more confidence in the good will of the Commission in its attempts to create a steel industry which is of benefit to all its members than I should if the process were left to the Council of Ministers in which the veto operates.

  839
  Therefore, not without misgivings, I should like the recommendations to be accepted. I am sorry that the Government are adopting such a reserved attitude.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I believe that nothing is beyond the capacity of the nation when it gets its head down. In my maiden speech I said that the steelworks in my constituency were the best in the world. I referred to the need for investment in British Steel at Stocksbridge as being vital not only for the rehabilitation of the works but to increase the morale of an excellent work force in recognition of the good industrial relations between management and men at that works. It was needed also because without that steelworks a township would have stagnated and died.
  I am very pleased that it has been announced, this week, that there is to be a £21 million investment scheme for that steelworks for tube steel production. and Stocksbridge works has thus been given a new lease of life. We have done that without the aid of the Community.
  In the words of John Pennington, managing director of the Sheffield division:
  "This important development is a vote of confidence in the future of steel production in the Stocksbridge area which has a long and proud history of achievement and is very good news at a time when our industry is faced with enormous difficulty. We look forward with confidence when the new technology begins production."
  This in itself is an achievement in co-operation by the trade unions, management, this House and British Steel. It has only been marred recently by the news that 14,000 men are likely to be laid off very soon through no fault of their own.
  The steel industry is going through a period of reconstruction, which includes closure of plants, with consequent redundancies and social problems. But, again, with the co-operation of British Steel, management and men, we shall get over it, in the same way as the mining industry, which went through a similar period, which we overcame.
  This development is being carried out quietly and successfully, in order to create
  840
  from the legacy that was—a dying industry—an emergent, flourishing industry, helped by investment and grants decided by this House and by British Steel. The price of reconstruction is heavy, in terms of both men and finance, but out of it will come a strong and viable industry which will compete, unafraid and in competition on equal terms, with anything else in the world.
  That is being done in a period of world recession, over-production and lack of stability. But the competition has not always been fair. Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have held meetings with Ministers, together with various local authorities, to try to overcome this problem. I am grateful to the Minister for the way he has helped in these cases.
  We are competing with cheap steel being sold at less than production cost and being dumped in this country from outside and within the Community. However, by 1981, because of the policies of the present Government and the efforts of the steel industry, we shall be clear of this problem and the position will be very much altered.
  We are grateful to the Minister and to Viscount Davignon for the way in which they have brought sanity to steel industry pricing and for bringing in a measure of stability.
  It is in that context that I view the problems—which could be grim—which might be caused by the measures proposed in the Commission decisions which are contained in the documents before us. While accepting the intention in the decision and acknowledging the help given by the Commission, I cannot accept the present proposals, which interfere with British efforts to put our own steel industry in order and to make our own decisions as to where and when investment should take place and regional grants should be given.
  The decision on the restructuring of British Steel is a domestic one, to complete existing projects, make essential replacements and improve quality. To accept a position in which the Secretary of State would have the power to provide funds to the Corporation only subject to the approval of the Commission, and which would lessen his power to make regional grants, is not in the best interests of the country or of the industry.
  Mr. Tim Renton: I am following with interest what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he explain why he says that the decision to invest in British steel is entirely a domestic one when the BSC is a large exporter and has frequently made clear that its decisions to invest are dependent on its obtaining a substantial share of export markets?
  Mr. McKay: I said that where to invest is a domestic decision because of the social consequences. It is not a European decision.
  The Commission's proposals would be detrimental to this country and our steel industry and would be a setback for the industry in general. I would co-operate in any scheme to strengthen the industry, but I believe that the Commission's decision will weaken the industry and I back the Minister in his intent to keep the British Steel Corporation British and to keep our investment British.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I am grateful to be called, because I do not have a steel constituency. My constituency rolls aluminium, and I am fairly ignorant about the steel industry.
  However, I am a member of the Scrutiny Committee and I thought it right to explain why the Committee referred the proposal to the Floor of the House. When the Leader of the House announced this debate last week, he referred to the relevant EEC documents. I wish that he had mentioned the Scrutiny Committee's report so that hon. Members could be made aware of our criticisms of those documents.
  We said of document R /1135:
  "The effect of this proposal appears to be to deprive Member States of the ability to assist their steel industries, except by Commission approval."
  That was why we felt it right that the proposal should be debated on the Floor of the House.
  We do not want to give any more power to the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have too much already. It is absurd that power drips week by week from this House to the Commission. I want to speak in defence of our Parliament. We should not constantly give away more power.
  842
  I felt like making the same intervention as that made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) when the Minister said that the Government "cannot agree" with the Commission's proposals. He sounded tough, and I do not want to call his remarks weasel words, but why did he not say that the Government "will not agree"? There is a big difference there.
  The Minister also said, in trying to give the impression of being tough and standing up to the Commission, that the Government "will resist" the proposals. Why did he not say that they "will oppose" them?
  Mr. Stan Crowther: The Government should veto them.
  Mr. Marten: Either word—"oppose" or "veto"—would strengthen the genuineness of the Minister's speech.
  If I may address myself to my Front Bench, I must say that it seems odd that the Conservative Party is not opposing all this price fixing. I know that the industry is in difficulties and that price fixing may be one way to help, but it is a strange Conservative philosophy not to oppose the formation of a cartel which fixes prices. In the recent history of this century, such action has caused great trouble in Germany and central Europe
  Is there not the adoption of a double standard, in a way, over this price fixing, because it is against competition? Our interpretation of article 3 of the Treaty of Rome is that it stands for the establishment of a system ensuring that competition in the market is not distorted. Surely this is distortion, and it is to these constant double standards that I object. We were told that if we acceded to the Treaty of Rome there would be all those wonderful opportunities, but when it suits the Commission or anybody else they go right against the principles of the Treaty of Rome. I find it rather hard that my own Front Bench colleagues condone that behavour when they ought to be attacking it.
  Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that recently the Commission wanted to close down the Milk Marketing Board because it infringed the laws of competition? Now it is establishing a cartel in the steel industry.
  Mr. Marten: That is yet another example, and a very good one, of going against the principles laid down in article 3 of the Treaty of Rome. I quite agree.
  Finally, in document R/1292 there are two rather un-Conservative things which I hope will be opposed by the Conservative Front Bench. One is that this decision would result in the loss of to the United Kingdom Exchequer of the revenue at present derived from customs duties, which in 1976 amounted to £12·2 million and in 1977 to £9·6 million. The transfer to the Coal and Steel Community of the receipts from these duties would increase the public sector borrowing requirement. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is always speaking about cutting down the public sector borrowing requirement. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear from him that he opposes this proposal.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. David Watkins: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has, as always, put very cogent and penetrating arguments to the House. He was speaking, as he said, as someone who does not represent a steel constituency. I, as representing a steel constituency, have pleasure in following him, and I support the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley).
  Each of these EEC documents has some represensible feature, but document R/1135, dealing with aid and intervention in favour of the iron and steel industries, has, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in opening the debate, some particularly reprehensible features. I accept that he did not use the word "reprehensible", but he implied that it had especially reprehensible features in regard to interference in the British Steel Corporation, and especially in those sectors of the iron and steel industry in this country which are situated in development areas and in assisted areas.
  The introduction to the document indicates first that the restructuring of the industry should not be impeded by measures taken by member States. It also points out that the Community is not in a position to meet all the industry's requirements for assistance. The net result of that is that the steel industry in regional
  844
  areas and assisted areas would get the worst of all possible worlds. The Community may not be able to help as an entity, and at the same time, in these draft directives, the Commission wants the power to prevent member States from using their own resources for self-help. If the draft decision were adopted as it is presented before the House this evening, even short-term emergency aid in particular areas would be required to be notified to the Commission and negotiated with it.
  In view of the slow and ponderous bureaucracy of the Commission, it is surely the case that even if it came to a favourable decision on an emergency matter which was referred to it, by the time it came to a decision the emergency would in any event be over, the plant would be closed, the people would be out of work and any steel town which was heavily dependent, as so many steel towns are, upon its steel plant would be turned into a state of industrial dereliction. This is quite unacceptable to the House.
  As drafted, the document also requires every investment project exceeding 5 million units of account to be subject to Commission approval. That, taken together with the provisions for emergencies, would virtually wipe out major parts of the British steel industry, which, as far as I could see, was what the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) appeared to be advocating and wanted to take place.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield)—will be aware that on 14th February I shall be bringing to see him a deputation composed of representatives of the Derwentside district council and the Durham county council to represent to him, and through him to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that there is an urgent need for special attention to the situation, which is of emergency proportions, in Consett. That is why I am particularly concentrating on and using my constituency to illustrate the emergency side of the proposals.
  In Consett we have a steel plant in a special development area, where 50 per cent. of all the registered employed persons in the town are employed in the steel industry and another 25 per cent. are employed in industries directly dependent

  845
  upon steel. Three-quarters of the people of Consett are dependent for their livelihood on this industry. At the Consett plant there were nearly 1,000 redundancies last year and more are expected this year.
  It really would not be acceptable if we were to be told when we meet my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 14 February that the only power that the Government have would be to submit a case about our representation to the Commission, which might or might not approve of the case for emergency help which was submitted to it, and which might or might not approve it for six months, 12 months or perhaps two years. Whatever my hon. Friend tells us on 14 February, we really want something much more positive than that.
  In response to your request for brief speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude by saying that the House must send these documents back to the place from whence they came. The British Steel industry is already seriously threatened by the world recession. Many steel towns are facing emergency situations. Indeed, it could be said that the whole industry is facing an emergency situation. We really must send the documents back and say that we are not prepared to accept these restrictions on our own capacity to help ourselves.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Unlike the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), I do not represent the steel industry. There used to be an iron industry in Sussex many years ago, but that is no more. However, I fought a Sheffield seat against a neighbour of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) in 1970. Also, for many years I worked for a firm which supplied the steel industry with its raw materials. With some of the Labour Members who are now in the Chamber, I was a member of the Select Committee which looked at the British Steel Corporation over an extensive period which ended with our reports of a year ago.
  In the course of my working life before becoming a Member of this House, I had the privilege of representing British steel companies abroad as their export agent—United Steel Company, Stewarts and
  846
  Lloyds, and John Summers—and I was very happy in those years to get to know the excellence of British steel. I speak, therefore, with some past knowledge of the British steel industry, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall).
  I find it extraordinarily hard to understand the ambivalence, the double attitudes, of Labour Members in relation to the motion to approve these EEC documents and the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Heeley. Everyone knows that the British Steel Corporation is deeply grateful for the measures which have been taken by the EEC Commission to support the European steel industry over the last two years. Everyone knows that the British Steel Corporation would like those measures to be extended. Everyone who knows the steel industry knows that the BSC is not an island unto itself.
  Contrary to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), the BSC today cannot by itself decide where its investment is to take place. There is no point whatsoever in the BSC building another cold steel production mill or another special steels plant if similar plants are being built in Belgium, France, Germany, Mexico and Korea, because that is bound to lead to surplus capacity which will depress world prices.
  The BSC—again, contrary to what the hon. Member for Penistone said in answer to my question—depends on exports for a substantial part of its intended sales—I stress "intended"—so it cannot be oblivious in its investment decisions to similar investment decisions which have been taken in other parts of the world, notably within the EEC. Therefore, the management of BSC, as we know and as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) certainly knows, is very relieved at the protective measures that the EEC has undertaken in the last two years.
  Mr. John Ellis rose—
  Mr. Renton: When I have finished this point, I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) about our membership of the EEC, because I am a firm supporter of it, but he made a valid point when he

  847
  said that he found it somewhat ambivalent of us to support protectionist measures. I agree that that is an ambivalent attitude, but, in terms of the British steel industry and the protection of its markets and, therefore, to some extent, of its employment, where would the BSC be today without the Davignon proposals? It would be in a far greater mess and would have made a far greater loss than it has made.
  Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Gentleman referred to me by name. We all want to debate these important matters, so I shall be brief. I rather oppose the hon. Gentleman. He must not put words into my mouth—"as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) knows". I know nothing of the kind. If there were not Davignon, we would work out our own salvation. I shall make my own speech, thank you very much.
  Mr. Renton: I obviously made a mistake in giving way to the hon. Member. It is a pity that he rose to intervene. He could have made that point later.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we would work out our own salvation. He thinks so. I do not know of anyone in the European steel industry who thinks so. Today, in Europe alone, there are 40 million tonnes of over-capacity. I am not talking about the whole of the world to which the BSC wishes to export. How in those circumstances, when steel is an internationally traded commodity, are we to work out our own salvation?
  Mr. Hooley rose—
  Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of this subject, but I do not want the same kind of intervention as I had from the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe.
  Looking at what has been done to reduce capacity in Britain compared with our European neighbours, it is clear that we have not gone nearly as far as they have gone. According to figures released not long ago by the British Iron and Steel Consumers' Council, since 1975 the United Kingdom has reduced its steel work force by 5 per cent. compared with 8 per cent by West Germany, 15 per cent. by France, 18 per cent. by Belgium, 22 per cent. by Luxembourg and 23 per cent. by the Netherlands. That implies not only a greater continuing inefficiency in the
  848
  United Kingdom than in our Continental neighbours but that they have gone much further down the road of reducing overcapacity than we have.
  Therefore, I find in the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Heeley an extraordinary reluctance to face the fact that the British Steel Corporation cannot continue to consider itself as the largest single steel producer in Western Europe—an isolated entity not affected by investment decisions taken on the other side of the Channel.
  The amendment is typical of the attitude of Labour Members who wish to attack the Common Market and who wish to be totally anti-EEC in their attitude and in their approach to what Viscount Davignon has done. If, however, they succeed, they will end by destroying the British Steel Corporation.
  Mr. John Ellis: Nonsense.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman may shout "Nonsense", but nobody in BSC top management regards it as nonsense. The BSC cannot be isolated from developments in the Community. Those developments are essentially of benefit to the Corporation. If hon. Members doubt that, I suggest that whoever speaks next from the Labour Benches—perhaps it should be the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Renton: I do not wish to usurp the prerogative of the Chair. As one who knows the industry very well, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the problem of what will happen postDavignon. If the Davignon proposals are not extended beyond 1980, what then will the Corporation do?
  Is the hon. Gentleman contending that, apart from the efficient competition of our French, Belgian and German neighbours, we shall be able to stand up to the competition in Third world markets by the Koreans, the Mexicans and the Japanese? The Japanese take only three man-hours to produce a tonne of steel. We are not yet in that league.
  It is not necessary to go over the history of the last 25 years to examine why investment has not taken place in the British steel industry. We all know that it has not taken place. If we are to

  849
  compete with the Koreans, the Mexicans and the Japanese, British Steel will not survive, because it is not efficient enough to do so. It is not capable of living in a post-Davignon world which does not have over it an EEC umbrella.
  I am pro-European and I would rather I did not have to make that comment. I should like to think that British Steel is the most efficient producer in the Western world and able to compete with anybody. But it is not in that position yet. I believe that the Davignon proposals have been essential to the Corporation in helping it in part to get through the present terrible recession. There is no sign of that recession ending, and it was totally unforeseen by the BSC two or three years ago.
  I realise that the Labour Party is greatly torn by our membership of the Common Market, that there are many Labour Members who would like to see us withdraw from the EEC and that—although this is not the wish of the Prime Minister or of many of his Cabinet colleagues—the Labour Party may well tight the European elections on a totally anti-EEC manifesto. I regret it, because I think that Labour Members are being purblind about the matter. But, whatever their anti-Europeanism. I believe that they should not carry it to the extent of destroying the British Steel Corporation. If they are totally anti-EEC, they will destroy employment in the steelworks in their constituencies, because the BSC now depends in some measure on our membership of the EEC and the umbrella that it provides.
  11.30 p.m.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The House is plainly sensitive to the proposals, and I hope that the amendment will be given due weight by the Government and will profoundly influence their attitude in Brussels.
  Perhaps we can put to our European colleagues our sensitivities on this matter by illustrating them with the sensitivities within Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) is fortunate in having had a vast amount of investment in his constituency. That has been pushing very hard some of the capacity that we have in mine.
  850
  I give a particular example. My hon. Friend has coming on stream in October a colliery arch bending plant with a capacity that exceeds the total output of the Lanarkshire works in my constituency and East Moors. Those are two works which can be simply closed down overnight when the new plant in Scunthorpe starts up.
  One may say "Scunthorpe must win there", but what about my lads in Ravenscraig? We have had a massive investment there. We are coming on stream with 3 million tons a year capacity and with the job of upping output by 1½ million tons, at a time when everyone else in BSC is having his output reduced. Our chaps argue "Why should we in Ravenscraig be the ones who have to take the swings in output? Why should Llanwern and Port Talbot get by with all the shifts in the week that they want, and the earnings that go with them, and we have to take the swings when we have more modern, more efficient plant than they have?"
  Into this sensitive position we have the European Community barging in. There is no concealing the problems. There is the excess capacity; there is the danger of excess investment. Consider what will happen when Greece, Spain and Portugal join the Community and massive investment goes into steelworks employing cheaper labour than in Britain. What would be our attitude to the wisdom of massively subsidised investment in Portugal? It might be said that the Portuguese would not be that silly, but I invite people to look at some of the Portuguese shipyards today.
  I think that we accept the need for a degree of co-ordination within Britain, and we should be fools if we did not accept it within Europe. Our attitude to that would be made much easier if the Community could demonstrate over wider aspects of the operation of the steel industry something of the relative success it has had on steel pricing.
  What can those areas be? The Community wishes to have powers over the financial relationship of, in our case, a public corporation to the Government. Does it want to have powers to control the borrowing limits of BSC, which are the powers that we have in this House? Or does it want to have powers that the

  851
  Department exercises in permitting drawings on those borrowing limits? Or does it want to go still further down into the internal decision-making procedures within BSC? That is what is plainly indicated by the Commission when it talks about levels of investment of individual units of 5 million European units of account.
  If the Commission is saying that it needs to have powers to go to that degree of detail of intervention, let us ask it what contribution it can make to the colliery arch problem, which my hon. Friend and I shall be arguing about very shortly, to the allocation of orders as between Llanwern, Port Talbot and Ravenscraig, and to the desperate situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) outlined.
  There are constantly new developments in the steel industry. With the massive investment in general steel-making overseas, there is the need to upgrade the capacity of our plants within Europe and within the United Kingdom in particular. The Sheffield division is perhaps particularly unfortunate with the type of investment that it has been having. What contributions can the Commission make here?
  All that we observe is that when the Corporation has made a difficult decision, when we have all known about it for months and when it has been approved by the Government, six months later along comes a press release from the Commission talking about the massive amount of money it is giving to stage 3 at Ravenscraig, or something similar, when it is simply an accounting operation, giving us back money that has been raised from us. That is not an adequate exercise of the powers that the Commission already has.
  We in Scotland, as I am sure other areas have done, have invited Commissioner Davignon to come and see the problems of the steel industry and see what we are doing about them, which is an awful lot. I do not think that we had even a reply from the Commissioners. This was despite requests to the President of the Commission to use his good offices with Commissioner Davignon to encourage him to visit us. This is simply not good enough. To leap out of that vacuum of interest and ask for total regulatory
  852
  powers overruling national Governments, having made no particular technical contribution to these wider decisions, is to get the cart before the horse.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say that he will take back to the Commission a plea from us, as Members who understand the problems of the steel industry in this country and in the world, that it should think again. It should prove its mettle and show what contribution it can make to the steel industry before asking for these overwhelming powers.
  11.36 p.m.
  Miss Joan Maynard: I support the amendment. Commission document R/1135/78 shows that our steel industry would be further eroded by the EEC, particularly as regards investment and jobs.
  On too many occasions when we discuss the EEC, we talk about the common agricultural policy. That is understandable, because probably the effects of the CAP are more obvious to the general public and all of us. However, what is going on behind the scenes in relation to our industry, particularly our manufacturing industry, and what that will mean for Britain in future are even more serious. For every £1 invested in Britain, £5 is invested in the EEC. I ask the House to consider what effect that will have on our industry in years to come. It is one of the consequences of the free flow of capital arising from our membership of the Common Market. If investment is affected in this way, so will jobs and modernisation be affected.
  Our steel industry faces a world recession. In addition, it has to withstand the effects of our membership of the EEC. Document R/1135/78 could have a major effect on the British Steel Corporation's investment plans and on the steel industry, public and private.
  I want to say a few words about the effects of imports on the special steels industry, which is, in the main, in the private sector, though there is public investment there too. The import penetration has been dramatic. Over the past 18 months about 3,000 direct jobs have been lost because of imports. These imports have come from within the EEC. I could give examples covering all the years from

  853
  1973 to 1978, but in the interests of brevity I shall confine myself to mentioning figures for 1973 and 1978 of tool steel, stainless bar and high-speed steel bar.
  In 1973, import penetration in all those categories was 12 per cent. or less. In 1978, import penetration in tool steel was 56·5 per cent., in stainless bar 80 per cent. and in high-speed steel bar 30·5 per cent. However, Opposition Members talk about the protection of the market. If that is protection, I do not understand the meaning of the word.
  The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) says that we shall not be able to sustain our steel industry. Obviously, we shall not be able to sustain it against the import penetration that I have described.
  A further effect of import penetration is a much reduced capital investment programme for the industry. Running alongside that is continued rationalisation. That is taking place under the fabricated conditions that have been created. The purpose of the Common Market is to help the multinationals. It is certainly doing that. It is doing so at the expense of our steel industry.
  A bonanza is taking place and the people of Sheffield are suffering as a result. When a delegation from Sheffield met Ministers of the Departments of Trade and Industry to draw their attention to the deterioration of its part of the steel industry, their answer was that little could be done because of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. They said that they could not impose import controls because the United Kingdom would be taken to court.
  The Government should introduce import controls. They should let the EEC take us to court. America has placed tight controls on imports. We have suffered because imports are entering Britain that would have gone to the United States. It is not merely import penetration; in some instances it is dumping.
  One of the most positive suggestions offered to the delegation from Sheffield was for it to compile a report specifying the shape and size of the investment needed for the special steel sector. That is the investment that the delegation
  854
  thinks is needed to sustain our home market and the proportion of the international market that our industry has previously supplied. It supplies our aerospace, power generation and chemical industries along with other high technology industries. The Labour movement in Sheffield would like to see a National Enterprise Board interest in the special steel industry—in other words, a public interest in that important part of the industry.
  The compiling of the report that was asked of the delegation is proceeding with the assistance of the local authorities in the area. If the ideas and projections in the report are found to be sound and viable and capable of being acted upon, inevitably major investment will be required. The investment for reorganising and re-equipping a major part of the industry where a world lead is evident could be seriously affected by the introduction of document No. R/1135/78.
  The steel industry is controlled not merely by the Paris treaty. A major part of the industry—most of the special steel sector—comes within the Treaty of Rome. How far is the plan for steel in document No. R/1135/78 to extend? The amendment tries to safeguard the position. It asks for the minimum future investment in a vital industry and the safeguarding of jobs within the industry, which is equally important.
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. John Ellis: My hon. Friend the Minister of State. Foreign and Commonwealth Office used certain words that sounded tough. On analysis they might not be touch. His response to an intervention put the wind up some of my hon. Friends and myself. He said "subject to our treaty obligations". I hope that it will be made clear that the tough words were tough and that there will be no qualifications. I hope that the Government will hold firmly to the amendment, which states:
  "but cannot accept proposals which would curtail assistance to and investment in the iron and steel industry and would damage employment in that industry".
  Several references were made to me before I rose to speak. I should tell the hon. Members concerned that I have no objection to co-operation with any country, be it France, Spain, America or

  855
  Japan, as long as it is on the basis of what is good for our own steel industry.
  One of the documents states:
  "The draft decision is intended to ensure that actions taken by member states individually do not impede the overall process of restructuring the Community steel industry. It would apply certain restrictions to direct and indirect Government assistance (compensation of social costs of closures, assistance for loss making plants and emergency intervention)"
  —in other words, direct intervention in all these vital areas. This is one of the most dangerous documents that we have ever considered, and we cannot accept it in any way, shape or form.
  It so happens that I have a very modern steelworks in my constituency. Reference was made to it earlier. We have always recognised that important investment decisions are involved, just as they are in any industry. Some excellent speeches have been made in this House on that subject. But it should also be remembered that the workers themselves can make an important contribution. Those of us who sit with them on committees are constantly amazed at their depth of wisdom. After all, this is their own industry.
  Government Ministers refer to all the proposals for change contained in these documents. But, instead of looking to the Common Market, I believe that they should consult in depth with the trade unions. I accept that there are features of the steel industry, be it specialist steels or a particular plant, where small is beautiful. But let the people involved in the industry have their say.
  As was done when coal was restructured, we should tell them "We will talk with you", because at the end of the day, as a result of the argument and discussion, there will be agreement. To this day, however, my right hon. Friends in the Government have never given an undertaking that instead of discussing the steel industry's problems through Community documents they will go to the workers. If they did that, I believe that we would be more likely to achieve a consensus.
  I am very keen about investment plans. Reference has been made to the terrific amount of investment that there has been. If the steel industry is to have a future, we must go on investing. But I recognise the difficulties.
  856
  It is my belief that the steel plant in Scunthorpe could produce another 1 million tonnes. But I am somewhat surprised that every time we approach the British Steel Corporation we are told "We are modernising the furnaces". However much it modernises them, we are still not making effective use of our existing steelmaking capacity. Last year, the steel plant in Scunthorpe made a loss, principally because the plant was not loaded. We must make the maximum use of that plant.
  That is not to say that we should do this immediately. I recognise that at present there is over-production. I hope that contingency plans are being made. I look to the British Steel Corporation to say that those contingency plans have been made. If it is not right that those investments should be made, that is fair enough, but it seems ludicrous, especially when many millions of pounds have been invested in a plant, not to run it efficiently and well.
  I want to make two brief points of detail. The documents refer to "rehabilitation money", or compensation for other industries. If we have already received that money, I should like to know where it has been spent. It has certainly not been spent in my area, where plants have been closed down. The way in which that money has been spent is a closed book. We want to hear where it has been employed. It is an anachronism to talk of fair competition.
  Certain Continental producers were a long way from the coking coal and it had to be dragged to their steel plants. We had to put our money into the coking coal scheme. When the agreement was entered into, no one in the House knew of it. An agreement was worked out by the back door because it had no benefits for us. We gave the EEC the money, and it gave it back because it said that it did not apply. Someone in the Common Market woke up and there was another order. It was said that it was only an unwritten agreement and that we could not have the money back. Are we still having to pay for other countries' difficulties in dragging coking coal long distances to their steel plants?
  I believe in fairness in debate. Although we on the Labour Benches may be anti-Common Market and against this

  857
  legislation, with the honourable exception of that of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) the speeches from the Conservative Benches came close to being anti-British. I hope that in his reply for the Opposition the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) will reject the proposals of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who sought to destroy the steel industry as we know it. He could at least have said that we in this country would recognise our obligations and bring work to the communities that would be destroyed if he had his way. In my election address, I shall consider printing his speech and pointing out that that is what the Tories would do to our livelihood in Scunthorpe and elsewhere. He made a sad, gloomy and destructive analysis of the steel industry.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman says that he is fair in debate. It is not fair to postulate that people who ask us to face realities are anti-British. I want to preserve a British steel industry. I believe that it can only be done in the European context.
  Mr. EllisWhen the hon. Gentleman reads his speech tomorrow, he will realise that he has wrapped up the steel industry. If his analysis is put into effect, the steel industry is finished, leaving only a fringe sector. He has completely destroyed the British Steel Corporation. He has ruined many communities.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is rapidly coming to a conclusion as far as the Back Benches are concerned. The Front Bench speakers wish to begin winding up at 12.10 a.m. This leaves 15 minutes for about three other speakers. I therefore appeal to hon. Members to make each speech last only five minutes.
  11.54 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: There are several points in the Opposition speeches which should be considered. None of my hon. Friends has referred to the fact that in the 1940s and 1960s the Conservative Party fought furiously to prevent national control of the steel industry. Today it is eager to hand it over to a supranational body over which this House has little control. That repudiation of past prejudice is important. I would rather have the Conservative Party
  858
  seeking to concern itself with Britain than adopting this new approach, particularly if it embodies the pessimism of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). I hope that he will read his speech tomorrow. There may be serious doubts about the viability in the long term of retaining open hearth furnaces, and we closed ours in South Yorkshire in the 1960s. From my area, despite the massive competition and the serious challenge from Japan and Korea, we are exporting 30 to 40 per cent. of our production—or as much of it as the present industrial dispute allows.
  Perhaps the most serious speech from the Opposition so far was that from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who spoke of the job decline in the period from 1975. In the British steel industry we have taken a longer view of the problem. For example, in South Yorkshire in the last 10 years we have shed between 8,000 and 10,000 jobs. But we have done it knowingly and in a humane way in order that we might have a steel industry which can compete with the rest of the world.
  I shall not repeat the impressive list of achievements given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). He spoke of our fine position in South Yorkshire. In the part of the Rotherham works in my constituency and within the Parkgate complex, we have, in addition to the Roundwood and the Aldwarke plants, the Thrybergh Bar mill, which is more successful and has broken more records than any of the plants in the countries which have so daunted Conservative Members. I do not believe that we should be daunted. At the same time, I do not believe that we should say that we should not have international co-operation. None of us would have deplored the pricing proposals which Commissioner Davignon introduced. But I do not think that we should encourage the Europeans or anyone else to believe that simply because the pricing proposals had a germ of sense we should surrender control.
  At present, we in Britain are already importing too much steel. This is not in the form of bars and billets, or rod and coil, but in the form of motor cars and other manufactured goods. If we have any optimism—which has clearly departed from the Opposition Benches—we shall

  859
  look to the day, perhaps not far off, when there will be a greater buoyancy within our economy and, therefore, a demand for the steel which we must retain.
  In any consideration of the European steel industry, we should match considerations of population with those of steel capacity. If we carry out that comparison, we can see that there would be no justification whatever for any major reduction in British Steel. Unless I have a guarantee that there will be no major reduction and that the steel workers of South Yorkshire can continue to break world records, I certainly cannot support any alternative policy.
  11.58 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I want to protest once again that a vital debate of this nature is taking place late at night with practically no members of the press here. Therefore, many people who might have heard about these proceedings will not do so.
  When I first came to the House and saw the vast amount of EEC documentation coming forward, I was one of those who turned up on every occasion to try to struggle through it. However, we have been literally snowed under, and I notice that we are getting fewer in number. The reality is that we simply cannot read through all the documentation. It is so massive that it simply slips through. It is sad that so few people, both in this House and outside, will have even glanced at this documentation. Anybody who is fair-minded and who looks at the three documents will be appalled at what he finds in them.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) came to me the other day to seek support for his amendment, I took a rather keener interest than I had up to that time. I got the documentation to look through it. First of all, let me make it quite clear to anyone who describes us on the Labour Benches as "Little Englanders" that there is not one of us here who has not a proud record of internationalism throughout his or her entire political life. None of us is a nationalist. But the odour of pessimism that has flowed across from the Opposition Benches, with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), could not fail to make us worry about the attitude to the British
  860
  steel industry of hon. Members on those Benches who support the Market.
  I find this documentation worrying. I am also worried, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), by the ambivalent attitude of the Minister of State, who in one powerful sentence expressed more or less total opposition but then produced a form of words which appeared to contain a major retraction. The Minister mentioned one other nation with a similar attitude to ours. I hope that it is stronger than the ambivalence displayed by my hon. Friend.
  I regard this documentation as an unacceptable interference in our steel industry. If these documents were put before the steel workers—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) has already shown them to some of our people in Sheffield—they would be appalled. The interference in BSC investment is an example. We are putting vast amounts of money into BSC precisely because private investment in the steel industry was so pitiful. That is the reality. The Thrybergh mill, as soon as it was given the production resources, achieved a world record. That shows the pride that exists in our industry and its potential.
  I hope that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who are opposed to the Market will not object if I state that a complete lack of Socialist approach permeates these documents. We are biased in favour of putting more money into a nationalised industry, to strengthen it and make it more powerful. The contradiction in the Conservative approach was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), who pointed out that Conservative Members were totally against nationalisation but, in the same breath, wanted internationalisation almost overnight. We are asked in these documents not to discriminate between private and publicly owned industry. I personally would discriminate because I am in favour of publicly owned industry. I see this documentation as hindering Socialism and a Socialist policy. That might appear sectarian, but we sit on these Benches because we hold different opinions from those of hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches.
  The documents state that restructuring plans for steel in the EEC must not be

  861
  impeded by national plans. We are restructuring and hoping to put more money into our industry. We are convinced that the industry can flourish. We are convinced that without resorting to Little Englandism we can build a stronger industry. What would happen if we wanted to devote a large part of North Sea oil income to regenerating the steel industry and the EEC objected? We know that entrepreneurs all over South Yorkshire are building up stocks of special steels. We do not want interference. If we do not take action, our industry will be steadily run down by the EEC.
  I find these documents intrusive and worrying. I would like a far more definite statement from my hon. Friend the Minister on his opposition to the documents.
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. David Lambie: I intervene as a Scottish Member with a steel interest. But in that respect I am holding on with the skin of my teeth. All the steelmaking activities ended two days before Christmas in an area where there is already a 13 per cent. unemployment rate. Unless we can find an alternative industry, that unemployment rate will reach 35 per cent.
  What has the EEC done so far for the steel workers in my area except to bribe them to sell their birthrights and their jobs? If the EEC gets away with tonight's regulations, with the support of the Government, there will be no future for the steel workers in my constituency and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I support the amendment. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be more firm than the Minister of State. We might be within three to five weeks of a general election. We want to campaign in the steel constituencies on the basis that a Labour Government will veto any attempt by the European Commission to take control of the investment plans of the BSC and the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.
  Only rolling mills are now operating in my constituency, but we still have tremendous potential. We are only seven miles from the Hunterston steel peninsula,
  862
  where the BSC has invested about £145 million in the iron ore terminal and two direct reduction plants. But the intention is to mothball those plants when they are completed in June this year.
  The Government and the BSC have said that the next steel development on a green field site will be at Hunterston. I want the decision on that development to be under the control of a British Labour Government. It must not be handed over to the bureaucrats in Brussels. We found it difficult enough to get that commitment from a British Labour Government. We have not a hope in hell of achieving such a commitment from the European Community.
  The future of the steel industry in North Ayrshire depends on a British Labour Government and the British Steel Corporation. That is why I support the amendment. That is why I hope that the Government will make a commitment to the steel constituencies, if we are to face a general election in the next few weeks.
  12.8 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: On one matter at least I can agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Many of us regret that this debate is being conducted so late at night and in such a short time. I regret that in less than 20 minutes I have to try to reply to about 14 speeches and to put questions to the Minister.
  The Minister fluttered briefly round the course. He used his well known "avoid the minefield" technique. The pro- and anti-European divisions exist within both parties. When the Minister reads Hansard he will find that even with his moderate and light-hand-on-the-tiller approach there was a storm of flak behind him.
  It is not my task to try to give satisfactory answers on behalf of the pro-Europe case, but I should like to touch on a number of speeches which have been made tonight because one of the problems I face is trying to distinguish between those with genuine concern and the alarmist; between those who try to turn this into something party political across the Floor of the House and those who believe that it raises deep issues. We can fully understand hon. Members' views, both pro- and anti-Market.

  863
  It is clear that if one takes the broad view across the House one has to accept some kind of majority view. I start by making the assumption that in looking at these four documents we are concerned with matters which go to the very heart of the future of the British steel industry. My assumption is that membership of the European Coal and Steel Community, as with membership of the Community itself, is a fact of life and will continue.
  One hon. Member—I believe it was the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)—suggested that we should consult more fully with the trade unions in trying to get a clear view about the Community. I draw his attention to the latest, December, issue of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation magazine in which the ISTC's parliamentary panel member, the candidate seeking election to the European Parliament, Mr. Paul Flynn, was asked his views about this question and what should be done about investment. He said:
  "For 30 years large scale decisions in our industry have been made on the European scale. The recent shock scrapping of the £200 million oxygen plant at Neuves-Maison"—
  the French oxygen plant—
  "sent a shudder through the whole European steel industry. It was the nightmare possibility we thought could never happen. These are perilous times and it would be of enormous value to have a voice speaking for I.S.T.C. in the European arena"
  I agree with that. If one thing has been made abundantly clear—
  Mr. John Ellis rose—
  Mr. Marshall: I have got so much to say that I am afraid I cannot give way.
  Mr. Ellis: The hon. Member referred to me.
  Mr. Marshall: I am sorry. I shall have the same problem, with a number of hon. Members to whom, in courtesy to them, I should like to refer, but I must get on.
  The important point I am making is that tonight the case has been made clearly for directly elected European Members. Many of the problems which have been raised tonight and many of the worries expressed will clearly become, after June, the concern of those colleagues who then become directly elected Members of the European Parliament.
  864
  They are some of the people who, I trust, will go to fight for their corners and for their regions, as hon. Members have done tonight. I do not think we can adopt a static view of draft documents of the kind we have been concerned with tonight.
  Therefore, my second assumption in looking at the future of these matters is that an integral part of our membership of the ECSC is a continuing commitment by this country and by other members to try to overcome the structural and human problems of overcapacity and overmanning and, as the explanatory memorandum in document R/1135 says on Community rules for aids and interventions, to tackle European uncompetitiveness arising from old or badly sited plant and modern working at less than optimum capacity. It follows, therefore, that we must consider active support for the restructuring plans upon which the Commission is currently working.
  I should like at this point to put the point directly to the Minister. I hope he will be able to tell us when the Government expect those restructuring plans to come forward. It is a valid criticism of some of the rules which we have before us in draft form that if they are being put forward prior to the restructuring plan and if that restructuring is reasonably on its way there is not too much point to them. I suspect that this is a longer-term and vast problem but, nevertheless, it would be helpful to consider that aspect.
  The third assumption—and I think that this brings us back to the short term—is the question of price restraint and tonnage restraint and the way in which the Davignon plan has operated. I believe it is common ground for the majority of hon. Members that Davignon has been of assistance. It is certainly the view of the British Steel Corporation and it is certainly the view of the British Independent Steel Producers Association. The chairman of the British Steel Corporation, talking to the Select Committee on nationalised industries in December, and as was reported in the press, said that if we did not have the Davignon plan it would have been necessary to invent another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has put forward a consistent view—and I should like to pay

  865
  tribute to the work he has done in the Select Committee on Secondary Legislation. It is because of that scrutiny that we are having this debate.
  All hon. Members who take an interest in these matters must accept that in recent years we have seen great difficulties in the steel industry, and it is outrageous for hon. Members to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who was pointing to the real problems faced in steel making. No one can get any pleasure out of that. Anyone who glances at the BSC figures for the past five years will see that the tonnage has gone down from 18·1 million tons in 1973–74 to complete stagnation in the past three years at between 12·7 million tons and 13·4 million tons. Hon. Members must accept that we face a dilemma because the BSC is saying that these are now normal times. It cannot see a speedy end to the recession.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) was right to express one optimistic aspect. If we can get industry competitive—and, indeed, if we can get the whole of British industry competitive—there is, on the current sales of 50 per cent. of the British market, a target to shoot for. But even if we take the maximum amount of steel capacity—26 million tons at present—we must remember that the BSC already has the problem of overcapacity in relation to any possible sale.
  There was a realistic element in the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) when he suggested that we had to think about the possibility of problems from subsidised Portuguese or Spanish industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex was also right to strike a realistic note on how we must face up to these challenges. They will have to be faced by the present Government and, I trust, by the next Conservative Government.
  The House has had to consider a number of important issues which go well beyond sheer technicalities. Let me look in more detail at each document. All hon. Members have felt most concerned about the rules. I spoke earlier about the commitment to Davignon. One side of that coin is price agreement and the attempt to achieve market restraint for a
  866
  temporary period. We must look at it as a temporary arrangement. Price agreements are like incomes policies: they cannot be better than temporary. There comes a time when the mechanism will wear out.
  Time is desperately short and I hope that we have enough time to move into areas of agreement on structural capacity and getting a balanced steel industry in Europe. I remind hon. Members that in looking at the balance sheet it is important to bear in mind the commitments that we already have to the Commission. To put it crudely, we must take into account what benefits we are getting from our membership of the Community.
  We pay levies of between £7 million and £8 million a year. Against those, we must offset our annual returns. In the past 12 months, we have had £1·8 million for readaptation grants for those affected by rundowns and closures, and another £500,000 for cheap-loan housing for those who have to move as a result of that sort of plant closure. This year alone, 2,400 workers at Hartlepool, Shotton and East Moors will get the advantage of that sort of support. We must add to those sums £750,000 for research grants, £250,000 in low-interest subsidy for investment with an anti-pollution element, loan interest on £412 million of direct ECSC loans and £216 million from the European Investment Bank. The ECSC already has a direct and vital stake in our steel industry with a net balance in our favour.
  One hon. Member suggested that we might be in some way moving into very dangerous waters in shifting over to the customs duty proposal. That is a matter for argument. I am perfectly willing to consider what is the best way to raise the levy. That we have to raise the levy seems to me inescapable for the reasons I have given.
  When we look at the figures with which the Government have provided us, we can see that if we changed over to the customs duty arrangement it would cost us, on current estimates, between £11 million and £12 million per annum, as against the existing figures of between £8 million and £9 million per annum. Frankly, in relation to a turnover of £3,000 million per annum, we are talking of a relative drop in the ocean in this

  867
  respect. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) may well want to argue the principle, but I do not think that the amounts are significant in the terms that we are discussing tonight.
  I now turn to the broader question of the basis upon which the rules ought to apply. That we should have rules cannot be escaped. It is the obverse side of the coin, as I have said, of the Davignon proposals. For the British Steel Corporation, it has meant directly a strengthening in demand for some products, as stated in the annual report, and when we saw the chairman of the British Steel Corporation he made it clear that, if it had not been for the Davignon proposals, it would have been impossible for the British Steel Corporation to move back up four percentage points in its flat steel products during the last 12 months, at a time when it was desperately trying to edge back over 50 per cent. of the market.
  These are the kinds of arguments which have persuaded BSC that the Davignon proposals are in its best interest. For the British Independent Steel Producers Association, similar arguments apply. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), as far as I could see, was simply making a case for a better Davignon plea. She will appreciate that within the practical constraints of today it has only been by the attempts to make sure that some restraint is exercised that the market for special steels has not been even worse.
  But there is a wider interest also for the independent producers. Transparent and open competition is crucial to a private sector which has always said that it wants to be in fair and equal competition with a massive State steel industry, of which it is, incidentally, a major customer. Those are the assurances that were given to that sector at the time of nationalisation.
  I do not claim that the Davignon proposals are perfect. I would not be here tonight arguing that the proposals in the documents before us contain some perfect formula. But one would like to know from the Minister rather more about the Government's precise attitude on these negotiations. We had a very broad-brush approach from the Minister of State. He simply said that the Government had not felt able to do these things for certain
  868
  reasons. We understand his broad reasoning, but we need to know, for example, on the question of regional aid, whether this is a matter which will be discussed in detail. To what extent would agreed lists be a feature of the initial agreement if an agreement were to be reached?
  It is interesting to note how the documents presented to us single out Scotland, Wales and so on. The whole burden of the case of the Commission, if it were here to answer for itself, would surely be to point to the fact that this country and Italy, as presently constituted within the steel family, are likely to benefit from the Community more than other parts of the European steel industry, because that is the nature of the problem. Therefore, this must be something that we want to hear about from the Minister. We want to hear precisely what understanding exists. The Minister mentioned that there had been an agreement on shipbuilding. We were led by the press to understand that a similar kind of compromise agreement was to he reached on steel.
  It is clear that the British Government and Italy have argued for a breathing space. We have until April to look at the matter again. The Government, while they remain in office, have a continuing responsibility in these matters. We want to hear from the Minister precisely what they intend to do as they go into further rounds of negotiations, armed with the benefit of the advice they have had from all sides.
  In broad terms, we simply cannot consider scrapping the Davignon proposals in the present situation. It has to be accepted that in terms of the proposals we are obliged to continue with some form of negotiation as to rules. If we do not, we are simply saying, in effect, that we can destroy the Davignon proposals, or any other price agreement, by allowing subsidy at the other end of the scale. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw demonstrated that very well indeed.
  In the amendment, certainly on paper, I find it difficult to see anything objectionable. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) is, in effect, inviting us to join in invocation to reject sin. My difficulty is in seeing where he has been able to find any real reference within these documents which could bring about the undesirable matter that he has mentioned.

  869
  The nub of the matter is to be found in the Council resolution, in paragraph 2 and the following rules 1 to 6. In this House all of us must try occasionally to strip aside our prejudices—in this case, whether we are pro-Market or anti-Market. But, frankly, I could not help thinking, as will some other hon. Members who have read the rules, that when one reads out the rules one's tone of voice can almost make or break one's fears or happiness about the subject. Let us take:
  "Aid, in whatever form, must promote restructuring and conversion and take account of the resultant social consequences and effects on employment".
  Who could object to that? Let us take:
  "Competition must not be distorted by the aid."
  Who could object to that? One could continue down the list.
  Mr. Hooley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
  Mr. Marshall: No, I am very sorry. I have only four minutes.
  The whole point is that it is very difficult to judge, without rehearsing some of our prejudices, precisely what is meant by some of these points as drafted. Surely the Government, who have had experience of negotiation, ought to be able to put some flesh and blood on the skeleton of these matters.
  I sum up our attitude to these matters. The Opposition accept that, while Davignon is a continuing feature of international steel trading, there must be some measure of price restraint. Therefore, we understand the points put forward about steel merchants. As I understand it, there have simply been some opportunities for evasion, particularly on the matter of sale of cut-up coil, and so on.
  We agree that the ECSC must continue to be funded. As I have said, the actual basis is a matter for argument. I have also said that I think that the present differential between one system and another in money terms appears to be relatively minor.
  Our concern remains the Government's attitude to the Commission's proposals for aid to the steel industry. I share some of the reservations that have been expressed tonight, because looking at these matters cold is very difficult. In
  870
  this situation we would have benefited from the advice of many of our colleagues who are Members of the European Parliament, who, for all kinds of reasons, as many of us know, cannot be with us tonight but who would make the case for the Euro-Members of the future.
  However, in the proposals which I have read out, I cannot see anything like the anxiety which has been expressed by many hon. Members. It would be very hard indeed for us to explain to other members of the EEC if we simply say "We are trying to go this alone". As I think the Minister of State said, on the present estimate, 34 per cent. of all expenditure coming from the Community for steel is coming to this country. That really makes us the principal beneficiary. That has been our position over many years. That situation may well continue.
  I think that the Government are moving towards accepting the amendment; I give the hon. Member for Heeley that guesswork in advance. I think that the Government are simply trying to keep him and his hon. Friends, particularly those below the Gangway, in a cheerful mood. The suggestion that there is some kind of party-political mileage and that this is in some way a matter on which, for electoral popularity, the Government are taking a tough anti-European line is all eyewash. Frankly, I think that hon. Members have realised that. They did so when they suggest that the Minister of State ought to have given them a bit more precise detail. I shall invite the Under-Secretary to do so shortly.
  I simply say that the Government, in this matter as in so many others, are walking on a tightrope. They are trying to maintain EEC and ECSC membership, they want to have the benefits of Davignon, but they would like to avoid crunch questions—of which these are crunch questions. In this as in so many other matters, it will take a fresh look and a fresh Government from the Conservative Benches to bring us to reality.
  12.30 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I am afraid that I shall not bring any joy at all to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) in the last respect that he mentioned. Indeed, the ambivalence that he

  871
  expressed on behalf of the Conservative Party contrasted markedly with the firm determination expressed by my hon. Friends. The change of tune on the Opposition Benches, depending on where hon. Gentlemen sit tonight, was in marked contrast to the determination of my hon. Friends to preserve our steel industry, above all, to represent their constituents adequately and to keep the interests of the British Steel Corporation in their minds.
  Tonight we had some good sense from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I take on board the point that he made about the absence of any reference to the Scrutiny Committee documents. I shall certainly see that that is fed through to my right hon. Friend the Lord President.
  The hon. Gentleman's good sense contrasted with what I thought was the incredible nonsense that we had from the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). I hope that his Labour opponent will make his constituents absolutely aware of his sentiments tonight. The hon. Gentleman's proposals to hand over the future of the steelworks and of steel workers in this country to the European Commission will not go down well in his constituency.
  We had testimony to the achievements of the British Steel Corporation by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) in the £21 million investment at Stocksbridge. We had the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), and I look forward to receiving the deputation from Derwentside that he is to bring to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) expressed the strong feeling that the Commission must prove itself. We then had a robust defence of the BSC's achievements by my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) and Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy).
  I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) and Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), from the way that they have pressed the interests of their constituents over the past weeks and months, are determined to do something to secure a better future for Sheffield steel.
  872
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe asked a specific question about rehabilitation expenditure from the European Coal and Steel Community. Those benefits have gone to workers who were previously employed at, for example, Hartlepool, East Moors, Ebbw Vale and Clyde Iron, and not into the BSC's pocket. The money comes jointly from Community funds and from Her Majesty's Government. If my hon. Friend would like further information, I can give it to him on some other occasion.
  The hon. Member for Arundel, if he was ambivalent in some of his remarks, was quite right to pay tribute and testimony to the efficacy of the Davignon anti-crisis measures. I do not want to detract from that. I pay tribute to the fact that, because of Davignon, producers have been obliged to refrain from continued alterations in prices—price cutting—by the imposition of mandatory minimum and guidance prices and that importers have been prevented from buying steel at low rates from third countries for sale within the EEC.
  The BSC recognises the benefits that it has gained from the Davignon anti-crisis measures. Indeed, we recognise that the anti-crisis measures have helped and that it is sensible for Community steel industries to look for some kind of joint solutions to their problems. But, at the same time, we must speak for and defend the best interests of our steel industry and workers.
  The hon. Member for Arundel paid a glowing tribute to the money, in the form of a balance sheet, that we were supposed to be receiving from the ECSC. However, the figures for the last year do not accord with what he said. They show that BSC paid in about £6½ million and got back £2 million. The figures over different years probably balance out a little better than that, but the figures for last year do not justify the kind of eulogy given to the House by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Minister accept that I obtained the figures I quoted from the BSC as the latest figures? I think it is useful for the House to examine them so that perhaps by tabling written questions we can help to clarify the matter.
  Mr. Huckfield: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be fair in giving the House last year's figures. Those figures show that we paid £6·5 million and got back £2 million.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the extension of the Commission's powers over United Kingdom regional aids. We have made clear to the Commission that we attach considerable importance to our freedom to offer regional assistance and that we shall resist any attempts to curtail this freedom. The Commission is well aware of the difficult situation that we would face if a decision on the extension of its powers over regional aids were made. I hope that will markedly contrast with the ambivalent attitude displayed on the Conservative Benches in this debate.
  The proposed steel aids decision, as my hon. Friend said in opening the debate, would have the effect of altering the balance of powers between the Community institutions, and we believe that it would set a major precedent in conferring new powers on the Commission. I appreciate that that is what the hon. Member for Flint, West wants. Equally, the proposal permanently to transfer customs revenues on steel products to Community funds—this relates to document No. R/1292/78—would represent a significant change in the workings of the ECSC. Solutions to crises must be found, but we do not believe that any such crises should be used as an excuse for permanent changes.
  Many of my hon. Friends have made plain tonight that in regard to document R/1135/78 the Commission's draft proposals on State aids are too rigid for us. We cannot be bound to follow policies designed to put the steel industry back on its feet without paying due regard to the social and economic consequences of such action on the country as a whole. The Commission and other member States cannot expect us to bind ourselves to agree to proposals which would, in effect, deprive us of the power to decide upon the speed and content of our restructuring programme. We have said that it is up to BSC to negotiate closures at its discretion and that no action will be taken without prior consultation with the trade unions and the work forces concerned.
  874
  Paragraph 14 of the White Paper "British Steel Corporation: the Road to Viability" reads:
  "No action will be taken without prior consultation with the TUC Steel Committee and the local workforces."
  We intend to stand by those words.
  Mr. John Ellis: Will my hon. Friend take the workers into his confidence, as was done in the coal industry? In that case there was not just consultation but, although it was a stony road, eventual agreement. Will the Government seek not just negotiations but agreement?
  Mr. Huckfield: I take my hon. Friend's words to heart. With my right hon. Friend this afternoon I met a deputation from Bilston. The representatives expressed a strong case. My right hon. Friend believes that they must be consulted. Indeed, it has been our policy that the trade unions must be consulted.
  We have made our stand on this matter and are on record as so doing. I accept the spirit of the amendment, and because I accept the spirit of their amendment I hope that my hon. Friends will not feel bound to press it.
  Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend has said that the Government would resist the proposals and that they cannot accept them. Can he assure us that that means that they will not accept the proposals in their present form?
  Mr. Huckfield: In view of the statements that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have made, I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should even question me in that way. I have made the position very clear tonight, as has my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  Mr. Marten rose—
  Mr. Huckfield: I have only a short time, and I did make a rather glowing reference to the hon. Gentleman, which I genuinely meant.
  Our policy has been set out in our White Paper "The Road to Viability". We explained our intention with regard to the corporation's future finance, and set out the action we are taking to put the corporation back on its feet. We made plain our intention to achieve an

  875
  efficient, competitive and profitable steel industry in the 1980s.
  My hon. Friends from Sheffield have made a special case for their area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley will take cognisance of the comprehensive answer I gave him yesterday, stating the Government's overall position on special steels. I also hope that he will carefully read the import figures which I gave him in a different answer yesterday. My statement, in reply to a series of questions, and those import figures show the improvement that is taking place in certain sectors of the special steel market. The figures show that the improvement is being maintained.
  I refer particularly to the part of the Adjournment debate on 28 November when I told my hon. Friend:
  "Of course, taking the broad areas, I am sure I my hon. Friend will recognise that so far, as a result of some of these activities"—
  I was referring to the activities that the Government had already undertaken—
  "alloy tool, die and magnet steel import penetration has fallen from 73·01 per cent. in 1977 to 71·34 per cent. so far this year. Stainless steel bar penetration has fallen from 44·78 per cent to 41·25 per cent."—[Official Report, 28 November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 405.]
  Those are just a few figures dealing with a few special areas that I know have been of great concern to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will note that there has been that improvement. It must continue, and I think that the figures I gave him yesterday show that it is continuing.
  Mr. Marten: I am grateful to the Minister for now giving way. He said that he accepted the spirit of the amendment. What I should like to know is whether he accepts the amendment.
  Mr. Huckfield: If I had been asked personally, I would not have put the amendment quite in those words. What I am saying is that I accept my hon. Friends' vigorous defence of their constituents' interests tonight. Because I accept that, I accept the spirit of the amendment.
  Mr. Marten: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the amendment?
  Mr. Huckfield: If I am pressed I shall tell hon. Members that if I had been in their shoes I would not have put the
  876
  amendment quite in the same words. Nevertheless, I accept its spirit.
  We have in the past, although not too much tonight, had some criticism of the degree to which the Scrutiny Committee was kept informed of progress towards the adoption of the 1978 budget proposals contained in document R/674/78. The Committee considered the original draft decision on 7 December 1977, which paved the way for this, before the Council approved an allocation 32 million EUA in principle. It did not at that stage recommend a debate. The Committee also considered on 18 May 1978 a revised draft of R/674/78, providing for contributions to be made in proportion.
  I hope that the hon. Members who speak as members of the Committee will read carefully the explanatory memorandums that have been sent to them, as well as the correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and my right hon. Friends. That sets out the difficulty in which my right hon. Friends found themselves in wanting to get the measures operable as soon as possible, as was essential. Perhaps the fully detailed consultation at the appropriate time which the Scrutiny Committee might have sought was not then possible because of the speed at which a decision had to be taken. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members will accept the explanation which has been given and that the sentiments expressed in my hon. Friends' letters have convinced them that we take their representations seriously.
  It is difficult nationally to establish a precise balance sheet. Although it is true that the British Steel Corporation and the steel industry have benefited to some extent from the Davignon anti-crisis measures, I recognise the strong feelings of my hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of Sheffield special steel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said, on the matter of Sheffield special steel we have been in correspondence with Commissioner Davignon and we have sent his latest reply to the sector working party and to BISPA for consultation. We want to make progress. We think that the spirit in which the Commissioner has replied sets the framework in which we hope to be able to make progress.
  However, the Government believe that any plan to restore a disciplined market

  877
  in steel and to provide financial assistance and alternative employment to redundant workers must benefit Britain. Under the ECSC budget, we believe that we are not being asked to provide funds disproportionate to our receipts.

  Division No. 52]

  AYES

  [12.47 a.m.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marten, Neil

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hardy, Peter

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Moate, Roger

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Home Robertson, John

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hooley, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Huckfield, Les

  Urwin, T. W.

  Concannon, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Adam

  Watkins, David

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Cowans, Harry

  Judd, Frank

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamble, David

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Loyden, Eddie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  Flannery, Martin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. Jim Marshall.

  NOES

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Penhaligon, David

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mr. Tim Renton and

  Mr. Robert Rhodes James.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the EEC Document Nos, R/1135/78, R/1221/78, R/1292/78 and R/3454/78 on the Steel Industry but cannot accept proposals which would curtail assistance to and investment in the iron and steel industry and would damage employment in that industry.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is in a little confusion as a result of the vote. We had the somewhat peculiar situation of the Under-Secretary of State saying that he accepted the amendment but advised that it should be withdrawn. We are not quite clear whether the Government feel that they have carried out their undertakings to the House. Perhaps it would help if the Under-Secretary explained his advice a little further.
  Mr. Les Huckfield: It is very simple. As I have consistently said to Opposition Members and to my hon. Friends, had I been given the choice I would not have used those words. That is all that I say. But, having said that and having voted for it, I hope that the Government's position is now clear.
  Several Hon Members rose—
  I hope that my hon. Friends, recognising that I have accepted the spirit of their amendment, will not press the amendment and that it will be withdrawn.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 5.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The general rule is that in these circumstances an intervention from each side is allowed. But I shall not allow any more.

  HIGH COURT ATTENDANCES (OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE)
  Ordered,
  That leave be given for the proper Officers of the House to attend the hearing of an appeal by Maurice Donald Henn and John Frederick Ernest Darby against their convictions and to produce the Report of the Debate to which reference is desired to be made and formally to prove the same according to their competence, as prayed for in the Petition relating to the said appeal presented to this House yesterday, and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Report.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

  FLOODING (FAVERSHAM)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]
  1.1 a.m.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity of raising tonight a matter of the utmost gravity for the people of my constituency. However serious may be the other crises gripping the nation, for the people of Sheerness

  879
  in particular, but also for others in the Isle of Sheppey, the greatest threat to them is the continuing threat to their homes and, indeed, to their lives posed by the ever-present danger of renewed flooding by the sea.
  Over 30 and 31 December last about 800 houses and 40 businesses, mainly in Sheerness and in the Sheerness, Warden and Leysdown areas, were flooded. The first flooding of the town of Sheerness resulted from the high tide at 1 a.m. on 31 December. It was overtaken in its severity by a second flooding from the high tide at 1.33 p.m. On 1 January the water again reached the top of the sea wall, a situation that repeated itself for the next two tides. The warning sirens sounded again on 4 January. I hope that the Minister and the House will begin to understand what it is for a town to live in fear, knowing that the only defence against the North Sea is a Victorian sea wall some 6 ft lower than it should be.
  The damage was bad enough, but thank God that no lives were lost. But the tragedy was crueller. People had only just finished restoring their homes from the ravages of similar floods in January 1978, although the experts tell us that these floods should be at least 50 years apart.
  It is hard to describe the misery and mess caused by the flooding and the heartbreak of a home in ruins, particularly for elderly people. May I quote a letter that I have received from the Bishop of Maidstone, who has a particular concern with Sheerness, having been vicar there. It emphasises the point about the elderly. The letter says:
  "I felt desperately sorry for those who had only just completed the work of drying out and redecorating their houses, and now have to begin all over again. Many of them were elderly, and the roads affected house many in low income groups who are unable to move to a safer place."
  I could quote many letters that I have received stressing the suffering, loss, hardship and heartbreak that there has been.
  May I also record here in Parliament a tribute to the sterling work done by so many in this emergency: by the council officers and their staff, by the emergency services, by the WRVS, the Round Table, the Salvation Army, and many organisations without which the suffering would have been so much greater.
  880
  I also remind the House that at that time Britain was snowbound and suffering from severe blizzards. The roads were blocked. Sheppey was cut off for 36 hours. Warden Bay and Leysdown were cut off for 48 hours. In those two latter areas flooding also occurred and there was great personal suffering, despite the sea defences that have been constructed.
  It has been suggested there that the answer is improved land drainage to divert flood water. If the water authority puts forward a request for funds for this project, I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically.
  I have emphasised the damage factor so far. I have hesitated in the past to be too alarmist and publicise my real fears about the threat to life in Sheerness, but the latest floods have swept away my inhibitions on that score. Hundreds of lives would be at risk if we were unfortunate enough to get a combination of freak weather conditions in the North Sea, and the risk would be even greater if the flood warning system failed to work effectively, as it did on the night of 30–31 December.
  The one and only thing that will satisfy the island and cannot be refused in all humanity is the fastest possible construction of a sea wall. The population of Sheppey is 34,000 and that of Sheerness is 13,000. I believe that there is no other town of comparable size in Britain which is exposed to such danger of flooding as Sheerness. Many homes are actually below the high water level.
  I urge the Minister to get that sea wall built. I know that he cannot work miracles, or even give instant answers, but I believe that we are close to getting results, and his understanding and sympathy will help us greatly.
  The position in a nutshell is that the sea defences to provide the 1,000-year flood barrier around Sheerness, from Neptune Terrace to Queenborough, will cost about £8 million. Last year the Southern water authority placed these works at the top of its priority list and declared its intention of carrying out the programme at the rate of £1 million over eight years. Personally, I regarded that as unacceptable. Once the risk to human life on this scale has been recognised and is declared to exist, it cannot be tolerable to leave it that long. Only this month the

  881
  Government have approved the necessary grant aid for that £1 million a year programme which I have described as inadequate.
  In a series of letters, telephone calls, and meetings with the Southern water authority last year I pressed it to ask the Government for the necessary funds to carry out the works in the minimum time possible—three to five years. In December I met members of the SWA here at the Commons, and as a result I felt that we had made real progress. The idea of asking the Ministry for an extra £1 million a year for Sheerness, bringing the total to £2 million a year, was put to the committee. I was told that the proposal would be considered in depth at the February meeting.
  Alas, the cruel sea does not wait on committees, and the flooding that we feared occurred over the new year. Until the Southern water authority actually asks the Government for the funds, there is little the Minister can do. But can he confirm that when the authority does so ask, if it does, he will do his utmost to grant the request? Crucial to this is a letter I received yesterday giving the most helpful and hopeful news yet to the people of Sheppey—but only if the Government grant the money.
  This news is that the first essential works—works that would have prevented these latest floods—from Neptune Terrace to Garrison Point, a distance of 1½ miles—could be started in midsummer this year and be completed by March 1980. The February meeting of the Kent local land drainage committee will have a recommendation before it to ask the Government for the extra funds. An initial meeting has already been held between the Minister and the chairman, and I understand the Ministry was "not unsympathetic".
  In the meantime, temporary protections are being proposed by the council. But the people of Sheerness and the commercial life of that town need the protection of an adequate sea wall. The Swale borough council has asked the Minister of Agriculture to receive a deputation on this question. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell me that the Minister will grant the request or at least consider it very sympathetically.
  882
  This would be deeply appreciated by those living in the Swale borough council area.
  A parliamentary answer I received informed me that no advance warning was given on 30–31 December 1978, because the tide warning service indicated that there was no danger of flooding. But there was flooding. It was caused by a combination of tide and exceptionally high winds or, in the words of the Southern water authority,
  "unusual weather phenomena caused wave actions which could not at the time be forecast by the Meteorological Office."
  In fact, the flood warning that night was issued eventually by the water authority under pressure from the police when the water was already pouring over the sea wall and was outside the police station. I emphasise most strongly that the council, in all its emergency plans, is utterly dependent on the warning system, which has been developed to a fairly sophisticated degree, working effectively. A way must be found to forecast, accurately and locally, wind and wave actions. I understand that this is being studied. In the meantime, it is reassuring to know that Swale has arranged its own ad hoc system of putting an official into the Medway port operations room whenever an A warning is received.
  The warning system must be improved. I hope that there is no complacency about the present system. I was worried by a letter I saw from the water authority which said that, in the authority's view, the warning system worked satisfactorily and that the over-topping and severe wave action that occurred on the night of 30–31 December was an unusual and rare phenomenon, which could not have been forecast by the system as it exists. The authority went on to say that it believed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shared the same opinion. I hope that that is not the Ministry's opinion. If that is the system as it exists, it is clearly not adequate. The council emergency operation depends entirely on that warning system. I appeal to the Minister to speed up improvements in the system so that next time, if there is a next time, adequate warning is received.
  I turn to the question of financial compensation. It is a vital question. I do not pretend, in a short debate, to be

  883
  able to deal exhaustively with the dozens of points that arise when flooding on this scale occurs. I do not expect an answer in detail from the Minister tonight. It is essentially a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment and relates to the help that can be given under section 138 of the Local Government Act. Last year, the Government decreed that they would reimburse local authorities for additional expenditure incurred as a result of the bad weather to the extent of 75 per cent. of the amount by which those losses exceed a one penny rate product. It sounded helpful at the time, but, whatever the good intentions of that proposition, it is not helpful in practice.
  The cost to Swale, which is not a rich borough, of the 1978 floods is likely to be about £217,000, including amounts granted to help individual householders. That is just over a one penny rate product. It means that Swale will get little or nothing on this Government's formula for 1978. Just as they have completed repairs on the houses, they face another major loss. Total losses are likely to be of the same order as last year. In many instance, much of these two losses will be borne in the same financial year.
  I would like to ask if the Government would allow the council and, presumably, other councils to put together losses for the purposes of compensation. In the parliamentary answer I received, the Government decreed that each storm or flooding incident would be treated separately. This means that Swale must lose £200,000 every time before it gets any help. In effect, that means no help at all. I am sure that is not what the Government intended. I ask the Minister of State to go to the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to think again, and not close his mind to the possibility of aggregating the losses that have occurred throughout the year. The cost to the Government will be minimal. The help to Swale will be considerable. The help that Swale can give to individual householders and those who have suffered will also be considerable. The cost to the Government will be so little that I urge them to think again.
  I plead for the small businesses which suffered losses. About 40 businesses were flooded. They received no compensation in 1978. They cannot insure against flood
  884
  because the exposure is too great. The sea wall is their insurance, and it has failed them twice. In theory, legislation allows the council to help, but in practice the Government do not reimburse the council for such expenditure.
  I ask the Minister to understand the plight of small businesses which are struggling to survive two lots of almost crippling losses. Some of those involved are in the tourist business, which is so crucial of the Isle of Sheppey. It seems that the Government have not yet got the compensation formula right. I hope that they will learn from the sad experiences of 1978 and 1979 and the loss and suffering of householders and farmers.
  About 350 acres of farmland were flooded. That was less than last time, but it was serious for the farmers. I hope that the Government will learn from the suffering of businesses and the losses of local authorities. I urge them to introduce a more meaningful, even-handed and fairer system of compensation.
  Above all, I plead with the Government to help the people of Sheppey to get that new sea wall built as soon as possible.
  1.17 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I should like to begin my reply by expressing sympathy on behalf of the Government to all those who suffered from the severe storms which marked the opening and closing days of 1978 and in particular to those involved at Sheerness and the Isle of Sheppey. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has paid tribute to all those who helped. He made a number of points. I shall reply to as many as possible.
  The points which the hon. Member has made about the warning system and the sea defences are germane to the policy of successive Governments in respect of defence against the sea. This policy is based largely on the recommendations of the Waverley committee—or, to give its full title, the departmental committee on coastal flooding—which was set up following the disastrous East coast floods of 1953. It its report, the committee stressed that the primary consideration must be the protection of human life—the hon. Member stressed that point several times—and that first priority must,

  885
  therefore, be given to the setting up of effective warning systems to enable those at risk to get to safety before flooding takes place.
  The committee also recognised the need for authorities to be encouraged to give as much protection as is economically reasonable to areas which are at risk. It recommended that, where flooding would lead to serious damage to property of a high value such as valuable industrial premises, large areas of valuable agricultural land or compact residential areas, steps should be taken to provide a standard of defence which would afford protection against a flood of the 1953 level.
  I have no wish to be drawn into arguments with the hon. Member as to whether Sheerness is at greater risk of flooding than other towns along the East and Kent coasts. He may remember that at about this time last year the hon. Members for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) were quite rightly showing a great deal of concern for their constituents at Wisbech, King's Lynn and other towns which had just suffered serious flooding.
  A number of towns and villages down the East coast—and, indeed, elsewhere, including London itself—are at risk of flooding and I fully accept that Sheerness is in this category. I propose therefore in the remainder of my speech to concentrate on the particular problems of that town.
  Let us look first at the warning system. The hon. Member has explained his misgivings, and it will help if I explain how the East coast storm tide warning service works.
  The service is based at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell. Its primary task is to provide forecasts of high water levels at certain ports—known as reference ports—along the East coast. It does this by using data received direct from constantly monitored tide gauges and from information about pressure systems, wind directions and so on, provided by the Meteorological Office.
  If these forecasts indicate that tides may exceed previously established danger levels at any reference port, the service issues warnings at between four and six
  886
  hours before high tide to the county police force. The police then consult the water authority, which has local knowledge of tides and danger levels. If its advice supports the forecast made by the warning service, the local police then pass on the warnings to public authorities, to emergency services and, if appropriate, to the public in areas thought to be at risk.
  That, in a nutshell, is how the main East coast warning system operates. It is important to understand that, although the service uses the latest available techniques and all the experience it has built up over 25 years of operation, it is not infallible. For example, a sudden local change in wind direction may create—or avert—danger. Another point to bear in mind is that the forecasts attempt to measure the probable height of "still water"—that is, they do not take account of abnormal wave action caused by high winds. The difficulty here is that, because of the configuration of our coastline, the wind direction may be a significant factor in some areas while not affecting others. Those closely concerned with the warning system recognise this. The Southern water authority, for example, has its own local warning system, which is based on forecasts of wind speed and direction obtained from the London weather centre. So the Kent coast has the benefit of a national and a local warning service—both of which are available to the police and the water authority—in judging whether a public warning should be given and, if so, which localities are likely to be at risk.
  Let us look at what happened at Sheerness on the night of 30–31 December 1978. On that night no public warning was given of the flooding. As I have explained, the East coast storm tide warning service's role is to give advance warnings of danger levels being exceeded at certain reference ports by exceptionally high tides. On this occasion, the flooding was caused not by exceptionally high tides but by overtopping of the defences by wave action as a result of very high winds. From its own local warning system, the SWA issued a preliminary warning to the police that flooding might occur, but the information available did not justify a public warning. The possibility of further refining of the local system is being actively considered. The water authority is discussing with the service the possibility of incorporating

  887
  into its local procedures a recently developed system for forecasting open sea wave heights. This has been developed by the Meteorological Office for the North Sea oil rigs, and there may be difficulties in converting the information into terms which are suitable for the prediction of inshore wave heights. But, if it proves possible to harness the information, this will be a very useful step in improving the flood warning system for exposed areas such as the Isle of Sheppey.
  I turn now to the question of the sea defences. First, I should like to sketch in the statutory background. The powers to undertake works of maintenance to and improvements of existing defences—and to undertake new works—are given by the Land Drainage Act 1976 to what are known as "drainage bodies". In general, this means water authorities, local authorities and, in certain cases, internal drainage boards. Within the water authorities, most of the powers under the Act are statutorily delegated to regional and local land drainage committees, the majority of whose members are appointed by county councils in the area.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has no powers under the Act to undertake works himself and, because the powers of drainage bodies are permissive, he cannot direct them to undertake, or to refrain from undertaking, any particular improvement. Our role is thus normally confined to the payment of grant-aid in cases where proposals put to us for improvements or new works are technically sound and economically justified. However, the Government are also involved with land drainage, as with other areas of public expenditure, by way of the provision of resources so that capital programmes can be carried out.
  The Southern water authority has already agreed a programme of improvements to protect the towns of Sheerness and Queenborough at an estimated cost of over £10 million. When this scheme was approved for grant aid in 1975, the authority proposed to carry it out over a period of 25 years.
  I should perhaps mention here that when the proposals were first discussed publicly I understand that they were not universally welcomed by the people of Sheerness, mainly on amenity grounds. Indeed, I am told that some residents took the view that the authority was
  888
  being unduly alarmist in undertaking this work, which, when it is completed, will afford a very high standard of protection. In the event, the authority has been proved right to press on and we are pleased to be associated with the scheme to the extent that we shall pay grant at 85 per cent.—the maximum rate possible.
  Following the flooding of January 1978, the Kent local land drainage committee of the authority decided to speed up the programme, but I understand that in the light of the more recent flooding it will shortly consider whether to accelerate it even more. In considering this problem it will have to take account not only of the availability of its own resources—for example, the works, the letting of contracts, and so on—but of the effects of any increased expenditure on the rate precepts in Kent. As I have explained, the decision of this committee is the prime consideration at present, because, unless it decides to speed up its programme—and therefore ask us for more resources—our hands are tied.
  As an indication of the Government's policy towards sea defences, I should like to mention briefly what we have done within the past year or so. First, following the flooding in January 1978 we provided an extra £2 million for works in addition to those originally scheduled by water authorities to be carried out in the financial year 1978–79. Secondly, we have provided almost £4 million on top of the original provision for sea defence expenditure for 1979–80. In both cases, this action by the Government has meant that very ambitious sea defence programmes in the areas most affected could begin quickly and can continue to the full extent that water authorities have proposed.
  A large share of the extra resources has been allocated to Kent. It received an additional allocation of more than £2 million for 1978–79 and £2¼ million for 1979–80. Of this, the local land drainage committee proposes to spend £1 million in the current year and just over that amount in 1979–80 at Sheerness. This is a major spending programme and we await with interest the outcome of the Committee's consideration of the question whether expenditure should be further increased next year or in subsequent years. I understand that the

  889
  divisional manager of the water authority considers that the planned programme of expenditure at Sheerness in 1979–80 can be increased somewhat, and I am sure that the land drainage committee will pay considerable regard to his views. If it decides to accept this recommendation, the authority will have to decide whether it can meet this higher expenditure from its existing capital resources or whether it will have to ask us for an additional allocation.
  If the authority does ask us, I can do no better than to quote from a recent letter to the Swale borough council by my right hon. Friend the Minister:
  "The Council may be assured that I am fully aware of and sympathetic towards the needs of the residents of Sheerness for better protection and that, if I am asked to provide additional capital, I shall do my best to help."
  I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it may be premature to receive a deputation until such an application is received.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of Government assistance to local authorities which incur expenditure as a result of floods or storms. That is not, of course, a matter within the responsibility of my Department, but in the expectation that it might be raised in this debate I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The hon. Member seemed to be implying that the level of central Government support to local authorities which suffer as a result of floods and storms is less than generous. We cannot accept this. As the hon. Member will recall, on 8 February last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the basis on which financial assistance would be given to local authorities which suffered as a result of the gales and floods which hit the country in November 1977 and January 1978. Briefly, the Government undertook to reimburse local authorities 75 per cent of net additional expenditure in excess of a penny rate incurred as a direct result of a disaster or emergency. He made it clear at that time that the same assistance would be available for future similar occurrences, and in his press statement on 2 January my right hon. Friend the
  890
  Minister of State, Department of the Environment confirmed that the arrangements would apply to the recent emergencies.
  In setting the formula on which the assistance is based, it was our intention to ensure that in discharging its functions under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 no local authority should be left to bear an undue burden from its own resources. At the same time, we have no wish to usurp the responsibilities which should be exercised locally. We cannot believe that the product of a penny rate is too high a price to pay for local autonomy in this matter.
  The hon. Member has pressed to have separate incidents aggregated for the purpose of exceeding this product and so attracting special Government assistance when, individually, they would not. In the circumstances which his constituency has experienced, I can understand his doing so, but the result would be to widen the scope and cost of what has always been envisaged as assistance towards incidents which were quite exceptional in their own right. It is for those reasons that, as the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has concluded that aggregation for the purpose of Exchequer assistance would not be warranted. Nevertheless, it remains the Government's view that the formula that I have outlined to the House is a generous one.
  This has been a useful short debate. I have tried to explain to the hon. Member that the Government have already done their best in dealing with the serious problems at Sheerness but that on the important issue of improving the sea defences the decision is not in our hands at present. I emphasise again some of the points I have made and I conclude by assuring the hon. Gentleman of our continued sympathy and support to those local organisations—including the Swale borough council and the Southern water authority—which carry the responsibility for these matters.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Shoplifting Offences
  Shoplifting Offences
  Causes of Crime (Research)
  Causes of Crime (Research)
  Television Licence Fees
  Television Licence Fees
  Flood Prevention (Police Warning)
  Flood Prevention (Police Warning)
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Parole
  Parole
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Fourth Television Channel
  Fourth Television Channel
  Citizens' Band Radio
  Citizens' Band Radio
  Young Girls (Local Authority Care)
  Young Girls (Local Authority Care)
  Police (Official Secrets Act)
  Police (Official Secrets Act)
  Special Branch (Computer System)
  Special Branch (Computer System)
  Police Stations, Hillingdon
  Police Stations, Hillingdon
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Fines
  Fines
  Community Services (Expenditure)
  Community Services (Expenditure)
  Emergency Services (Definition)
  Emergency Services (Definition)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Printing and Binding (Costs)
  Printing and Binding (Costs)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  LEEDS
  LEEDS
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  SUMMIT MEETING (GUADELOUPE)
  SUMMIT MEETING (GUADELOUPE)
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCASTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCASTS)
  PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD
  PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD
  HONOURS LIST
  HONOURS LIST
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Westminster Hall Inspection Box
  Westminster Hall Inspection Box
ENERGY
  Professional Consultants (Reports)
  Professional Consultants (Reports)
TRADE
  Civil Airport (Site Conversion)
  Civil Airport (Site Conversion)
  Exports (Delays)
  Exports (Delays)
  Export Credits Guarantee Scheme
  Export Credits Guarantee Scheme
  China
  China
  Butter
  Butter
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Goods and Services (Government Expenditure)
  Goods and Services (Government Expenditure)
  Rates
  Rates
  Personal Incomes and Tax Thresholds
  Personal Incomes and Tax Thresholds
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Nationalised Industries (Consumer Councils)
  Nationalised Industries (Consumer Councils)
  Welsh Water Board
  Welsh Water Board
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
EMPLOYMENT
  Asbestos Regulations 1969
  Asbestos Regulations 1969
  Co-operative Wholesale Society, Lowestoft
  Co-operative Wholesale Society, Lowestoft
  Rehabilitation Centre, Preston
  Rehabilitation Centre, Preston
  Merseyside (Company Closures)
  Merseyside (Company Closures)
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Salary Increases
  Salary Increases
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Microcomputers)
  Schools (Microcomputers)
  School Closures (Derbyshire)
  School Closures (Derbyshire)
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
SCOTLAND
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
  Scottish Islands (Shipping Services)
  Scottish Islands (Shipping Services)
  Aberdeen Fish Market
  Aberdeen Fish Market
INDUSTRY
  Public Corporations (Financing)
  Public Corporations (Financing)
  Former Civil Servants (Appointments)
  Former Civil Servants (Appointments)
  Cambridge Instruments Ltd.
  Cambridge Instruments Ltd.
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Dunlop Factories
  Dunlop Factories
ENVIRONMENT
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Returnable Bottles and Containers
  Returnable Bottles and Containers
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Housing and Employment (Ethnic Records)
  Housing and Employment (Ethnic Records)
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Inner Urban Areas Act (Partnership Meetings)
  Inner Urban Areas Act (Partnership Meetings)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Royal Family Establishments (Maintenance Costs)
  Royal Family Establishments (Maintenance Costs)
  Government Contracts (Self-Employed Persons)
  Government Contracts (Self-Employed Persons)
  Local Authorities (Community Land Accounts)
  Local Authorities (Community Land Accounts)
  Community Land Scheme
  Community Land Scheme
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Costs (Rebated Council Rents)
  Housing Costs (Rebated Council Rents)
  Stroud (Inner Ring Road)
  Stroud (Inner Ring Road)
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Net Income (Green Pound Devaluation)
  Net Income (Green Pound Devaluation)
  Public Organisations (Agricultural Representation)
  Public Organisations (Agricultural Representation)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Reverend A. L. Lewis
  Reverend A. L. Lewis
DEFENCE
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Cars (Senior Officers)
  Cars (Senior Officers)
  Alnwick Fire Station
  Alnwick Fire Station
  Information Officers
  Information Officers
  RAF Pilots
  RAF Pilots
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Military Bands
  Military Bands
  Non-military Work
  Non-military Work
  Yachts
  Yachts
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  LAW CENTRES
  LAW CENTRES
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Broadmoor Hospital (Tribunals)
  Broadmoor Hospital (Tribunals)
  Children and Young Persons
  Children and Young Persons
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Cheshire)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Cheshire)
  Canned Salmon
  Canned Salmon
  Children and Old People's Homes, Lambeth
  Children and Old People's Homes, Lambeth
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Benefits (Industrial Action)
  Benefits (Industrial Action)
  Low Income Families (Taxation)
  Low Income Families (Taxation)
  John Connolly Hospital, Birmingham
  John Connolly Hospital, Birmingham
  Fazakerley Hospital, Merseyside
  Fazakerley Hospital, Merseyside
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Hernia and Gall Bladder Operations
  Hernia and Gall Bladder Operations
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Health Service Workers
  Health Service Workers
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
  Child Benefits, and Tax Allowances
  Child Benefits, and Tax Allowances
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Welfare Services (Belfast)
  Welfare Services (Belfast)
  Old People's Homes (Belfast)
  Old People's Homes (Belfast)
TRANSPORT
  Steeton Road Top
  Steeton Road Top
  European Community (Railways)
  European Community (Railways)
  Airedale Trunk Road
  Airedale Trunk Road
  Lorries (Noise Levels)
  Lorries (Noise Levels)
  Stroud Inner Ring Road
  Stroud Inner Ring Road
  Waterways Systems
  Waterways Systems
  Road Tankers (Built-up areas)
  Road Tankers (Built-up areas)
WALES
  Local Authorities (Budgets)
  Local Authorities (Budgets)
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Public Service Employees
  Public Service Employees
  Nominated Bodies (Government Expenditure)
  Nominated Bodies (Government Expenditure)
  Museums (Additional Resources)
  Museums (Additional Resources)

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

AIRLINES AND PASSENGER OVERBOOKING
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as British Airways now plan to extend the overbooking compensation scheme to return flights resulting from an original booking made on British Airways in the United Kingdom so that passengers on British Airways are covered for the whole of the ticket and not only for half of it, they will once more seek a wider application of the principle by other airlines either through ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference) or through IATA (International Air Transport Association).
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, the Government welcome the efforts which are being made by British Airways through the Association of European Airlines to extend to other European countries the overbooking compensation scheme which now operates for flights from the United Kingdom. We understand that earlier this month a working group of the AEA agreed upon a resolution which largely reflects the United Kingdom position on overbooking compensation and that this resolution has been sent to all their members for mail vote by the end of January.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, does the Minister realise that British Airways are now actually paying
1548
the compensation, both on return flights and outward ones from the United Kingdom, which I think is a great victory for this House, and may I ask her whether she would feel able to write to British Airways to congratulate them on the initiative that they have taken in the Association of European Airlines; that we all hope that the Association will agree to such a scheme and, if they do, it will be a great triumph for everyone in this country who has fought for it?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure it is a matter for congratulation for this House and, in particular, for personal congratulations to my noble friend. I will certainly see that a copy of today's Hansard is sent to the appropriate authorities.
Lord YOUNG of DARTINGTON: My Lords, may I ask whether the expression of appreciation which the Minister is willing to make might be made particularly warm and might mention the fact that British consumers, on the whole, do not have very much to be grateful for to nationalised industries? But this is a case which needs a special underlining and I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to do that when, through her Department, she lets British Airways know the feeling of this House.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I will certainly express it in warm terms. I would not suggest that we get a raw deal from nationalised industries, but I will certainly express in warm terms our appreciation of what has been said, and I will make sure that this Hansard reaches them.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: REPRESENTATION
3.11 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 why they have decided to exclude the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar from representation in the European Parliament.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the articles of the Community Treaties providing for a European Assembly and for its direct election do not apply to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or Gibraltar. It is not possible, therefore, for them to have representation in the Assembly.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that opinion in Gibraltar appears to be very disappointed about this, and can he give them any reassurance that the European Parliament will take care of the interests particularly of this isolated community at the southern end of Spain?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, we are aware that there is a certain feeling in Gibraltar about this matter and in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will probably know, there were representations about this from Parliamentarians in Gibraltar, both from individual Members of the Gibraltar House of Representatives and also from some of them as a group. Noble Lords may also recall that in fact some of them wished to have this matter referred to a conference called by Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, because of the constitutional position, it was not possible for that wish to be met because Mr. Speaker's jurisdiction only extends to matters within the United Kingdom itself.
So far as the second part of the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is concerned, I think probably it would be wrong for me to anticipate what the European Parliament itself might do, but I feel quite sure that those who are involved there, both in ministerial and in other capacities, will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said and will take account of his remarks.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I am much obliged.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, are not these territories to be congratulated upon being saved the trouble and expense of taking part in this fatuous and most expensive performance?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not know that it would be appropriate for me to venture into that particular sphere but again no doubt those observations of my noble friend will be noted.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, is it not quite wrong to disfranchise the residents of these territories? Feeling as I do that it is most unlikely that the other nations which are Members of the Community would have the slightest objection to a vote being given to the British citizens of these territories, may I ask whether, if there has been any mistake, as there appears to have been, in the drafting of the Treaty of Accession to the Community, Her Majesty's Government will consider raising the matter in the Council of Ministers of the Community?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I do, of course, appreciate the concern of those who take the sort of view which the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, has taken, but I do feel nevertheless that it is important to stress what is the constitutional position here, despite any concern of that kind which might be felt. It is the fact that the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, as we know, are not represented here at Westminster, that they are, of course, all dependencies of the Crown outside the United Kingdom; and so far as the European Assembly is concerned it is in fact a fundamental principle that this will be composed of Members representing Member States. The decision that was taken, as no doubt the noble Lord will recall, was taken by the Council of Ministers in December, 1976. It was in accord with that fundamental principle, and so it would be wrong for me to hold out any hope whatsoever that that fundamental principle would be departed from.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as far as the Channel Islands are concerend they seem to be satisfied with the arrangements which give them much of the benefits of the Community without any of the expense of the Community?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, there may be something in what my noble friend has said. Of course, it

1551
is also the case that many of the Community's key obligations do not apply to Gibraltar or to the Islands themselves.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, is not the Minister using the constitutional position rather as a cover up of the situation? Could the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the Convention dealing with direct elections for the nine Member States which prevents the citizens of any Member State voting in these elections? How is it that countries like Denmark and Italy can allow their subjects who are not living within those countries to take part in the European elections, and this Government apparently denies them that particular right?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I would certainly disagree with what the noble Baroness has said about denial of rights. So far as the last point is concerned, this was, of course, fairly closely covered in an extensive exchange which took place in your Lordships' House on 7th December, when I think my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell dealt with the various points that arose then. Perhaps that is a separate matter from the particular one we are considering today. I would also, as I indicated, disagree with the noble Baroness about the initial point which she made. It is in fact the case that if any change were to be made this would involve changing United Kingdom law. It would involve renegotiating the decision on direct elections, and indeed changing the relationship of the Islands and Gibraltar with the Community. So far as that relationship is concerned, it is governed by international agreement, and Her Majesty's Government do not, I am afraid, see any grounds at all for renegotiating either the Treaty of Accession or the decision.

UNITED NATIONS: ECONOMIC DEPARTMENT
3.18 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the
1552
establishment of the economic department of the United Nations authorised on 21st December 1977.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the United Nations Secretary-General announced the appointment of the Director-General for Development and International Economic Cooperation on 14th March last year. Three new Departments have been created within the Secretariat to rationalise and streamline the economic and social work of the United Nations.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the decision to set up this authority is of world importance, covering as it does 80 per cent. of the activities of the United Nations, and can she explain why since what she has reported took place there has been so much delay in its development? Is it due as stated, to bureaucratic opposition at the UN or by some of the great Powers, and what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards it?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think it is true to say that it has been disappointing that more practical progress has not been made, but there is no doubt that in principle the need for restructuring the economic and social activities of the UN has been generally agreed. I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government strongly support the restructuring, and indeed we are continuing to work to ensure implementation.

SIERRA LEONE: AID
3.20 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what amounts of aid have been provided for Sierra Leone over the past three years.
Barones LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, our expenditure in 1976 was £883,000, and £1.7 million in 1977. Final figures for 1978 are not yet available but £870,000 had been spent up to 30th September, 1978.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that it is well known that I have worked in close association with the Government of Sierra Leone, as with other African Governments, for many years. Would my noble friend not agree that this is a lamentably small sum in view of the long relationship between this country and Sierra Leone, parts of which have left Sierra Leone with her current problems? Would she confirm that, although we all applaud the assistance given to that excellent African leader President Jawara of The Gambia, The Gambia is receiving 10 times as much aid per capita as is Sierra Leone?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my original Answer referred to direct aid from the British Government to the Sierra Leone Government. I am, of course, aware of my noble friend's concern for Sierra Leone and his recent visit to that country. As well as the direct aid, we are donating through the European Development Fund—helping towards the development of Sierra Leone—something like £4 million for the current programme. I do not think that we should be chided for unnecessary parsimony.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, is it not true that the population of that country is about 2½ million and that therefore, on a per capita basis this is a fairly considerable grant?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should not like to confirm the figure, but I think that it is about right. It is very difficult to compare the per capita figure because the conditions are so different, but I do not feel ashamed of it.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, especially in view of the recent visit of a team from the Ministry of Overseas Development, do the Government have
1554
any intention of increasing this aid during the current and future years?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. As my noble friend has said, an aid mission went to Sierra Leone in November to investigate possible projects for aid. Its report and recommendations are being considered now.

THE LAW ON PICKETING
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the law relating to picketing.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend certain enactments relating to legal aid and legal advice and assistance. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate Part III of the Finance Act 1965 with related provisions in that Act and subsequent Acts. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE INDUSTRIAL SITUATION
3.24 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON Lord CARRINGTON rose to call attention to the present industrial situations; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am under no illusion in introducing the Motion in my name on the Order Paper that anything very new is likely to emerge from our debate. One way or another we have been debating the same type of subject over a long period of time. But, it seemed to me right that your Lordships should have an opportunity of discussing the immediate, and I think serious, situation. Even if nothing very novel emerges, it is my hope that there will be a general consensus in this House about what might be done in the short term and the long term to try to extricate us from our national difficulties, a consensus which could conceivably be of help in forming and influencing public opinion.
Paradoxically, I think, it may well be that the rather alarming events of the past few weeks may make it easier for any Government, which have the courage to do so, to take action which six months ago would not have had the same acceptance or support as it would today. There can be no doubt that, on whatever side of the House we may sit, we can sense the frustration of the ordinary citizen; frustration at the strikes; revulsion at the sort of news we heard on the radio this morning of the picketing at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham; anger at picketing; and a feeling that things generally speaking have gone far enough and that something has to be done to stop it before this country bleeds to death from the wounds that it has inflicted upon itself. Somehow or other that feeling must be channelled and harnessed into measures which will restore the good sense and tolerance and the economic reality which 99 out of 100 people in this country want to see. It does not need to be said, I hope, that we on this side will support any Government of any Party that will do that. I do not care who does it, as long as it is done, for our salvation depends upon it.
Last weekend by chance I picked up a book of Dean Swift's contributions to The Examiner and The Spectator. The book fell open at the following passage:
1556
"There are two chief subjects of discontent in the management of public affairs which are apt to breed difference, and one is the rewarding of merit. By merit I here understand that value which every man puts on his own deservings from the public. There could not be a more difficult employment found out than that of a paymaster general to this sort of merit—or a more noisy crowded place than a court of judicature erected to settle and adjust every man's claim to that article".
If that were true in 1710, how much truer it is today. At any rate, nobody today could put it any better.
We seem, in these last years, to have created an expectancy of an increase in everyone's standard of life which has greatly inflated the value which every man puts on his deservings from the public. That is equally true of both Parties. It is partly because in our political system we understandably enough promise things in order that the electors should vote for us; and it is partly because, over the years, people have increasingly found it difficult to see the relation between the effort they put into their job and the reward that they get out of it. We do not seem to have an acceptable paymaster or judicature, however noisy and crowded.
Most people have had an increase in their standard of life over the years which has usually had not much bearing upon their productivity. In spite of the dire warnings of successive Governments about the need for greater production and the consequences of failure and the way that those warnings have been ignored, inexorably over these last years, with perhaps a gap here and there, the standard of living of the people of this country has increased. It has risen because we have borrowed to maintain our standard of life; it has risen because we have shared in the general increase of world prosperity; and recently it has risen because we are living on the capital and great good luck of having North Sea oil.
But the time is coming when those warnings from politicians of both Parties will come true, and with what consequences one cannot yet foresee. But I think that there is still a chance of avoiding it if, in the time available, we can change, or seek to change, the attitudes of those in this country who are leading their fellow men and women to what I think is disaster. It is undoubtedly disheartening that the lessons of 1975 and 1976 do

1557
not seem to have been learned. Surely it was obvious that inflation and inflationary wage packets do the greatest possible damage to the ordinary man and woman in the street. Indeed, I suppose one might say that the only people who manage to survive inflation without damage are the very rich.
Do those who are claiming 40 per cent. or thereabouts in this new wage round not remember what happened last time, only three years ago, and the disagreeable remedies which the Government very rightly had to impose in terms of restriction in public expenditure and increased taxation? The unpleasant fact is—and we must say this—that, like it or not, there is no God-given right for anybody in the country to have an increase in his standard of life every year. Of course it would be very nice and, of course, if we were to produce enough to make it possible, it could happen. But to suppose that a country which is slipping further and further into uncompetitiveness and paying itself more and more while it is doing so is likely to get richer and more prosperous, is absurd. Sooner or later, we must realise that an increase in our standard of life will come only if we put these things right, are more productive and are more restrained in the rewards that we seek for what we do.
This afternoon I have no wish, and I do not intend, in any way to be Party political, but I must make one point because it has a bearing on the future. The Party opposite bears a heavy load of responsibility for what it did in 1973 and 1974, the consequences of which are still with us. In order to win the Election and defeat Mr. Heath's Government it advocated policies, and subsequently pursued policies, which have proved disastrous. If I may say so, the present Government are fortunate to have a different sort of Opposition from that which Mr. Heath had in 1973. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that the Members of the Labour Party, however unpopular it may be, should say the sort of things that I have just been saying about the facts of economic life, which are inescapable under whatever system we happen to operate, whether it be in Russia, Romania, France or Britain. And as we discussed at considerable length only last week the creation of wealth in a notable debate opened by my
1558
noble friend Lord Trenchard, there is no need to say anything further on that point.
But it would be too much to expect that we can change the attitude of two or three generations overnight or create wealth overnight. In the meantime we have to find a solution to our problems. The difficulty with most of these debates is that most of us are pretty good on analysis, but a little short on solutions. I do not believe that the solution can be found in what the Liberal Party in particular is requesting, which is the return of a statutory incomes policy. I believe that there are some rare occasions when such a policy is inevitable, but over these last years we have surely seen the problems which a statutory incomes policy brings—not perhaps in the first year, but subsequently and more particularly after a longer period of time in which the unfairness which it inevitably creates becomes intolerable and unacceptable to certain sections of the community.
I do not suppose there to be many people in this House—though there would be some—who would disagree with the proposition that the best way of settling these problems is by responsible, free collective bargaining. The difficulty is—and this has been said often enough—that we can have free collective bargaining quite easily, but responsibility seems a little harder to achieve. It is harder to achieve because the balance of power has now shifted out of all proportion in favour of those who have the muscle, if they so wish to use it, to disrupt and paralyse our national life.
In the past it was undoubtedly true that the power rested with the employers; with their right to hire and fire and the social climate at the time, they had the whip hand. Indeed, the trade unions were very rightly created to redress that balance and to ensure that there was a greater fairness as between one side and the other. But, as so often happens, it seems—at any rate to me—that the pendulum has swung too far. Neither the employers nor the Government now seem to have the ability to withstand the massive rights, privileges and immunities of the trade unions.
In saying that, I am not in the least indulging in union bashing. I am saying

1559
that we should now do something to restore the balance—to bring the pendulum once more back into the centre. Alas! it is undeniably true that recent legislation has increased the authority of the trade unions at the expense of the State and of the individual, and somehow we have to see how that can be put right. Although I think the Prime Minister was suggesting that the trade unions should put their own house in order before some successor and wicked Government came in and did it for them, in his remarks in another place on Tuesday he acknowledged what I have just said.
We are really asking the Government to take action now. For if nothing is done now, when the time is right, docs anyone seriously suppose that the next time around we shall not have exactly the same series of problems? We shall once again see the ugly face of picketing—the denial of the right to work by intimidation: not necessarily physical intimidation, but, more menacingly, of the threat to black a man's labour forever or to use the closed shop, now alas! enshrined in law. We shall see the employers—particularly the smaller employers—intimidated by the fear that their firms will be on a perpetual blacklist if they go through picket lines.
Once again we shall see the public suffering, though they themselves have no part in the strike and only want to get on with their everyday lives. The hardship and the inconvenience which these strikes and the secondary picketing create will once again be ignored by the strikers and we shall hear—as we hear on the radio every morning—the strikers saying how sad they are at the inconvenience they are causing and how much they regret it, but it is inevitable. We shall see yet another nail in the coffin of our exporters and industrialists whose reputation for prompt delivery and service is eroded every time one of these strikes and situations occur. And though next time the Government Statements—whatever Government it may be—may still say that food is getting through and that the housewife has sugar and salt, the economic life of the country will be coming progressively to a halt, as it is at this moment, and the prospect of investment, jobs and prosperity will recede yet again. So do not let us be lulled into the
1560
belief that because this series of strikes is settled—as settled it will be—anything has changed and that the underlying problems will disappear, for they will not.
There are very few people in this country who do not think that the legislation on the closed shop has not gone too far. There can be no one who approves of the way in which secondary picketing has operated, and most of us believe that it is sensible and right and would be beneficial for trade unions to have secret ballots, both for their leadership and in the case of the decision to strike. If the Prime Minister introduced legislation on these lines he would have the overwhelming support of the people of this country. At the moment the Government and the public fight with their hands tied behind their back. In the end in a free society the only way in which good sense can prevail is if public opinion forces the unreasonable to take a reasonable course, but it is much more difficult for good sense to prevail if the law is weighted in favour of those who seek to be unreasonable.
There are very few strikes in this country which can bring the nation to its knees provided, and provided only, that the Government of the day are prepared to act resolutely and use all the resources at their disposal. They must by their actions seem to be determined men—determined in the national interest not to allow foolish men to lead us into disaster. They must not abandon the authority of the Government, as the present Government appears to have done with the strike committees, to which, cap in hand, employers have to go in order to be told whether or not they will be allowed to go through a picket-line or a dock gate. The strike committee seems to be the arbiter of what is important in the national interest; how sick a person has to be before help is granted.
The law on picketing, which we are going to be told about a little later on, may be obscure or may not be obscure, but I should have thought that one thing was absolutely certain—that no striker and no picket is in a position to refuse to allow anybody to go through a picket-line; and the Government, by accepting, apparently without demur, the kind of phraseology they have, appear to have opted out and abandoned their obligation

1561
to govern in the interests of everybody in this country. Very few strikes can succeed if the Government harness and use public opinion, for, until such time as the balance of the law is adjusted, it is public opinion and the common sense of the ordinary man and woman in the street which is the most potent weapon against the irresponsible striker.
In 1973, leaving aside what I said about the then Opposition, I am doubtful whether the British people were in a mood to undergo hardship and inconvenience in order to support the Government of the day—or perhaps at that stage had any realisation of what was at stake, though, when we look back, was not Mr. Heath absolutely right in what he was trying to do? But I believe that the mood today is different, and the Government will gravely underestimate the resentment of the British people at what is happening if they do nothing.
Dean Swift, in the essay I quoted at the beginning of my speech, began with these words:
"If we examine what societies of men are in closest union among themselves, we shall find them to be either those who are engaged in some evil design or who labour under one common misfortune".
I do not believe that we are a society which is engaged in some evil design, though I have no doubt that at the present time there are some malign people exploiting the industrial unrest. But can anybody deny that we are a people who labour under one common misfortune? And yet we are not a society in the closest union among ourselves, but I think the opportunity is there to achieve just that if the Government seize it. They have a changed mood in the country. There is anger and frustration at what is happening.
The Government themselves recognise the problems of too much union power. They are only too conscious of the problems which a return to higher inflation will bring. They know that if they take the steps I have suggested they will have the support of, I imagine, most people in this country. They are in a unique position to take strong and positive action. If they fail, it will be a national misfortune. If they succeed, no one will be more pleased than those of us who wish to see this country restored to its once great position. But, if they are not prepared to
1562
give us the leadership, then I think it is their duty to make way for those who will. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, may I say that I know that the noble Lord was quite sincere when he said that he did not wish to make a Party speech. I believe that he made a very constructive and thoughtful speech, and I hope I can say that I agree with a large part of what he said. My noble friend the Solicitor-General will be repeating a Statement on picketing. I think that that has already been announced to the House. The Statement has not been cleared, otherwise I would have waited. I must now begin my speech.
I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I begin by giving a factual and objective account of the present situation—in terms of the supply of essential goods and services, and the effect on industry. I will also touch on the present state of negotiations in some of the main areas in dispute before turning to the wider issues involved—many of the issues which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. While I do not expect noble Lords to join in spreading alarmist and exaggerated accounts of the present conditions, we are likely to hear in the course of our debate of the need for drastic action and radical measures. I think, therefore, that it will be helpful if I try to put the picture in proportion so that we can relate such prescriptions to reality.
I do not in any way wish to underestimate the scale and widespread impact of the present dislocation—nor to minimise the inconvenience and hardship caused throughout the country, nor the growing disruption caused to industry. But we are still some way off from the empty supermarket shelves, the animal cannibalism on our farms, or the 1 million workers laid off, that were confidently forecast a week or two ago. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I try to spell this out.
I think we may find that the real causes for concern prompted by the present situation are not so much the immediate impact on daily life. They are rather, first, the threat that it presents to the anti-inflation policy—which was stressed by the noble Lord—that has

1563
proved so successful over the past three years and which has commanded such widespread public support; and secondly, the questions that it raises about the general framework within which industrial relations are conducted in this country, the conventions that govern industrial action, the procedures for wage bargaining and, indeed, the wage structure itself. I will return to these matters later in my speech. But first let me review briefly the present position.
Noble Lords will know that the Government's principal source of information day to day is the regional emergency committee system, which is in operation 24 hours a day and which produces comprehensive situation reports every day—often two or three times a day. This in turn is derived from contacts with industrialists, retailers, local authorities, trade unions and other bodies. It is necessarily based on selective local reports, not on a comprehensive survey, and it is necessarily generalised—there are bound to be local exceptions and difficulties that go against the general trend. But it is the best and most up-to-date information we have and I am anxious to pass it on.
Let me first take food and agriculture. I shall begin with food and agriculture first because these are of such vital and universal importance, but also because noble Lords will forgive me if I retain a special personal interest in these matters. The food and agriculture industry has been most seriously affected by difficulties in moving supplies of food and animal feeding stuffs across the country.
Throughout the road hauliers' dispute the Government have given priority to the supply of foods, and the code of practice adopted by the Transport and General Workers' Union also accepts that this must have top priority. From the beginning of the dispute, to ensure adequate supplies to the shops, the closest contact has been maintained at regional and headquarters level between the Government and those sectors of industry concerned with the movement of food and animal feeding stuffs. These include the farmers, the wholesalers and retailers, the manufacturers and the unions themselves. This constant contact has shown where the main problems are and enables
1564
special attention to be given to them. The movement of salt, sugar, edible oils and fats, both raw materials and finished products, are examples of the problems that have arisen.
There has been rigorous picketing in many parts of the country, but particularly in the North-West, Scotland and the ports. Overall, however, food supplies are continuing to get through and there are no serious shortages. Vital basic commodities such as milk, meat, bread, fruit and vegetables, eggs and poultry remain in good supply. At the start of the dispute animal feeding stuffs were clearly a critical area and strenuous efforts have been made to free adequate supplies. These efforts have had considerable success although trouble spots still exist, particularly at Liverpool and Tilbury. Farmers and compounders are showing considerable ingenuity in altering ration compositions and there are no reports of very large numbers of livestock being prematurely slaughtered. The prospects for the future will depend very much on whether the code of practice is properly observed. If it is, then there is every hope that adequate supplies of food will continue to reach the public. If it is not, the consequences are potentially very serious and in any event the full chain of production and distribution will take some time to return to normal.
Turning to industry, we find a similar contrast between last week's forecast and todays' reality, but I certainly do not underrate the potential danger. By a combination of effort and ingenuity, to which I pay tribute, industry managed to keep going last week better than it was feared. Preliminary estimates suggest that production overall held up to around 90 per cent. of normal though some firms were down to 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of normal and in a few cases less even than this. But this was achieved only by putting a substantial part of factories' production into stock. Actual sales and exports were at a significantly lower level than production and this process obviously cannot continue. If the present situation does not change, it seems likely that firms will be faced with critical decisions this week and next on the introduction of more short-time working, lay-offs and closure of plants. Some firms are already having to operate on a disruptive stop-start basis

1565
as their supplies fluctuate. I cannot predict whether a marked deterioration will take place in industry generally, but I would expect the process to snowball.
Shortages reported by industry include a wide range of chemicals, iron and steel and especially tin plate, foundry supplies, castings, various forms of packaging, vehicle components, asbestos and timber. Besides industries making these products, industries which use them have been hit and these include the textiles and rubber industries. In general there is general concern about increasing shortages of materials for industry. Both imports and exports of industrial materials are being restricted by the action of pickets at dock gates. Inward and outward flows have varied from port to port and at different times. It is therefore difficult to assess the overall effect of this in terms of reduced imports and delay to exports. This will have a terrific impact on industry, and Lord Carrington was quite right to highlight it.
Present estimates, which I must emphasise are difficult to make so that any figures must be treated with great caution, are that about 200,000 men were laid off by yesterday. That this was less than had been expected is attributed to a number of factors: to the effect of the guaranteed working week, to the fact that many firms are operating a three or four day week rather than lay men off, that other firms as a matter of policy are retaining and paying their labour to a substantial degree although they cannot do their normal productive work, and so forth. The difference between the dire forecasts and actuality largely reflects the adaptability and resilience of British industry and the determination of firms to shield their workforce from the effects of the current dislocation for as long as possible.
I come to the railways. Official strikes by the train drivers' union, ASLEF, have taken place on three days earlier this month, and there is another strike today. The main impact has been on commuter traffic into London. Movement of freight by rail, and in particular the move of bulk goods and raw materials, has generally been maintained. Stocks of coal at power stations are adequate at present. While the Government condemn the strike, which has caused inconvenience to many travellers and to industry, it
1566
would be wrong to suppose that vital parts of the economy have been placed in jeopardy by it. The damage which this strike has inflicted on the railways is perhaps of greater significance to their own well-being and future prospects.
Now local authority services. Following the one day strike on 22nd January, which caused disruption throughout the country, the unions concerned now envisage a campaign of selective industrial action designed to cause the maximum disruption with the minimum withdrawal of labour. Schools, sewerage, burials and refuse collection are the most likely targets. The Government must of course keep in close touch with the situation so that we can anticipate points of difficulty and ensure that so far as possible local authorities are managing to cope with the strain on their services.
As for the National Health Service, it is difficult to give any precise estimates of the effects of industrial action on the NHS services because the scale of action varies so widely across the country. But a rough estimate so far as the hospital service is concerned might be that a quarter of the service is working normally, a half is suffering minor disruption, which is not seriously curtailing services, and about a quarter is restricted to emergency services only. Between a third and a half of the Ambulance Service is now on an emergency only basis. Action may well intensify. Nurses are in many cases reported to be considering selective action.
I turn to the stage reached in the attempts to settle the disputes from which the present difficulties arise. Inevitably, many of these negotiations are complex and have been much prolonged. I can summarise them only very briefly and I may not do justice either to the unions' case or to the employers' attempts to find a settlement. But the House will want to know how things stand and what progress has been made.
I begin with the case of the water manual workers. This group of workers, whose work is of such importance to every member of the public, have not been on official strike. There has been unofficial action in the North-West, Yorkshire and Wales which, particularly in the Manchester area, has caused such difficulty to those living there, but meanwhile the rest

1567
of the industry has remained at work while pay negotiations continued. Last Friday the trade union agreed to recommend to their members the acceptance of a new national pay offer. This is now being put to a vote by their memberships, and there is certainly no justification for continuing the unofficial action while that vote is being taken. Most of the men in the Manchester and Liverpool areas have decided to return to work, but there are still difficulties in some localities. The recommended offer includes a sum of 6·9 per cent. which is accounted for by the savings from a new self-financing efficiency scheme, and also reflects the additional provision for the low paid announced last week. The total comes to just under 14 per cent. of the pay bill. The Government have made it clear that they will not increase the cash limit on water industry borrowing to reflect anything other than the 5 per cent. guideline plus the £3·50 underpinning for the low paid.
Turning now to the road haulage dispute, it will be seen that the picture is far less encouraging. The dispute here results from failure of the Road Haulage Association and the Transport and General Workers' Union to reach agreement on pay settlements in the "Hire and Reward" section of the industry. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked me to give the House some factual information about the levels of pay obtaining in this area, and I am very ready to provide this. The basic wage is indeed £53 per week, as the noble Lord surmised, but this does not take account of the many fringe benefits such as subsistence allowances, guaranteed overtime payments, and so on. In fact, very few drivers earn nothing but the basic wage. Average earnings in the industry are now £84·20 per week, and a typical driver currently takes home about £64·00 per week.
The union originally asked for £65 for a 35-hour week, amounting to a 48 per cent. rise. Even for a 40-hour week, £65 would represent an increase of over 22 per cent. The Road Haulage Association current offer of £60 for 40 hours amounts to some 13 to 15 per cent. and would mean an increase of £10 to £12 for the driver who does, or is credited with, the average of just over 50 hours
1568
a week. In other words, acceptance of the offer would result in the average driver earning not far short of £100 per week. I hope that the figures which I have given will satisfy the noble Lord's request.
On Sunday 21st January, ACAS brought the Road Haulage Association and the union negotiators together for talks in an attempt to resolve the dispute at national level. Unfortunately, those talks broke down late on Tuesday night, and negotiations are now likely to be resumed on an area basis. It is difficult to assess those prospects at this stage.
With regard to the railways, this would not be the occasion for me to give your Lordships a long description of the negotiations between the Railways Board and the unions, aimed at settling the current dispute, or an account of the events which gave rise to it. In recent weeks, there have been several meetings of the Railway Staff National Council, the top negotiating body for the industry. The main issue is an inter-union dispute over bonus payments. The General Secretary of the TUC has used his good offices in an attempt to resolve this impasse, and, as a result, a meeting of the Railway Staff National Council took place on Tuesday night and made some progress with the general issue of the 1979 annual pay claim, but there was still deadlock on how to deal with the question of productivity. The Government are not parties to the Railway Staff National Council negotiations, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has had meetings with the board and the unions, and has made the Government's view very clear to them. We deplore the continuation of this irresponsible strike, and we urge the railway unions, and, in particular, ASLEF, to think about the general welfare of the economy and about the future of the railways. Once again, we urge the unions to address themselves seriously to the proposals which the board have put forward for higher productivity, since only in this way can higher rewards for those who work on the railways be justified.
As to the local authority manual workers, the Government have discussed both with the unions (on 19th January)

1569
and with the local authority employers (on 22nd January) how best their proposals for a comparability study might be put into effect in this sector. Both meetings made good progress and we have every hope that the employers and unions will be able to reach agreement on an inquiry into comparable pay for comparable work, which should set a better framework for future pay determination.
The Government's concession on the low paid will benefit 97 per cent. of local authority manual workers. I understand that the employers offered an 8·4 per cent. increase on Friday, which equates with the change in the Retail Price Index over the past year. It is hoped that this offer, combined with the study of comparability, will provide the basis for constructive negotiations, and that the unions will not proceed with their campaign of selective industrial action while such negotiations continue.
Turning to the National Health Service——
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords——
Lord PEART: My speech is taking rather a long time, my Lords, and I should prefer to proceed, as a Statement is to be made later this afternoon. The noble Lord may have an opportunity to speak later, but I should prefer to continue at this stage, particularly as I am giving your Lordships factual information.
With regard to the National Health Service, both sides of the Ancillaries and Ambulancemen's Whitley Councils are meeting the Secretary of State for Social Services and other Ministers at 4.30 p.m. today to make representations to them that it is impossible to make progress within the confines of the Government's pay limitations. Offers at 5 per cent. have been rejected. Informal discussions have followed about the prospects offered by the concession on low pay and a study of comparability. Both sides welcome the idea of a comparability study. With regard to pay policy and the Government's position, I have tried to set out as clearly and as briefly as possible the present situation as it affects the daily life of the community and its effects on industry.
I turn now to some of the wider implications. I was glad to note that the noble
1570
Lord stressed this. I suggested at the outset of my speech that the most serious threat is the damage that may be done to our anti-inflation policies. My noble friend Lady Birk pointed out in the debate last week that these policies had succeeded in reducing the rate of inflation progressively from the disastrous peak of 27 per cent. in mid-1975 to around 8 per cent. last year. At the same time, thanks to this success, coupled with reductions in personal taxation and increases in benefits, real personal incomes increased by at least 6 per cent. in 1978. Increases of that kind are worth having; they are real increases, not confetti money. The policy set out in the White Paper Winning the Battle Against Inflation published in July last year, laid down the basis for continuing this moderate and rational approach to pay settlements.
The 5 per cent. guideline was not plucked from the air. It was the Government's best estimate of the increase in the level of earnings that the country could afford if there was to be a sound basis for maintaining inflation in single figures or reducing it. Of course it is difficult for any one group to see that their own claim can have such effects, but the cumulative effect of many such settlements is undeniable, and in the end devalues them all. This is the message that the Government have been trying to get across, and, whatever the contrary pressures, it is still the right message and the right policy for Britain. We have no intention of abandoning it; and I made that clear to the House yesterday. As I have said, the Government have been concerned to provide the flexibility that will facilitate moderate settlements. What we are seeking is the basis for a long-term approach to moderate and equitable pay settlements which should command the confidence and support of negotiators on both sides of the table. But there is no doubt that this confidence and support not only can be undermined by irresponsibly inflated settlements, but could also lead to a much worse climate for subsequent negotiations. This is the danger that now confronts us, and the Government are determined to do all they can to ensure that the progress made in the past three years is maintained.
A moderate approach to pay policy is in the interests of the community. It is at least equally in the interest of the

1571
community that modertation and a sense of responsibility should be shown in the way in which collective bargaining is pursued. Even if, as I have suggested, the present difficulties have not yet endangered the daily life of the community, there is certainly cause for great concern at the methods that have been adopted and the evident intent to disrupt the life of the community, even to the point of abandoning essential services.
The Prime Minister has spoken out very forcefully and repeatedly against action of this kind, and the kind of attitude that it represents. Speaking in another place last week he said that:
"…the community has an over-riding right against all sectional interests.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/79, col. 1547.]
He urged the road haulage drivers to:
"…measure their sense of grievance against the effects that their actions are having on the community at large";
and I must add that since he said that on 16th January the Transport and General Workers' Union have tried very hard, and on the whole successfully, to get that message through to the men on the picket line.
But we have seen other examples in the last week or two of action by workers in the public sector where there is a deliberate decision to enforce their claims by imposing deliberate hardship on the community—sometimes a specific local community—or by withdrawing emergency services whose loss may cause severe suffering or even death to an individual in distress. This is indeed a desperate situation, and totally incompatible with a humane and tolerant society. It is a kind of violence which cannot be tolerated when it is wielded by a group any more than when it is wielded by an individual. So I say that these are difficult problems, but those who have been involved in such actions in recent weeks should ask themselves whether they want to see society run in this arbitrary and callous way. It cannot be in their own interests, either in pursuing their legitimate interests as employees or in their enjoyment of the benefits of a peaceful society.
If I may sum up the Government's position, the situation is still very serious, not so much for today but in prospect. The food production and distribution
1572
network has stood up remarkably well during the past two weeks, and—I must be fair to the union concerned—the Transport and General Workers' Union have worked hard to ensure that it is not seriously disrupted. They are working with us to ensure that particular local difficulties are solved. If this co-operation is maintained at both central and local levels, the position should not deteriorate. But, naturally, we must look carefully at the situation day by day.
Industry has also shown remarkable resilience so far; but key shortages are developing, and the position could worsen rapidly. This means that those on strike will have succeeded in forcing fellow workers out of work. That will be the remorseless and inevitable result of their action. And it may well not be a short-term effect. Some companies, particularly small firms, could well be forced out of business. Export orders lost may well not be recovered. Firms, large and small, may run into cash flow problems that they cannot survive. I hope that those who are on strike and who are stopping other firms with whom they are not in dispute realise what they are doing. It does not need a million laid off to make the point.
Against this background, the Government's anti-inflation policy is even more relevant than it was last July, when the White Paper was first published. The final sentence said that the policy would:
"…encourage the regeneration of industry, guarantee living standards and make possible a continuing fall in unemployment, bringing lasting benefits to all sections of the community".
That approach would be undermined by extravagant and unrealistic pay settlements. They could result in damage to our prospects of industrial growth, damage to our standard of living and damage, most of all, to the community and the weaker members of it. We must restore a sense of reasonableness and responsibility, both in the pay claims and in the way in which they are pursued. Those involved in pay negotiations and those contemplating industrial action have an obligation to respect the interests of the community and the rights of the individual. In the end, it means recognising that talk of industrial "muscle", "strength" and "militancy" is irrelevant and destructive, and that what is relevant is the interdependence of everyone in the community.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, the present industrial situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has directed our attention this afternoon, could I think aptly be described as intolerable were it not for the fact that the unhappy people of this country are having perforce to endure it. It is deplorable, it is indefensible; and I think the noble Lord the Leader of the House has, in his own words, made the same point. As the Prime Minister said the other day:
"The patience of the public is nearing exhaustion".
When patience is exhausted, very grave dangers are lying only just over the horizon, so I am sure that your Lordships will be glad of the opportunity to debate our problems in, I hope, a calm and objective manner, as indeed was done by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion.
Some have suggested that the seriousness of the position has been exaggerated, and it seemed to me at the outset of his speech that the noble Lord the Leader of the House was taking the same point. We have been told that the picture we get from the news media is distorted. My Lords, of course it is, because it is inescapable that the harsher impacts of these strikes on the public are what get the headlines. But, even if the shocking incidents of which we have been reading recently were repeated only ten times, and not a hundred times and more through the country, that would in my book be serious enough. Indeed, I do not think it is now really disputed that we are facing a serious crisis. As I say, at the beginning of his speech the noble Lord the Leader of the House appeared to be rather talking it down, but he became pretty firm at the end and I am sure we all warmly support what he said.
A week ago, the Prime Minister reported that the movement of supplies of all kinds was being held up and that hardship—that was his word; not "inconvenience ", but "hardship"—was being caused to the general public. On that same day, the Transport and General Workers' Union produced its code of practice. The Government, believing that this would be observed and would rapidly improve the situation, decided it would be better at that stage to take no
1574
further action. On that day, it may well have seemed right to them so to decide, but what has happened since then? A week has passed, and it is now clear that in many places the code is not being observed. This was admitted by the Home Secretary in his Statement yesterday. So I was hoping that the Leader of the House would be able to tell us what the Government were going to do about it. It does not seem to me to be quite sufficient just to be told that when difficulties arise the Government will take them up. I should like to know—and maybe the noble and learned Lord who is to wind up on behalf of the Government could tell us—whether, when they take them up, they get satisfaction. That would be one step in the right direction.
Before I pass from the present lorry drivers' dispute I want briefly to refer to exports. Exports have not been included in the priority list, and we all recognise that they have not the emotional appeal of medical supplies and food. But exports are essential in the country's battle against inflation. The noble Lord the Leader of the House made that point himself; and remember that if we let down our overseas customers we do not merely lose current business but we jeopardise all future business.
I should also like to put in a special plea for the smaller firms, who do so much of our export business. I was talking to a small firm only yesterday. It is clear that a small firm can very rapidly run into serious cash-flow problems if export business is frustrated. That is particularly the case where a one- off order has been taken, perhaps a very large one, and when that is held up it may be that the buyers throw the order back in their faces and they are left with something that they cannot even sell after the strike is over because nobody wants it.
I am sure that the most urgent task before us all is to get the present outstanding disputes settled and get the men back to work. I feel that in saying that I am carrying the whole House with me. It has sometimes surprised me that the Labour Party which have been, to their great credit, in the forefront of advocating settlement of international disputes by discussion, conciliation and arbitration

1575
in preference to the hideous and wasteful alternative of war, have not felt able to adopt the same outlook towards industrial warfare. As we see today, industrial warfare can also be hideous and inhumane; and it is wasteful, too. It is terribly wasteful of human resources. If I may come down to a more mundane plane, how many trade unionists realise—and, I might add, how many trade unionist' wives realise—if the employer offers them 5 per cent. and they reject it and they go on strike and then, after three weeks, the employer comes back with an offer of 10 per cent. and they accept it, that they will at the end of the year have received less money than if they had accepted the 5 per cent. in the first instance. It is a remarkable position that the additional 5 per cent. that they earn over the remaining 49 weeks of the year is less than the three weeks' wages that they have lost by being on strike.
I want to turn for a moment to the future—and I do not want to speak for long for we are all awaiting a Statement. What are the long-term measures that we should adopt to get this position right? As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, reminded us, the Party for whom I am speaking favours a statutory pay and prices policy. I believe that I was bold enough to advocate this before I came to sit on these Benches. I thought then, and I think now, that it is a fairer policy. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, say that he preferred a voluntary policy because he thought it fairer. So we are both aiming at the same thing but finding very different ways of getting there. After all, it is only a statutory policy that can really prevent the selfish and the strong from stealing advantages over their weaker and poorer fellow beings.
The objection commonly offered to a statutory policy is that it would be too inflexible. I see the force of that argument; but I thought it was dealt with extremely well in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in last week's debate. He showed how flexibility could be provided in a statutory policy. There are alternative methods of introducing flexibility in legislation. It might be possible, for instance, for us to resuscitate the Prices and Incomes Board which we on these Benches, and, I think, noble Lords opposite think it a great pity was dismantled. If something like that were resuscitated,
1576
it could adjudicate on special cases, on people who claimed that they were suffering as a result of the statutory incomes policy. The advantage of this over having committees of inquiry on every occasion is obvious; because the Board would establish a general philosophy and could make consistent recommendations.
At the end of that speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, I found myself in complete agreement with him. As he is not speaking today, I hope that I may be allowed to read that paragraph to your Lordships. He said—and I am sorry the noble Lord is not in his place:
"I end what I have to say here by pointing out that, unless the political Parties of this country can get together and realise that in the interests of the consumers of this country, and of the position of this country in the world economic setting, there must be statutory limits on the amount by which the wage bill can go up, coupled with the type of arrangements of flexibility which I have suggested…".—[Official Report, Col. 1041 17/1/79].
As your Lordships are aware, the proposition that we should try to get agreement among the Parties in the country to a policy of this kind is one that is strongly supported by the Liberal Party and was advocated in a speech by my right honourable friend in another place only the day before yesterday. I have always felt that Lord Brown's thoughts on industrial relations were stimulating. At one time, I used to sit at his feet and learn about industrial relations from him and, even when I could not fully agree with him, he was always a stimulating teacher. With the thoughts he expressed in the last passage in his speech I fully agree. It is in line with what the Liberals have said and with what my right honourable Leader in the other place has said. If the other Parties can be persuaded to join in, so much the better. The more we can reach agreement on the steps to be taken to put industrial relations in this country into better shape—and this reflects what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said—then the more power will we give to the Government of the day, of whatever Party, to exercise authority in this field.
But, of course, my Lords, a statutory pay and prices policy is not enough. What we need, and need badly, is a new spirit in industry. That is very much easier to say than to implement; but a move in the right direction would be to

1577
see a wide extension of worker participation. I prefer that expression to "industrial democracy" which can be very misleading. I was very disappointed at the reactions of industry to the Bullock Report. We on these Benches objected to its proposals but we believe that its appearance should have given industry more than a nudge in producing their own proposals. In this context I recall the advice that I had from that great man, Seebohm Rowntree, whom I was privileged to call a friend. As your Lordships will know, in his works at York he had perfected long ago a system of worker participation. I remember his saying to me: "It is the right thing to do …" And then, after a pause, he added: "and it pays!" I wish that instead of waiting for more reports or for legislation, there were more firms who would follow the example of those who have already made such a success of worker participation and in that way improved the atmosphere in which we can make progress towards better industrial relations in this country.
4.29 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY: My Lords, there is legislation going back, as I understand it, for over a century which enshrines the right to strike and this is a right much to be prized. The legislation has taken different forms at different times but there it is, written in, and we may be grateful for it. If we claim to be fair-minded men and women, we must be aware of certain parts of the community whose basic wages are still too low: men who suffer from insecurity of conditions of their work, insecurity of pay in the face of rising costs, insecurity as to the continuation of their jobs, insecurity from the threat of having to move their families to some other location with interruption of their children's schooling and so on. These are genuine worries to many of the members of our trade unions, including the lorry drivers.
However, the main points that the strikers have been seeking to make have been made. I believe that the average Britisher has the right to say "Enough is enough" and to look for a return to normal procedures for settling disputes. The right to strike is now being used far too soon, far too readily and far too irresponsibly. Strikes are a last resort
1578
when all else has failed, not a kind of game of monopoly with no moral issues involved. Power is a dangerous thing; it can be harsh and it can be pitiless if it is used irresponsibly. In the past few weeks, I have tried to let my mind range over some of the issues facing this country, and those of us who are in the ministry of the Church are in pretty close contact with all areas and strata of society. The sheer pitilessness of much that is going on now has imprinted itself on my mind, and the damage that is inflicted on parties who are in no way involved in the disputes. The public are being made to suffer—often those sections of the public who are most defenceless.
The story on the front page of today's Telegraph—and when shall we see another copy of The Times and breakfast be worth while?; but we will let that go!—is one of the nastiest things that has stained a British newspaper for many years: the story of 65 human beings suffering from cancer and turned out of their hospitals because of a senseless strike. No one has the right to use power in such a way as to damage third parties with whom he is in no way in disagreement.
I hold in my hand a letter which reached my desk this morning from a part of my own diocese, that little island of the diocese of Canterbury which is Croydon. I received a very level-headed letter from teachers telling me how their children are being damaged by a strike which has hit their school. Responsibility goes with power, and when these are divorced then chaos and suffering ensue. I believe that many people up and down our country today are tired of the cry, "My rights!" when that cry is not married to an insistence on right for the larger community. Personal and sectional interests are made to appear more important than the welfare of the whole community, of the nation at large.
This introduces a kind of cancer into our system. Ours in an increasingly technological age is an inter-dependent society; one cannot damage one part of it without damaging another. I believe that here is a matter of the deepest moral significance for our whole people. Love or care for one another—or, my Lords, call it what you will—demands self-

1579
sacrifice and justice. Love is not love if it is not inclusive of justice. Without justice, love is sentimentality. Love is always sensitive to hurt that is done to the helpless.
It seems to me that there are very large sections of our nation at the moment that are feeling their desperate powerlessness. I think of the sick; I think of the elderly; I think of the children. Here we see the pitilessness of our system at its worst. But there are great numbers of men within the trade unions who care about the community, who care about the old, who care about the weak, who care about a right combination of love and justice but who feel totally powerless to do anything about it because our power structures have gone wrong.
Only a fortnight ago I was talking in Deptford, where I spent six hours or so very much at the grass roots level, talking to a friend who is a church warden and a train driver. He said to me, "I do not want this strike. I am a Christian; I object to the issues involved, but I simply cannot do anything about it." Here he becomes, willy-nilly, a pawn within a power structure which he cannot help. Men like this—and there are many of them; more perhaps than we think—know that the strident cry of: "More, more! and hang the consequences to others!" is a cry which leads to the destruction of their country and, in the end, of themselves. But they feel that their voice is so feeble that their protest dies in their throats.
They see with a clarity which some of us seem to lack that an acquisitive society has the seeds of death in itself, but they can scarcely make a protest. They know that the verb "to be" is more important than the verb "to have"; that the verb "to give" is more important than the verb "to get", but they do not know how to make their voices heard. They have a sense of British fairness almost inborn in them. It cannot become vocalised; it cannot make itself heard. There are two pleas which I would put forward for the consideration of your Lordships' House. The first is that we might see in a way which we have not done for all too long a getting together of our three Parties at this time of crisis.
1580
Let me say in parenthesis that it seems to me the height of folly to say that there is no crisis or to try to blur the issues involved. They are there for all to see. But could we not in this hour of crisis and urgency set aside Party politics and build on the very large element of what all three of us have in common? Secondly, would it not be possible to think out the creation of an independent body—call it a commission if you will, my Lords—a continuing body, a fact-finding body, a body representative of employers and of the trade unions, a body representative of the public, the man in the street who gets hit and has had enough, a body that is able to adjudicate impartially on special cases—including pay—which are referred to it, a body which is commissioned to undertake a review of the present processes of arbitration, prepared to face the fact that if inflation increases, our money is worthless, that our present power structures have got out of control, that there has entered into our society an element of pitilessness of which some of us seem to be singularly unaware, of acquisitiveness which has gripped us and which is a disgrace to any civilised nation? It would be a commission which realises that one can only build a healthy society on the basis of love and justice, committed to point the way to reconciliation and unity and to produce guidelines for new legislation. I plead that this might be very seriously considered, and on all-Party lines.
I believe that in speaking as I have done on these moral issues, I speak not only in the name of the Church of England, which I primarily represent, but in the name of all the Churches of our land; and I believe, if I may dare to say so, that I speak in the name of the vast majority of our Jewish fellow citizens and in the name of a great company of people who, without any religious commitments, long for a better day for our country and for our world.
4.40 p.m.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, having listened to and much profited from the expertise displayed by noble Lords and by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop who have preceded me in this debate, I feel even more than I had anticipated in need of that customary measure of kindly indulgence with which

1581
the inadequacies of the beginner are overlooked by this House. That does not necessarily mean, though, that it is solely a wish to avoid unfavourable comparisons that leads me to pursue a line which is different from the mainstream of this debate, for I believe it is extremely important that someone today should speak specifically of the plight of patients within our hospitals at this time of industrial unrest.
I am a surgeon, and on Tuesday morning of this week I operated upon a lady who, in consequence of a serious internal ailment, was in constant severe pain. She had in fact been admitted over the weekend and I should have liked to operate on her on Monday morning; and she would have appreciated that, too, for even an extra 24 hours seems a very long time to wait in pain in a hospital bed. But it would just not have been safe, for the one-day strike of all our ancillary workers left us very vulnerable in the face of the unexpected, and in high-risk surgery one cannot in all conscience accept additional hazards.
Of course, my hospital was not unique on Monday. That was the day when there was no normal working in any of our hospitals, and I would dearly like to be able to tell you that since this was just a one-day strike all is now back to normal, but I am afraid this is very far from being the case. Not only has the all too familiar work to rule followed but there is also hanging over us the threat of lightning strikes with a 10-minute warning, and this threat may effectively stop all routine working at a number of our hospitals, for many consultants—surgeons particularly—have already taken the view that, while emergencies must be dealt with as they arise, it would not be safe to admit patients from the waiting list with the risk that before their treatment had been completed a sudden unexpected withdrawal of services by key technicians might create a situation of real hazard.
The interruption in the treatment of the sick in our hospitals is on this occasion the direct result of trade union action. As I comment upon it—and I cannot conceal my feelings about it even though I believe the actual claims for consideration by those involved in industrial action may have much merit—I can almost hear
1582
the ministerial comment that has been repeated more than once in this House: "Don't let us forget the work to rule, or perhaps more strictly the work to contract, of doctors, including consultants, a few years ago". I hope I shall not give offence, because none is meant, if I say that I have never quite seen the logic of suggesting that the present sin of A becomes less culpable on account of the past sin of B. Perhaps I may the more readily be forgiven for saying this: I feel I must add that in my belief any industrial action, from whatever direction it comes, that diminishes what we can do for the sick is never less than deplorable and often deserving of adjectives a good deal more emphatic than that. If, then, in the present situation I appear to support the belief that some trade unions or their members are deserving of criticism, this does not mean that I am unaware of or unmoved by some of the changes in the practice of medicine that have come upon us during the last few years—in fact, many would say ever since that disreputable word "overtime" was allowed to sidle unobtrusively into the vocabulary of doctors.
I believe that every speech should have a purpose, and the purpose of my speech today is certainly not to ask your Lordships to join with me in a kind of communal wringing of hands over changes in our society, many of which are perhaps already beyond recall. My purpose is a practical one and it is to ask you to give your most careful consideration to a fundamental question which I now put to you. Can we not do more to protect patients from the results of strife when it occurs in our National Health Service, or must patients just take their chance until each dispute is settled? For this is the position at the moment, and it is not something which one can explain easily to someone with heart failure in an oxygen tent, with the oxygen supplies running low.
Is it really a task beyond the intelligence and ingenuity of our society to devise some way in which at least the safety of patients in hospital, incapacitated by illness or by injury, might be guaranteed? Let us acknowledge that the best way of helping patients is, of course, to employ a system for examining disputes which leads to their speedy resolution. But surely, while the dispute is being resolved, it ought to be possible to find some way of protecting patients from the worst of its

1583
effects. Let me give an example regarding discussions elsewhere relating to the examination of disputes within our Health Service. I would make the suggestion that in any hospital where industrial action of one kind or another appeared imminent, it ought to become accepted practice that there would promptly be set up within that hospital a small ad hoc working party of perhaps just three or four members—say, a doctor, a nurse, a union representative and an administrator—who would meet daily and, keeping right away from the merits of the dispute itself and not getting tangled up in that, would address itself solely to the question: What needs to be done today to ensure the safety of our patients? For example, there must be oxygen for patients who might die without it, blood for transfusions, warmth, food, essential drugs: just these.
It seems to me that at the local level, at the grass roots, one might awaken—or perhaps "re-awaken" is a better word, for this is something hospitals used to be proud of—re-awaken, and enlist on behalf of patients, some feeling of pride in our hospitals and some sense of responsibility that would be valuable. Had such a scheme been in operation, there would at least have been a chance—I believe, given the involvement of the right people, a good chance—of heading off the disastrous breakdown in the treatment of patients with cancer in Birmingham of which we read today.
Lest this House should underestimate the seriousness of what has occurred at this hospital, let me say just this without involving myself in any way in apportioning blame. It is not disputed that some patients have had their treatment interrupted and have been sent home. If we accept what the experts in the treatment of cancer tell us, that continuity of treatment is, at least, of some importance—and I think that we have to accept this—then some of these patients will live less long than they would otherwise have done, and this conclusion is inescapable.
Disappointingly, an initial encouraging measure of support for the suggestion I made was followed by an obvious cooling off, as the implications sank in, though it is perhaps not for me to do more than just ask this question. Even if not deliberately sought, is not the
1584
plight of patients a most effective bargaining counter, and is there in the minds of some possibly some reluctance to yield it up? The reason I was given for the evaporation of support was that discussions which were in progress were going to produce such a good code of practice for the resolution of disputes in the Health Service that everyone would work normally while the code went into action and, therefore, there was no need for such a scheme. Am I being unduly cynical in asking whether recent events support the thesis that, provided a good code of practice is there, workers with a grievance will inevitably obey it?
I should not want to emphasise the advantages of any one scheme over another, and, after all, various ways have been suggested already for improving the present unacceptable situation. For instance, there are those who, fitting the problem into a more general need of the community, would ask those working in our Health Service to give up their right to strike in return for some special concessions in regard to the method of calculating their pay. Whether this idea should be pursued is, I believe, a political decision and to express an opinion upon it is outside my competence. In general, with some notable exceptions, doctors do not make good politicians. Whether it would be helpful, again, to support some examination of the possibilities within Parliament is a Parliamentary decision. But to decide whether there is, indeed, a need to do more to protect the innocent sick from the malign effects of the deficiencies of the society in which we live is not a political decision, nor a Parliamentary one. It is one which is dictated by conscience and by humanity, and this House should not miss the opportunity of saying that whatever the difficulties it is something that must be done.

THE LAW ON PICKETING
4.54 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General on the law relating to picketing. The Statement reads:

1585
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the law relating to picketing.
"It is necessary to deal separately with the criminal and the civil law. It is for the police to take action to enforce the criminal law. It is for those who suffer damage in consequence of civil wrongs to bring civil proceedings in the courts to restrain the commission of those civil wrongs or to recover damages.
"Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 applies both to the criminal and to the civil law. Its ancestry now goes back over 100 years. Its effect is that peaceful picketing as defined in the section is not unlawful. Peaceful picketing is the attendance of one or more persons at or near somebody's place of work or business or anywhere else where he is except his home. The protection of Section 15 is given if the attendance is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, if its sole purpose is to give or receive information or to persuade somebody to work or not to work, and if it is peaceful.
"The criminal law makes no distinction between so-called 'primary' and 'secondary' picketing. But it does not permit acts which, apart from Section 15, are breaches of the criminal law. It follows that, whether or not in the course of picketing, the criminal law is broken by violence, extortion, obstructing the highway, or obstructing the police in the reasonable execution of their duty. Pickets may lawfully indicate to a driver their wish peacefully to communicate with him. But no law requires him to stop. If a picket obstructs the highway in order to cause him to stop, that is a breach of the criminal law and Section 15 is no defence. A driver who wishes to drive past a picket line is in law entirely free to do so, so long as he drives in 'a lawful manner. If a driver or anyone else, including a picket, is unlawfully obstructed or intimidated or assaulted, he should report the matter to the police. Extortion of money as the price for letting a vehicle through would, of course, be a most serious offence and indeed a quite intolerable act, and anybody who is the victim of it has a duty to report it.
1586
"Picketing as such is not a civil wrong. But its primary purpose is to persuade those who are under a contract of employment not to perform it. If that persuasion is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, and is the only actionable wrong, Section 13 of the 1974 Act gave to the persuader protection from civil action by the employer. This protection went back to the 1906 Act. Section 3 of the 1976 Act added protection from an action based on direct interference with a commercial contract. If in either case the persuasion is not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, there is no protection and the injured party can obtain an injunction or damages.
"The protection from civil action therefore depends on whether the persuasion which is the object of the picketing is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. This cannot be determined by the very loose terms 'primary' and 'secondary' picketing. But under recent decisions of the courts the test applied seems to have been whether the industrial action complained of has been so remote from the original trade dispute as to be not reasonably likely to further it. You can lawfully seek to ensure that your employer's supplier does not supply him. But if he continues to do so, and you then seek to ensure that the supplier to that supplier does not supply him, the decisions of the court suggest that you are entering the area of potential remoteness, where the Section 13 protection runs out. In both cases the term 'secondary picketing' would be apt, but the legal consequences could be quite different.
"Finally, Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the repeal of the 1976 amendment would make a substantial difference to the balance of strength between employers and unions. I disagree. In my view its effect on that balance would be insignificant in the light of the remoteness test, which seems to me to be a far greater potential limitation on the protection provided by Section 13. The repeal of the 1976 amendment would merely restore a host of anomalies to which the Donovan Report rightly drew attention".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.59 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the House would wish me to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating that Statement, and would not wish me to pursue my disagreement with the Government on the subject of Section 13 of the 1976 Act. We have the advantage here of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whereas the Statement was made by the Attorney-General. That prompts me to ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm whether or not the law of Scotland is identical with the law as declared by the Attorney-General in another place.
I understand that as regards breach of the peace the law of Scotland is of a slightly different character from that with which I am more familiar. I am compelled to say that I think it is strange that it has taken so long for the Attorney-General to come to the Dispatch Box with a Statement of this kind, and now only under pressure from the Opposition. I should have thought that one of the first things that an Attorney-General would wish to do would be to state clearly and unmistakeably to the nation, through the House of Commons, what the law relating to picketing is, because the great majority, both of those who pass pickets and those who keep them, wish to keep the law and wish to know what it is.
It will not be unclear to all Members of this House that the law of picketing is extremely imprecise and extremely difficult to enforce. At least, in my judgment, the Home Secretary should, at a very early stage, have assembled in London the chief constables of the police authorities to consult one another as to the effective operation of the law and as to mutual aid in enforcing it. One recognises that there is no power to give instructions, but it is within my knowledge that on previous occasions previous Administrations have taken this elementary step.
With regard to the relationship between a code of practice and a rule of law, one must recognise that a code of practice has value only to the extent to which it is observed on the picket line. It is not a substitute for a clear statement of the law and positive law enforcement. Moreover,
1588
a code of practice must be enunciated within the framework of a clear statement of the law.
Next I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord that secondary picketing is a menace and that it ought to be stopped. Only those who are members of striking unions should be allowed on the picket line, and the only places at which picketing should take place are the places of business of those who are in dispute. Pickets should be advised—because we could do no more—to produce evidence of identity and some evidence of authority to act on behalf of the body for whom they purport to act.
The police should be available to prevent breaches of the peace. I noticed that there was no effective definition of "intimidation" in the Statement. The definition is obscure. Is the threat of the loss of a union card, particularly in a closed shop situation, an act of intimidation, or is it not? If it is not, then what is the value of the Prime Minister's statement that he would gladly march across the picket line? It does not matter to the Prime Minister whether or not he loses his union card.
We shall be debating this matter during the debate but I am bound to say that this Statement comes too late, will not be understood by the ordinary man in the street and is disappointingly unclear about the changes in the law which some of us believe to be urgently necessary.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I do not want to anticipate the observations that I hope to make at a later stage in the current debate when I shall suggest some alterations to the criminal law in order to curb the more gross picketing malpractices. At this stage I want to ask the noble and learned Lord only one question. Am I right in thinking that without the protection of Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 any picket who stands on the highway is almost inevitably committing the offence of obstructing the highway—a criminal offence? And am I right in thinking that as a result of the decision in Broome v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the protection of Section 15 does not extend to any such picket who requires a motor vehicle to stop? If that is right, would the

1589
noble and learned Lord indicate how many tens of thousands of criminal offences have been committed in the course of the last few weeks, whether there has been one single prosecution and, if not, why not?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, while the references are fresh in my mind, may I refer to the case which the noble Lord has just mentioned, the case of Broome v. The Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble Lord is right, of course, in saying that the House of Lords, sitting as an Appellate Court, held that the picket in that particular case had no right to obstruct the highway, the circumstance being that he stood in front of a lorry with a placard. It was held that he was committing an offence under Section 121 of the Highways Act 1959: wilfully obstructing the free passage along a highway.
Let us be quite clear that what we are speaking of in that kind of case is proof. It was evident in that case that there was proof that a man was deliberately and wilfully stopping a lorry from moving when its driver wanted to move it. If that is the situation, and if it is established to the satisfaction of a court, then that person will be prosecuted. If the facts do not justify bringing such a criminal charge before the court, we cannot do so. The noble Lord ought to bear in mind that what is happening in the great majority of cases is that pickets are seeking to stop vehicles in order to ask drivers not to engage in certain action and that the lorry drivers are stopping willingly, or at least are not being forced to stop. If they are forced to stop, that is obstruction and there ought to be a prosecution if the facts can be established. I believe that that is the correct answer to what the noble Lord has suggested.
In relation to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, the law in Scotland is not identical with the law in England, for a number of reasons. First, the statutory provisions are, of course, United Kingdom statutory provisions, as the noble and learned Lord will acknowledge. So the statutory provisions are the same. In relation, however, to the particular matters mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, the role of the police is entirely different.
1590
Although the police will attend and report matters to the Public Prosecutor, in the shape of the procurator-fiscal, the decision to prosecute is not that of the police. That decision is taken by the Public Prosecutor. The result is that it has an effect upon the breach of peace type of case, as the noble and learned Lord obviously knows, because the matter may be looked at slightly more objectively in Scotland than it is in England. In relation to obstruction, that section of the Highways Act to which I referred does not apply in Scotland. We proceed upon a different basis. But by and large I think I can say that one would not expect to get a different result if the facts were the same on both sides of the Border.
I do not think that there has been undue delay. This is a matter of great difficulty. One finds, even in the textbooks to which I have made reference for the purpose of instructing myself on this matter, that there are differences of emphasis about what the law is. It is important to try to get it right and time has properly been taken to do that.
It is said that secondary picketing is a menance. Unfortunately the term "secondary picketing" is somewhat imprecise and is much abused. Secondary picketing was allowed even in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 which was introduced by the previous Government, of which the noble and learned Lord was a distinguished member. Policemen should be available where they are necessary. Usually they are not needed because, where picketing goes on, perfect order is in most cases kept. In some cases, of course, perfect order is not kept, and the police endeavour to attend on these occasions.
I think that I should not further anticipate the matters which will be raised during the course of the debate and that I should not attempt to answer any further questions on a matter which might simply confuse the issue, although I hope to deal with them more fully at a later stage.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, there is a grave omission in the Statement which has just been made. The Law Officers of the Crown have confirmed that things that have gone on over recent days and weeks are criminal

1591
acts. The omission in the Statement is this: what have the Government done about it? What overtly have they tried to do in recognising these criminal acts? My noble and learned friend suggests that a meeting of chief constables ought to be called with the idea of working out strategy. Could that not be done? Could not a Government circular be sent to the police? The Statement as it stands merely says that if somebody feels that they have been the victim of a criminal act they ought to report it to the police. The fact that they have to do that as a person under stress is itself intimidation. Why cannot the Government encourage the police to take on the responsibility of taking the first action? At the risk of incurring the displeasure of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I ask once again whether there is anything in the Government's mind which will repair the omissions in this Statement?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will remember that this is a question period.
Several Noble Lords: It is a question.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord was trying to make a speech.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, perhaps I may swiftly address myself to the questions that I have been asked. The Attorney-General does not have a role to play in relation to prosecution for minor offences. That is a matter for the police or, in the case of civil remedies, it is for the employers or contractors or whoever it may be to seek their remedies in the courts. It is the normal way of bringing to the attention of the criminal courts that a criminal act may have taken place for persons to report the matter to the police. That is the way it normally happens. Where, as in these cases, the police are attending upon the scene where criminal acts may take place, of course they will observe them for themselves. Where the criminal act is of the kind mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—a breach of the peace in England—the police have an important role to play in relation to that. These are matters which are perfectly clear; they are not omissions
1592
from the Statement. This is a Statement about the law of picketing as it is at the present time. I hope that that sufficiently answers the question.
In relation to circularising chief constables, in fact the Home Secretary has no duty and no power to circulate chief constables about what they ought to do; and I think there has been a certain confusion, both in the other place and the——
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that he ought to have assembled them, not circularised them.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I accept that; I was dealing with the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nichols, and the gloss he put upon it. Of course the noble and learned Lord said something to which I take no exception at all. But, in relation to circularising chief constables, what the Home Secretary can and should do and frequently does when there is a change in the law is to send out a circular drawing the attention of chief constables to that change in the law. However, it is not proper for him to say to chief constables: "You ought to do this in that situation, and you ought to do that," in relation to their primary duty of exercising their discretion to prosecute. I believe that that would be an unwarrantable interference by an executive Member of the Government in the discretion which chief constables on this side of the Border have accorded to them.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord one question on clarification. He has said that for peaceful picketing to be permitted there requires to be an industrial dispute concerning persons under contract. If that is correct, then volunteers going in to serve meals in hospitals cannot be even peacefully picketed. Is that correct?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not think I said that, or if I did I certainly did not mean to. The provisions about peaceful picketing are contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1974. Those provisions were not changed in 1976, and

1593
if the noble Earl looks at Section 15 he will find that the words used are quite general and the persons who are permitted to do certain things are any persons, that they are entitled to attend at any place other than a person's residence and,—and I quote—they are entitled to attend,
"for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working".
Although I think it improper to attempt to define the law on one's feet at this stage, I think those words are wide enough to cover even a person who volunteers to work rather than a person who is employed.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I should like to put one question to the noble and learned Lord about the Statement. His Statement deals with the question of commercial contracts. I think all of us who know anything about this would agree about the very great difficulties in prosecuting for criminal action—difficulties for the police; difficulties for the "informers", if I may use that shorthand; difficulties of precise proof and also, of course, criminal prosecution can be inflammatory. Is it not therefore far more important to consider the rights for civil action and is not one of the real needs to reduce the protection against civil action? That is why, if I may say so, I was astonished and shocked by the Statement repeated by the noble and learned Lord, dismissing altogether what I believe to be of great importance, namely the very damaging effect which has been produced by extending immunity to direct action to interfere with commercial contracts, as it used to be limited to contracts of employment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I hope that I shall not take an undue time to explain the position here. First, as your Lordships are well aware, for some years the Donovan Royal Commission considered the whole matter of trade unions. Of course they considered the matter of picketing, including what is now known as secondary picketing, and in a series of recommendations which are to be found in paragraphs 875 to 892 the Donovan Royal Commission recommended that what is called secondary picketing—although the words are susceptible of different meanings, but secondary
1594
picketing of the kind spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Carr—should be permitted by law. So in introducing that change the Government were acting upon the unanimous recommendation of a Royal Commission, and I hope to give the references more fully, if it be required, later in the course of the debate.
Secondly, your Lordships will recall that in the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, secondary picketing of that kind and interference with commercial contracts were prohibited. In practice, one found that the civil law remedy simply did not work, and in the case of the five strikers who were sent to prison for contempt of court it was seen to be intolerable and one had the extraordinary situation of the Official Solicitor moving in to get them out. We must not forget that our experience of how badly the 1971 provisions worked is something that the Government must take into account.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, if it is not dangerous, it is singularly unhelpful for eminent lawyers to put forward their interpretations of the law mixed up with their thoughts about the amendment of the law? Surely at this time it must be the object of the Government, and indeed of all men of goodwill, to try to take the heat out of the existing situation and to get the strikers back to work. When the strike is over and some of the heat has gone, then the normal political speaking can take place—I hope not on the basis of Daily Telegraph articles which have not been checked but on an objective examination of the situation in the whole of the community. Then is the time for an amendment of the law. But now we should not mix up the two to a point of misrepresentation, because the strikers can also read the Daily Telegraph and they also read your Lordships' debates and therefore one-sided statements are wholly inflammatory.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I can only answer for the Attorney-General. He was criticised a short time ago for delaying the making of the Statement and now he is being criticised for making one. One cannot satisfy all the people, or even all the noble Lords, all the time.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, may I—
Lord PEART: I think we have had enough on this Statement. We have 26 more speakers to take part in the debate.

THE INDUSTRIAL SITUATION
Debate resumed.
5.20 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I feel it is a very great privilege that it falls to me to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on his impressive and compassionate maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, is, as I think everyone knows, a brilliant former President of the Royal College of Physicians.
Noble Lords: Surgeons.
Viscount AMORY: Surgeons. I do apologise particularly because, as the noble Lord knows, I have a very good reason to know that fact. He is also, if I may say so, a man of great modesty and charm. We shall look forward to his most valuable contributions to our future debates. What a pleasure it was, too, to listen to the moving appeal which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made to us just now.
I would like to start, if I may, by saying that I thought the speech my noble friend Lord Carrington made was marked by that deep sense of responsibility that we all knew it would have, and I think the noble Lord the Leader of the House paid that tribute to him. We have had a series of debates on various aspects of industry over the last 12 months. I think the aspect that is in our thoughts today is the use of power. In my intervention today I want to go on record with two statements and to make one suggestion.
My first proposition is that when power is being used by a section of the nation to the manifest damage of the community at large it is bound to amount to an issue for Parliament, though not necessarily a Party political one. It is not a problem that can be left, for instance, to free collective bargaining without any ground rules, the Government of the day merely standing on the sidelines watching. Perhaps at that moment I would like to clear
1596
one thing out of the way; what I have said does not mean that I am in favour of a rigid across-the-board national incomes percentage. I had intended to suggest that I did not feel that Ministers had yet insisted enough on the right of pickets to use persuasion only and not intimidation or force. It seems that under pressure Ministers are now rather belatedly applying their minds to that problem, from the Statement we have just heard. My second proposition is that the increase in real earnings during 1978, to which the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred in his speech, the increase which has been enjoyed during the past year, has been financed and is being financed by our temporary windfall from North Sea oil and by borrowing. We are still subsidising our own consumption.
The traditional attitude of our trade unions when legal reforms are mentioned—I do not want to say it disrespectfully—is a kind of "Hands off! Leave this to us. We the trade unions will see to matters of reform, if they are needed, ourselves." Mr. Gormley has recently said, "Trust us". But year after year—I nearly said decade after decade—this has been the answer of the trade unions, and no reforms come forward from them. How long is the nation expected to wait? This attitude would not be so unreasonable if it was not that our trade unions, unlike those in most other countries, have a statutorily privileged position with special advantages not available to other citizens which enable them, sadly, to breach agreements sometimes with impunity, and have other immunities which increase their power enormously. These advantages were, of course, deliberately given to them in days when they were relatively weak and the balance of power needed correction. Today the situation is precisely reversed. The big battalions wield a power against the rest of the community which urgently calls out for correction. So my proposition is that it will be indeed an astonishing thing if our trade union structure of power is so perfect that no reforms are necessary in the interests of the nation at large.
In recent years Governments, one of each of the main Parties, have set out to tackle this problem, and each has been repulsed by the practical resistance of trades union power. Here I will freely

1597
admit that, while I believe that the aims and provisions of the Conservative Industrial Relations Act were scrupulously fair, in its anxiety to protect all legitimate interests, including those of the trade unions, it became rather a horror of legalistic complication. I would like to commend, if I may, the speech of my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, made in our debate last week initiated by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. My noble friend Lord Carr, in referring to the chaos today in the trade union field, said that,
"in the national interest there must be rules of conduct; whether they are rules introduced by statute or by voluntary agreement can be discussed, but when agreed they must be adhered to".
In those rules I think it is inevitable that the law will have some part to play, though I am all for keeping the intervention of the law to the minimum. So my proposition is that both political Parties will have to recognise this over the years immediately ahead. If we think otherwise we shall be burying our heads in the sand.
I select one statistic to illustrate the scale on which we are tearing ourselves apart. One company, ICI, has reported that since the start of these damaging stoppages it has been exporting £2 million a day less; it has been exporting £1 million a day instead of the £3 million which it was exporting normally before the start of the stoppage. Imagine those effects spread over the whole of our export effort. ICI's production, I understand, is already down to about 60 per cent. of normal, with deliveries to customers down to about one-third of normal. If my noble friend Lord Polwarth had not been attending a board meeting of that company this afternoon he would, I know, have wished to give your Lordships this information himself.
There very well may be a very sharp backlash on the part of the long-suffering public to some of these present goings-on, I fear. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton (I have lost my spectacles so I cannot see whether he is present; I think he is) speaking in our debate last Wednesday said that he had never known a time when the TUC was so weak as it is today. The noble Lord speaks with great experience and authority. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, also made a notable contribution to that debate, again speaking from long experience at first hand.
1598
The noble Lord stated that in his opinion there is today a complete divorce between power and responsibility in the trade union movement. That divorce between power and responsibility is, I think, the type of thing that the most reverend Primate was talking to us about a moment ago. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, called for a recourse to the principle of arbitration. I agree with his view on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has a solution in the shape of a national differentials council. I have always respected the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, because he has for many years applied many of them successfully in his own company. I wish I could persuade myself that his scheme for a national differentials council is practical, but I cannot do so. I suppose that what we are likely to see is the recognition of more special cases in which either permanent indexation or some form of comparability, decided by statutory bodies, will be devised. The difficulty with both ideas, of course, is that the number of special cases will grow and it is difficult to know where to stop. If indexation is generally adopted, will not that put paid to any chance we have of halting or reversing inflation?
I now come to my suggestion. There is one practice which today is unfashionable, in disrepute and consequently seldom used. I am referring to the principle of true arbitration—the practice by which when two individuals or two authorities cannot agree they get a third, in whose judgment they have confidence, to decide the issue, for them. In the principle of true arbitration the two parties agree in advance to accept the decision. Today, I believe that the two quite separate principles of arbitration and conciliation have somehow become hopelessly confused. In my view the Department of Employment and ACAS are both guilty in that respect. It is increasingly the case that when an arbitrator is proposed, it is really meant that a conciliator should be proposed. So it is expected that an arbitrator should either split the difference or propose a solution which he knows will be acceptable to both sides. That is not arbitration: it is conciliation, a process valuable indeed in itself, but different. The essence of true arbitration is that both sides accept the result as binding in advance.

1599
The principle of arbitration and the acceptance of the judgment of a third party is as old as ancient Greece, or older. I am not a classical scholar—perhaps my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone who is sitting immediately in front of me will indicate by nodding his head whether what I am saying is correct—but I have been told that in ancient Greece arbitrators had to choose between the cases put forward by each side and could not plump for a decision in-between. The result, it was claimed, was to give both sides an incentive to put forward a reasonable claim in the hope that it would be more likely to be accepted by the arbitrator. My suggestion is that we are not likely to emerge from our present difficult disputes until somehow or other we can restore and bring back into use true arbitration.
I still look forward to the day—however far ahead it may be—when the electorate will look back and feel that some of our current industrial practices are incredibly crude and utterly opposed to common-sense. Far too often today the strike weapon is used not as an ultimate resort when all else has failed, but almost as the opening move in a campaign against the public. If there are manned unidentified flying objects I am sure that a crew landing in the United Kingdom at present would come to the conclusion that we are slightly mad.
The strange thing is that, in spite of our present dissensions and losses of temper over, for instance, picketing, I do not believe that there is any spirit of deep bitterness running through our society. If only there could be a national appreciation of the extent to which we are tearing ourselves apart and rendering unattainable those aspirations for more employment and a more secure standard of living, and a realisation that the remedies are entirely within our own grasp, there would, I am convinced, be an insistence on the part of public opinion that old, out-of-date weapons and habits be laid aside and common sense solutions sought to our current suicidal procedures. Our friends in other countries find many of our procedures out of date and out of keeping with our national character, too, and they are right. It is grand when one can feel that our spirit of national cooperation is equal to the events which
1600
confront us. So often in days gone past that has been the case. It is that spirit of co-operation, which has stood us in such good stead in past crises, which I pray we may recover.
5.37 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in ordinary circumstances I would have approached the subject of this debate with my customary confidence, albeit hat confidence has, in recent weeks, because of recent events, been much eroded. I have heard nothing from any of the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this afternoon to restore my confidence and ensure that some solution to the problem or problems that confront our country is likely to be found in the foreseeable future. I am all the more apprehensive about this debate because, if noble Lords will consult the list of speakers, they will discover that the noble Lord who is to follow me is my noble friend Lord George-Brown. I would rather it had been the other way round, because I should not be at all surprised if he, being a natural critic (I say "natural" not meaning the reverse of artificial; he was born a critic and so he has remained) were to argue against some of my propositions or even my comments. However, there it is. I did not arrange it and we have to make the best of the circumstances.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am ready to switch.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I confess also that I am grievously disappointed with the debate. I shall take up the theme initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who informed us at the outset of the debate that, as in the past in frequent debates of a like character, we have sought to analyse, but have failed to produce a solution. There have also been some familiar repetitive comments. For example, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who spoke from the Liberal Benches, suggested, almost as if it were an original concept, that the Parties might come together to talk about the problem. If I may say so—and I speak with the utmost respect—the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a most moving appeal based on the very highest moral concepts, also suggested that.

1601
However, the most reverend Primate does not frequently take part in our debates—I am not complaining about that—and he may not be aware that on more than one occasion this suggestion has been presented to your Lordships' House.
When I came to your Lordships' House in 1970 Mr. Heath had become Prime Minister. We were then confronted by problems; indeed, we have been faced by problems for many long years past. At the time I suggested that it might help if Mr. Heath were to consult Mr. Wilson, who was then Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. Thorpe, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and invite some financial pundits from the City of London, or from the universities and other scholastic institutions, to talk about the problems, to diagnose the complaints and then to seek an approach to a solution of our problems. My idea, which I presented to your Lordships' House and which is on record in the pages of Hansard, was rejected.
Later, when Mr. Wilson became Prime Minister I repeated the suggestion that he should approach the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, et cetera, with a view to reaching an understanding of what was wrong with our country and what the fundamental problems were, in the hope—and I would put it no higher than this at any time, nor did I ever do so—that we might make an approach to a solution. Again, it was rejected. It has been repeated this afternoon. Indeed, the Liberal Party has gone further than suggesting a meeting of Parties. It has suggested something in the nature of a coalition—a congregation—of the three Parties. Of course, from a Liberal standpoint that is very desirable; it would revive interest in the Liberal Party. Although the Liberals would be unlikely to form a Government, they might be able to act as a catalyst for the two major Parties. That I reject. I do not believe that a coalition can solve our problems. However, I will add—and I make no bones about it—that I do not believe that any one-Party Government in the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future can solve our problems. For they are not our problems alone; they are world problems, and many countries suffer from the same complaints.
1602
I do not want to proceed further along those lines, but rather to come to what I might call the solar plexus of this problem; in other words, what is it all about? However, I want to digress for a moment in order to refer to the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House. He stated the facts and laid them before us. There they are; unpalatable as they are, they are the truth and nothing but the truth. They are not his fault. He is as much the victim of circumstance as any of us. But he failed to provide a solution and all the time he was speaking, particularly towards the end of his speech, I almost felt like getting up and, according to a tradition of the House, asking whether I could put a question to the speaker and so ask him "Now that you have told us about the facts, what do you propose to do?". But as I did not ask the question then, I shall ask it now.
What have we had this afternoon? The most reverend Primate in his admirable speech, based on high moral concepts and the highest possible standard, made an appeal. So did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It seemed to me just now that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, was trying to do the same by offering arbitration. If I have time, I shall come to that and dispose of it very rapidly. I understand the sentiment—the symbolism of it all; to make an appeal: Why are you not reasonable men? Do you realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, told us, that people are suffering because of the heartless, intolerable, despicable action or inaction of our own people—Britons? Perhaps I could use the term which was used by the most reverend Primate "and Christians" also. What is the use of your appeal? Appeal as you like.
I turn to something else that is even more topical. We have heard about the law of picketing. Of course we prosecute because of an alleged criminal action, but it takes weeks and weeks before the case is dealt with. In the meantime, what happens? If a person takes civil action, it takes even longer to come before the courts. What is the use of it? That will not do.
Let us deal with the disputes. I shall take one as an example to see whether an appeal would be of any value. I say this as earnestly and as sincerely as I can,

1603
because I mean what I say. I shall take the dispute between the two railway unions. Can noble Lords imagine anything more ludicrous or more irrelevant? It has been going on for 70 years or more. At one time I was chairman of the Glasgow Trades Council, which was then even more influential than the British Trades Union Congress. We dealt with demarcation problems, and often I had to decide from the Chair as between the local people's delegate and the man from the NUR. This dispute has been going on all those years. How are we going to solve it now?—by an appeal? I wish we could. It appears to be almost insane that they should be quarrelling with each other.
What is the dispute about? It is about a bonus for drivers of high-speed trains which, they say, should be paid to all the drivers. So far as I am concerned, they can all have the bonus, and I am sure that that would represent the opinion of every Member of your Lordships' House. Why make any distinction between a driver of a high-speed train and a driver who has to bring in the commuters half-a-dozen times a day and take them back half-a-dozen times a day throughout the network that our railways provide, with all the strain involved?
Why not solve it? Make an appeal to them; knock their heads together. That is what ought to be done, and it ought to be done by Len Murray and the TUC General Council, and no nonsense about it. They have got to speak out. I am not saying this because I am against trade unionism. Far from it. I know the whole history of it. I was involved. I know that Winston Churchill, on 30th May, 1911—perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is aware of this—actually attacked the Judiciary because of their attitude about the trade unions. It is on the record. It is no use challenging me. I know. That is what he did. Even Churchill did not like what was going on. However, the trade unions became legalised bodies. They have been so all the time.
Now I come to the real point—I knew I would come to it some time. It is this: what is the crux of the problem? The Prime Minister made his decision, no doubt advised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary, and
1604
some of the people in the City of London, and the economists—where are they?—who possess all the knowledge. And look at our problems, and the lack of a solution. What was the problem? The problem was how are we to deal with inflation. This inflation has been going on ever since I was born. All the time. I remember when I worked for thirty shillings a week, then I got £2, and then it went up and up, and I came to the other place and got £8, and so on. All the time prices were going up and up, and they are still going up, and they will go up even more as a result of what is happening at the present time.
This brings me to a point that ought to be made. What started the trouble first of all was the declaration by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government that so far as wage settlements are concerned they must be based on a 5 per cent. arrangement. That was dealt with by the Ford Company and the transport workers' union. The transport workers' union had an agreement with the Ford people. It had not expired. It was likely to be in operation for another four weeks, but they anticipated all that and decided to strike and made it official. The Ford people were anxious to settle. They did not want to lose any money. They were making vast profits and wanted to continue; and who would blame them for that? The result was that the Ford workers got 17 per cent.
Is it not natural that other people in the country would like to follow suit? If you can go on strike backed by the union making it official, 14 per cent. would not be enough. If the Ford workers can get 17 per cent., why cannot we? The lorry drivers, what do they want? There are some who want 28 per cent. I understand that the miners are going to demand 40 per cent. It is very natural. It all started over the Ford business.
What should have been done before any declaration was made about 5 per cent., with perhaps some ancillary payments associated with productivity and so on, is this: it should have been discussed over and over again with the trade union people. This was not done. There was some discussion with the TUC, but many of the trade union people were never consulted. I am not suggesting that there should have been a secret ballot.

1605
They talk about democracy in the trade union movement, but it cannot be said that the general body of workers was consulted about what a pay settlement should be.
Now what should be done? I end by putting forward a constructive proposition, which I have ventured to put before. Some weeks ago we had a debate something like this debate, and I produced a Cabinet paper. I held it up. It was a secret paper, but after all 30 years had expired so I could disclose its contents. What was the title of the paper? It was, A National Wage Policy. It was submitted by the Minister of Fuel and Power, myself, in the year 1946 to the Cabinet, and rejected. What did it provide for? It provided for the creation of an economic council of a more or less independent character—members of the various Parties; people of the City of London, et cetera. I need not go into details. They were to sit down and examine the nature of the problem: prices, exports, imports, capital payments, deficits, revenue, all the rest of it. Having done so, they were to recommend what they thought was a reasonable wage policy, including a minimum wage policy, in order to deal with the people who are now going to go on selected strike and who are obviously paid on too low a level. That was done, but rejected. I suggest that it ought to be revived.
I make a proposition to the leaders of the Parties. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has returned to the Chamber; and I am bound to say that I thought his speech very reasonable. I would not say I agreed with every word in it, but it was very reasonable indeed, and certainly much more satisfactory than some of the speeches of Mrs. Thatcher. The last thing I would do is say a wrong word about the lady. I indulge in no criticism at all, but I am bound to say that some of the implications of some of her recent speeches are quite the reverse of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said this afternoon. He asked for a consensus, not a confrontation. There is no doubt about it, she prefers a confrontation. She means by that: have a confrontation, and out go the Labour Party. I can quite understand this. Why should she not have an ambition of that character? Everybody has ambitions. She has hers.
1606
I should like this sort of appeal from your Lordships' House. I should like it tonight. We unanimously, leaving out the details and criticising nobody, along the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, this evening—and this is not necessarily confined to hospitals and so on but is dealing with the whole situation—condemn what is illegal; condemn what we believe to be intolerable. That is what we ought to do, and let that go out to the country. As it is, what is going out? Do you think that all these speeches, or any of them, will be reported, tomorrow morning in the Press? Not at all. We make no impact.
We have to make an impact. We have to see that our views are made known, if we believe them to be right. I believe that what the most reverend Primate said was right, and what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said was right, and what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said was right, with some exceptions, for which of course I forgive him. Let your Lordships' House say to the country, if it is not done in another place, "Let us put a stop to this intolerable nonsense which is ruining our country". Let us do that. That would be worth while. Then we would not require to have these frequent debates about economic policy with all the economists expressing their views, and leaving it at that. That is the sort of thing we want. Unless we are prepared to do something like that, then this debate is not worth while. I use an expression I used many years ago, for which I got into trouble—I may get into trouble again—unless we do that, then the debate tonight is not worth a tinker's cuss.
6 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I wish to take a slightly different line from that which has generally been taken, not because I disagree with much of what I have heard—even from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—and not because I hesitate about disturbing what on the whole has been a fairly wide convergence of view. However, as I take a rather different point of view and as I have written and spoken about it outside the House, it is only proper that I should say it before noble Lords today.
In my view, the Government have gone wrong from the beginning, as have some

1607
noble Lords today, because we have not faced one essential issue; namely, that there is not a conflict with the executive officers of the national trade unions. This is different from other situations. The leaders of the trade unions—I am not apportioning blame because I do not wish to spoil the effect of what I am saying; you may or may not hold them responsible for it—are being as effectively bypassed as the Government themselves are being bypassed. We have had two or three weeks of misery because there still exists the view in people's minds, a view that has been expressed today, that a rational appeal can be made to rational people when in fact it is not the rational people who are leading the campaign today or who are destablising our society. I believe the Government could have acted more quickly, and would act now, if we could get that clearly into the minds of Ministers.
There is an issue now behind the immediate issue; and that is why I cannot agree with the noble Lord who said that the great thing is to get the strikers back to work. Nor do I agree with those, with respect to Lord Shinwell, who have said we must go for a consensus and not have a confrontation. The issue behind the issue is that there are organised groups of people inside the trade union movement, or cloaking themselves with it, who are using industrial action for the political coercion of the Government and the political ransoming of our society.
They are not so much concerned with the level of wages; it is a useful way to put it, but they know only too well the realities of the tax structure at present and what it does to increases in wages. They are concerned with the destruction, certainly the destabilisation, of society. In my view, the Government must be pressed by their friends—among whom I still, on the whole, like to count myself, although I gather they are not always sure about that—and by others (and the Opposition must be pressed, because if they were to inherit the situation in a couple of months time, it is important they should be clear about the issue they would be tackling) on this question, about which the trade union movement has at different phases of its history taken different positions. I refer to the question of the right to use industrial
1608
action for a political purpose; namely the coercion, the replacement, of the elected Government of the day.
The reason why I do not have the instinctive feeling I have had in times of war and peace—the feeling that however madly we behave and however stupidly we mess things up, everything will come right on the day—is because I feel that these people, whoever they are and from wherever they get their direction (and I believe the worldwide thing about the guerillas, the Red Brigades, the Palestinian organisation, the transfer of men, money, advice and knowhow across national borders and all sorts of terrorist groups; it all has a connection) are being allowed in this country to get away with it while we foolishly have a pillow fight with the trade union leaders who are themselves not in a position to deal with it.
Up to 1926—I hate to display how accurately my white hairs give the game away—the trade union movement, on the whole, tended to support the idea that industrial action was a justifiable weapon to achieve political ends. One of the ironies of the situation was that the great Mr. Bevin, who is now upheld by many of my Conservative friends as a great pillar of responsibility, was until 1926 the great leader of this view. He was the one, after all, who used industrial action to stop the "Jolly George" taking armaments to Russia because he disapproved of the political policy of the Government and wanted to replace the British Government with a Government rather similar to the one he thought was in Russia. It was the great Mr. Bevin who set up the soldiers' and workers' councils.
After 1926 and after the General Strike that attitude changed. Mr. Bevin, Walter Citrine, as he then was, and Pugh were the ones who led the change, and from then on the trade union movement has, until very recently, always set its face against the use in any circumstances of industrial action for such political purposes. It has recently changed, or the leaders have allowed it to appear to change, and it is because of that that the Government have been trying to hold the hand of the TUC General Council in a period when the General Council has not been willing to stand firmly by the change of attitude on the part of the TUC and of the trade unions which took place after 1926.

1609
Every Labour leader (be he Prime Minister, Minister or leader in Opposition) from MacDonald to Attlee to Morrison to Nye Bevan as well as Ernest Bevin, to Gaitskell and even to Sir Harold Wilson and Mrs. Castle in 1969—right the way through from Ramsay MacDonald to now—has seen this situation when it was arising and has condemned it and acted against it. I say with a very heavy heart to my noble friend the Leader of the House—my friend in every sense as well as in the formal sense in this House—that unhappily the present Prime Minister is the first Labour leader who has failed from the beginning to say this, and until the Government are willing to see it and say, "We are back with the view that this is not a proper use of industrial processes and we draw the conclusion from that that we must beat it," a trade unionist like myself, a grassroots Labour man of half a century, must swallow hard.
Those who trained me did not duck it, so I do not think I should. If this is the case, then to sustain a democracy to sustain a Labour movement, we must say, "Unless it is stopped, it will be beaten". If we can say that, then we can proceed to the question of what we have to do to meet it? We have waited for a fortnight or three weeks to give the trade union leaders every opportunity to deal with the situation, but they have not done so, for the reason I have just given. Since the deaths of Deakin, Lawther, and Williamson and the end of an era, with the advent perhaps of Frank Cousins, which could be said almost to date it, and following the successive changes of trade union leadership from then onwards, the so-called democracy to the grass roots—democratic leadership from the shop stewards—has been the order of the day.
What those leaders did not realise was that in elevating what sounded like a major defensible democratic principle, they were in fact handing over their own power and their own responsibility to mob rule. Whatever the modern Left may be, it is no longer what we knew as youngsters, when we could identify King Street and the Communist Party, and Mr Ramelson, and the Communist industrial organisation in Coventry; it is not that any more. The Left finds it so easy to infiltrate trade union branches and Labour Party wards, and those leaders
1610
were handing over democratic power to an undemocratic base. They were not increasing democracy. They were in fact destroying it, and with it went their own power and their own authority.
Has anybody ever seen a more pathetic picture than that the other day of the elegant David Basnett and the suitably slightly scruffy Alan Fisher pretending to lead the march of the National Union of Public Employees and the other public service workers, which included every bunch of rag, tag and bobtail in the business? They were not leading it, they were running like mad to get in front, like the French general of the army which had created itself behind him.
If I am right about this—and, frankly, I believe that I am—then I must turn to a short action list of what in the last two or three weeks I would have been doing (and I use the words seriously) had I had the privilege of being a leading Minister in this Government as I did in the previous one, and what I believe now should be done. I do not find trade unionists abusing me in the streets for saying these things. I do not find them spitting at me, or calling me nasty names. They come up to me and say, "George, of course you are bloody right".
First on my list is the declaration of a state of emergency. If such a declaration were only a symbolic act, and if it conferred no additional powers—which is not true—it is nevertheless necessary for that purpose. We are trying to arouse the country to a recognition that we are fighting an attack from within on our democratic liberties. One does not do that by saying, "But of course it is not an emergency". You have to show what the situation is. Can anyone imagine Bevin, or any of our great leaders—let us leave out Sir Winston Churchill—saying, "It's not an emergency, but, boys, it's very serious"? One's first act is the declaration of a state of emergency. Actually I think that that would then give one greater power. I see that the Scottish lawyer shakes his head, but as between the two of us I have been engaged in these kind of situations rather more than he has. I ask him to think rather carefully before he dismisses the point so lightly.
Secondly, one takes the powers, all the powers, and creates the state of public

1611
mind. Next is the discussion for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, called and the clarification of the role of the police and the actions which are to be taken with pickets. I do not get myself into the argument about primary and secondary picketing. I think it is a silly argument. I have myself been arrested for picketing because I stood on the running-board of a lorry, and that was held to be obstruction. I said that I was only trying to persuade the bloke—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: You were taking a ride.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: I said that I was only trying to persuade the bloke, but they said, "No, you are obstructing him in going through".
What is the use of the Solicitor-General for Scotland telling us today—as only a lawyer could, whereas an ordinary, working-class trade unionist knows how damn silly it is that the lorry driver does not have to stop; he can drive through? What happens if he then knocks the bloke over? What were we told when this was thought to have happened somewhere? We were told that the police would be making a rigorous inquiry involving the lorry driver. The police have got to enforce the law. If the law is as the Solicitor-General said it was, and as it was when I was arrested for breaking it years ago, then the police should do what they did to me down in East London: arrest and charge. Pickets, whether they be primary or secondary, must return to carrying out their proper function, which is to persuade, if the bloke is willing to be persuaded. I understand that one does not obstruct the police, but there are ways and means of doing these things without hurting amour propre. It must be made clear that the Government will stand behind the chief constables and the police forces.
Incidentally, I see that the Prime Minister said—I think it was yesterday, when I was in the other House—that he would walk across a picket line. I want to make a serious offer. If he and those Ministers who distinguished themselves so much on the Grunwick picket line will form a team to lead a convoy of lorries through the dock gates in London, or
1612
anywhere else, tomorrow morning, then I should be very happy to be there with them, and lead the lorries through. It needs some dramatic action of that kind.
Thirdly, the Government should decide—and had I been a Minister I would have done—on the degree of active use made of the Armed Forces. I would have decided where I was going to use them, and I would by now, I think, have been using them. By that means alone, if one picks the case, it would be found that other people, such as the lorry drivers who have been ambling down the M6, would be ambling through the dock gates, which would be much more to the point. If there were not enough soldiers, sailors or airmen in this country, more would have to be brought back from the Continent. I cannot see much point in pretending to deter the invader from the front door when the citadel is already being taken from the rear. If more Armed Forces are needed, they temporarily will have to be brought back here; and I would have been doing that.
Fourthly, there should be active encouragement of volunteer sources who are willing, if directed, and guided to accept responsibility to do things, to make deliveries and to maintain services. This is a para-revolutionary situation. Yes, it is, with great respect to the noble and learned Solicitor-General. There is an attempt here to take over. Why does he think that every single basic service in the country is being attacked? Over the last six or nine months the schools, the hospitals, the water and sewerage services, the gritting of the roads, have all been affected. What they are after is not the wages of a few people. What they are doing is to show that at any one time, if they did so in a co-ordinated way, they could stop the whole of our services, as they have stopped them in Persia, as I saw the other week; and as they have been stopped in other countries. You bring a society down that way. That is what they are trying to do, whatever way they are doing it; whether in the way I think they are doing it, or in the way which the Solicitor-General seems to prefer. The fact is that they should not be allowed to do it, and we have to break it now.
There should already have been two meetings, one of the senior Ministers

1613
with the General Council and the other of the Prime Minister with the full national executives of the trade unions—not the national officers only; the national executives. It has been done before; we took the Central Hall for the purpose. It had a great effect under a previous General Secretary, George Woodcock. It should have been done now. The purpose is not a waffly appeal; the purpose is not a new concordat; the purpose is to set before them the seriousness of the situation and the determination of the Government to deal with it by whatever means necessary, preferably with their support—and I believe you would get their support, because one of the by-winds of what I am suggesting is that you would be returning power and responsibility to them. You would be giving them back their authority if you beat the groups behind them. They cannot take it back for themselves; that is the tragic situation at the moment. Let us just face it: there is no general secretary in the public works sector, where there are six or seven unions fighting for the membership, who dares be behind COHSE, NUPE or ASTMS, or whichever is the most militant of the unions. David Basnett knows the score as well as any one of us does. So let us have those meetings: we should have had them already.
Then, we should draft legislation quickly, if it has not already been drafted, to deal with the two major pieces of legislation which went wrong. With all the sophistries of the Solicitor-General, please believe me: they did go wrong, and they are the source of all the power that these people behind the official unions are using. One is the closed shop legislation, and the other, which is related, is the protection of employment legislation. So long as an employer can be compelled by a union to sack a man who falls out with that union or whose union falls out with him, without compensation, without recourse to law, without the right of an industrial tribunal or anything, it is useless asking the fellows in the factories and in other industrial enterprises to resist, because if they resist they run the risk of losing their livelihood in that place or, if they are a journalist or something like that, of losing it in their profession altogether. We are very censorious of Eastern European countries and
1614
the Soviet bloc, but once you can prevent a man from earning his living and maintaining his family, the next step for the rest of the Gulag is not an awful way. "The right to work", we used to say; "the right to strike, to withhold our labour", we used to say. Today we are denying people the right to dissent, and that right to dissent must be restored if we want the people in a factory or a mine or a field or an office or a lab, or a hospital or a school to stand up to the bullies who are saying, "Do it!"
The most reverend Primate's reference to the engine driver who is a church warden—I heard as I stood below the Bar—shocked me. That man knows the situation so well. The Archbishop said he did not know how to make his view effective. His view should really be able to be made effective by his throwing in his union card and turning up for work; but he dare not do it. He dare not do it because, possibly, he is afraid of physical violence, although most of our fellows are not. What he is afraid of is that he will never get back on the railways again. You have got to alter that situation. It is the closed shop legislation and the protection of employment legislation which have gone too far. They have provided too much protection for wicked men and no protection at all for the good men and the good women who want to resist—indeed, in the odd, paradoxical way these things work, they have withdrawn protection from them.
My Lords, I have made my proposals—they are not proposals: they are statements of what I would have done. My old colleagues on the Government Benches may affect to be shocked by it or not. I say only this. I do it as a teamster, to use the American word which is somehow more offensive than "Transport and General Workers' Union". I do it with great pride in my lifetime in the trade union and Labour movement, whatever my present differences with my ex-colleagues. I do it with no sense of apology. I want the trade union movement to have strength, and I want to be able to use our bargaining power in a way in which we were too weak to exercise it when I started organising in the early 'thirties. But I want that power to be used only for its own purposes—and I close with this. I read the other day that Sir Robert Mark said—I have not checked

1615
his figures—that because he draws an inflation-proofed pension at the higher levels of the Civil Service rates, by the time he is 83, which will be the year 2000 (which, after all, is only 20 years away), because of the effect of inflation and the rises which are built in now he will be taking—not that he will need, but he will be taking, naturally—£388,000 a year, with a few hundred over—for tips, I suppose. It is no use the Solicitor-General getting a little bit uncomfortable there, because this is what the man said and no doubt the actuaries can work it out.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords——
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I just finish? I heard the Solicitor-General in silence. He is winding up the debate, and he can deal with the point then. The German experience very largely began this way, when they started to print Deutschemarks, not in ones, fives and tens but in thousands and in tens of thousands in order that people could carry them home. We are on this way now. These disputes will be settled. They will be bought off. The Government will do their best to keep it somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent. They will not keep it much below 20 per cent. I should like it to be as low as possible, but it will be somewhere around that rate. That means more inflation this year and another big step towards Sir Robert Mark's pension.
I as a trade unionist want my trade union movement to be told that we will discipline those disrupting it, as well as the State, in order that they can thereafter discipline themselves again. I want that done because I do not want other people outside the trade union movement doing what other people did in Germany at the end of the day; that is, saying, "We are going to put a stop to it", and doing it by non-democratic means. I think the Government have gone wrong. I think they should be clear why they have gone wrong. I do not want them to come to the penitents' stool or the confessional box. They have gone wrong because they have not realised where the power now is, the kind of people who are using it and what they are using it for; and I want them to be able to say, "We will beat that" in order, among other things, that the real
1616
leadership of the trade unions can be reestablished, with its proper democratic authority and responsibility.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I say, in view of one or two discourteous references, as I see them, to my part in this so far, that I have not—and I ask him to acknowledge this—so far intervened in this debate. I was asked to repeat, and with the permission of the House, I repeated, a Statement confined to the law of picketing. I did not mention the closed shop. It was not relevant. I did not mention the Employment Protection Act. I should like the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his observations about the sophistries of the Solicitor-General for Scotland in relation to that matter.
If he does me the courtesy, for once, of staying until the end of a debate to which I reply, I will reply to his points in relation to the closed shop and to the Employment Protection Act.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, that sounded rather a discourteous ending of its own—and I do not ask for it to be withdrawn. If I hurt him, it was not my intention so to do: but I think that in some of his answers to some of the questions this afternoon the word "sophistry" would, by my knowledge of the language, be a reasonable description. It was not intended to hurt. If it did hurt, I will withdraw it. What about "sophisticated"? What other word would the Solicitor-General for Scotland like?
6.31 p.m.
Viscount WATKINSON: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord because I think it is far better that a trade unionist and a distinguished ex-Member of a Labour Government should describe in the terms that the noble Lord has just described the paralysis of indecision that so many of us feel is afflicting Her Majesty's Government at this point. It is better coming from him, and it fortunately provides a very satisfactory background to what I want to say. Before saying it, may I add my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for bringing home to us what it is all about in terms of human misery.

1617
For 30 years in my small way I tried to make some kind of contribution, in Government and out, to better industrial relations. I think that those of us who have done so might say that today we are all voices crying in the wilderness. I, too, knew Arthur Deakin and I had to deal with him. I think it right to say today how much more in command of his union I found him; how he was able to promise and to deliver—and one never questioned it—and, more important, how much more he was conscious of where the national interest lay.
I agree with my noble friend who opened this debate. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who seemed to think that most of us were talking about a sort of nothing. Where I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has gone a little further than I would have gone, is in the concept that this is all a matter of just a few bad men. So it is—and I want to come back to that—but we must discipline those bad men by accepting as a nation that we really are all of us, or 99 per cent. of us, trying to serve the national interest. I think that to me the saddest thing about the present mess that we are in is that the trade union leaders (and, more important, the trade union rank and file) are not willing to realise that what they are having done to them—and I agree with the noble Lord there—is against the national interest and, therefore, against every striker's interest except for those few men who are determined to wreck our society if they can manage it. There is nothing secret about this. They say it, they publish it, they print it. I do not know—sometimes the noble Lord and I got on very well when we were on opposite sides of the House and sometimes not; but I have always believed that he said what he believed. It is a good thing that he, as a distinguished ex-Member of a Labour Government, has described the kind of paralysis—and I see no other word for it—which at the moment they seem to be imposing in all their actions.
If we left the small minority of men who are organising militant picketing and who are trying to run this as a campaign to bring down what they would call our Right-Wing industrialist society, then, on the whole, it will damage the interests of every single trade union member and the nation as a whole. Perhaps over every
1618
trade union secretary's desk at the moment should hang a sign saying: "Export will not wait!" It is really no good the Government saying: "The CBI made a mistake in saying that there will be a million unemployed". Maybe they did; they were in good company with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point is that more than a million men are already adversely affected by what is happening and the effect on them is not going to be the next week or two but the next months and the next years if we do not look out.
My Lords, what should we do? There is no use in our sitting down and wringing our hands. I might, I suppose, cry a few crocodile tears and say that for a chap who has tried hard in business and in other ways to make some contribution, it has all come to naught. But I do not believe that. We must go on and try to get through this quite horrific situation. Really, I think that some Members of the Government should read the foreign Press more closely than they do, and they would see the problems that our exporters are going to have, and the problems that people like me and some of my noble friends who have to travel abroad, are going to have in trying to explain to the world that we have not gone stark staring mad; so let us face that.
To come to some practical things in what will be a short series of remarks, I think we must now alter the law on the misuse of picketing and the closed shop. I think that the Government were extremely unwise—and they will regret this—to refuse or reject the offer from my right honourable friend the Leader of my Party, Mrs. Thatcher. I think it was a difficult thing for her to do. I think that joint action on picketing and the closed shop and so on is, as my right honourable friend said, in the total national interest. I think that the Government missed a very great chance in that offer from the official Opposition to support them in the not very contentious or controversial legislation that would have dealt with this particular problem. If they do not do that, then they must answer the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and say what they do intend to do for themselves.
Well, my Lords, so much for the symptoms. I think that those symptoms must now be dealt with. If the present

1619
Government are not willing to deal with them, then the nation will make sure that a different Government, a Conservative Government, comes in that are willing to do so. I want to say a word or two about the longer term because, in my view, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is right in saying that we will not cure this disease just by talking about it or deprecating it. The problem of the more militant trade union shop steward and leader on the shop floors will not go away. It is a new problem and a new attitude, and an attitude that is more dedicated or more bitter than I have ever seen in my life. It cannot be put on one side either by any Government or by the TUC. It must be faced.
Ever since Sir Winston Churchill asked me to become Parliamentary Secretary to Walter Monckton, I have had a moderate amount of experience in Government and in industry and, more recently, in the CBI. That experience leads me to one conclusion as to what we ought to do. I should just like to set this out. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that if this House is to have any impact on affairs—and I fear that it has sadly little; I would agree with him on that—we must try to say what we feel. But also we must make a constructive proposition to the nation on what ought to happen. The first thing that ought to happen is that the Government must have more teeth to deal with what are really infringements of the law.
I did not understand the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for Scotland in his Statement. I doubt whether anyone else in industry understands it. I am sure that my noble and learned friend can understand it because he is a distinguished lawyer and I hope that I shall feel suitably instructed when he has dealt with it. The ordinary chap will say, "Phooey! I am where I was and I will do what I adjectivally please!". That will not get us anywhere. So we have to deal with that; we have to deal with the symptoms, and if this Government cannot do it, they ought to give way to one that will. We must at the same time look to curing the disease which is going to ruin us all. Although everybody says it, we must keep on saying it because it happens to be true.
1620
What could be done to cure the disease? This might be easier for my Party, the Conservative Party, because it is fair to accept that I believe the present Government are in great difficulty and greatly inhibited by the fact of the TUC presence within their own Party and the fact—and I am only quoting the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown—that the TUC leadership at the moment is, if not weak, inexperienced. I ventured to say to your Lordships when I spoke on the debate on the Address that I thought we might pay a very heavy price for the inexperience of some trade union leaders. I think that events since then have proved what I said to be right.
I hope that what will happen first—and if it cannot happen in this Government I hope that the next Conservative Government will deal with it—is that industrialists will be pressed to give even more information than they are now doing. I do not mean by some stupid implementation of the Bullock Report; they should have a firm code of conduct which a Conservative Government once very nearly drew up, although they did not bring it into effect. I think my noble friend knows all about that. They must give more information and must get real participation among their own people at all levels to begin to make life easier for the leaders of the trade unions, so that they cannot be constantly subverted by people on the shop floor who are going around telling absolute lies about almost every kind of industrial life and industrial progress.
The Government have to make a major change in their budget strategy. We really must have some kind of public debate each year, and I do not mind where it is held. One could invent a new body or have Neddy. The debate should certainly take place in both Houses of Parliament on what the nation is all about and what level of inflation we can tolerate. It should not be a debate about a 5 per cent. norm, which, as I have said numerous times to your Lordships, was a fatal mistake from the very beginning, but a debate on what the nation can afford. There would be some advantage in having part of this debate in NEDC. The leaders of the trade union movement have never boycotted this body. They still regard themselves as being committed to what it decides

1621
—certainly, the CBI membership take that view. Let this debate take place and let employers and the trade union leadership be committed to the kind of background to wage demands and negotiations which will emerge. This may mean sweeping away all sorts of sacred cows so far as the Treasury are concerned. I do not think it matters very much. Each year, employers and the TUC must be involved by being committed—as in West Germany and most of our other large competitors—to what the nation can afford and roughly how it should go about it. That is not a wages policy, not a norm, but a general background to it all.
Now, lastly, the TUC. It is difficult for me to talk about the TUC. I have had many friends in that august body—most of them, sadly, now retired. The TUC have to come back to the old days when their leaders were willing to recognise the national interest as being the interest of all their members. As the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said, they also have to be strengthened to deal with the bully boys and the political activists in their own ranks. I believe that only they can deal with them. I do not believe that one can legislate these people out of existence. In a time of crisis one can do something, but on the whole the trade unions must put their own house in order. All I am saying is that employers could help them a great deal more than they do by telling their own people the facts, and the Government could help them more than they do by creating a climate of opinion which the nation is willing to accept. Of course the nation does not want double figure inflation. If only the national will could be expressed there, it would be much easier for strikers to see that what they are doing is damaging their own interests and the interests of their mates, their wives, their friends and their relations. It is part of this proposal that the TUC is able to regain control of its own business and its own house. If it cannot, then some day some Government will have to do so for it. That I personally would greatly regret because that Government might not be a very democratic one.
The three points that I should like to leave with your Lordships are these: first, of course the symptoms must be
1622
dealt with. If the present Government are not willing to do it, I hope and pray that my noble friends will have the earliest possible opportunity to get on with it. Secondly, employers have to do more. They have made a good start and many of them are doing a lot. They must do more. They must be encouraged and even pressed to do more to prepare the climate on the shop floor and thus make it more difficult for the activists and the bully boys to get their way. Then, the Government must be prepared to debate with the nation as a whole what they want to do in a budget before they frame that budget. They must try to get a national consensus on what can or cannot be done. Finally, the trade union movement, particularly the Economic Committee of the TUC and the so called Neddy Six, must take their courage in both hands and once again do what some of their predecessors—Tom Williamson, Arthur Deakin and so many others—did. They must have the guts to give a lead and see the national interest even if it means rough-riding their own members from time to time.
6.46 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, there is in the poetry of the English language a line that I tried to find for insertion in this debate. I failed to find it where I expected to do so, in the poetry of Matthew Arnold. It is a line that says he mourned the fact there were
"none to cry halt while the world trekked back from progress".
I believe that everyone who has taken part in this debate will imagine that he or she has been doing that. I believe that the last speaker but one, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, probably thought that he was doing that—making a massive attempt to do so in this House.
I believe this House is probably at its best when it begins its debates. There was an occasion here this afternoon when it was remarkably free from political prejudice and the discussion addressed itself directly to the items that have caused concern in the country. Quite properly, there were focussed upon here. The debate has at times dropped below the early level and it would be wrong to conceal that fact. What we are dealing with is a situation in which the systems of democracy are under strain. Everyone

1623
who has contributed to this debate has marked some aspect of concern about systems within our democracy that are not now fulfilling those tasks that they were created to fulfil.
In a remarkable maiden speech Lord Smith drew attention to the fact that it is useless for us to wring our hands because democratic institutions have changed. It is equally useless for men who have passed out of government itself, who have either failed in it or finished with it, to say what they would do if now in office. In fact democratic processes have moved them from it.
I want to say here that I believe that the Prime Minister of this country is as well aware as anyone who has spoken in this debate of the great difficulties with which he is grappling. He faces circumstances that will not be changed if the Government are changed. He faces circumstances that are long term, that have grown into the system of the economy, and these will be the circumstances that will be faced by any Prime Minister of Great Britain the morning after the next Election. They have to be faced by Prime Minister's the world around. When the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, referred to the happenings in Iran, he only emphasised the better value of the British democratic system and proved how much better it is than the system that in fact he has publicly extolled.
I believe that we have a democracy whose institutions can, even yet, be used to head off the worst effects of any crisis, whether internal or, as I believe, largely external, if only the people who care so much about democracy now cared only a little about it in the moments when the need for concern is not so obvious. No one has said in this debate that there are 1,200 Members of this Chamber. Where are the 800 now? No one has said in this debate that every Member of the Transport and General Workers Union throughout Britain has the right, at least on one night of most weeks, to go along to his trade union branch and make his views felt. It is a fact that the democratic representation of the people of Britain is as open and free now as it ever was.
When I see a picket line with alienated men standing with snow on their shoulders in incredibly uncomfortable conditions, I recognise some of the things that people
1624
have drawn attention to in this debate. I see the fact that men can be manipulated by others, that women can be worried by circumstances which they may be powerless to control. But I also see men and women with whom I have worked in other circumstances, in social, public and political life, standing in the picket line because they feel they have a case to put and they intend to put it in the way that seems best for them to make it. I believe the Prime Minister of Britain recognises this and, given the backing of the Cabinet he has behind him, he can represent best the concerns that we wish represented.
I know it would be much more convenient for noble Lords on the other side of the House to see this Government fall. I honestly do not think it would advance the cause of Britain; nor indeed the specific solutions that have been suggested this afternoon. In fact, I feel totally to the contrary. I know it would suit the personal wishes of certain individuals taking part in this debate if they were to find themselves in office. I believe that they are honest in that and I would have wished that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, had attributed similar honesty to my noble friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who, in his conduct of every debate in this place has confirmed in the opinions of his friends and of his nominal enemies that he is a man who can be trusted always to bring to his task the ethics, sincerity and honesty that we have the right to expect of people who have inherited high office.
I believe that we have the right to expect that in a debate tributes could be made in a way that removes from them any innuendo of criticism. I am not going to go on at great length, because the points that I wished to make have already been made, but I wish to say that we have indications of the way in which the representatives of institutions in our democracy have declined. When the most reverend Primate comes here from his cathedral to speak in a debate in this House, he does so knowing that the great Church of which he is the father is not now as influential in the life of the country as it was 30 or 40 years ago or longer, when the other parallel institutions were founded.
I think we all recognise that there are politically-motivated men using the institutions of democracy for their own

1625
advantage. We had perhaps best look at the way in which pessimism is created and sustained in this country. The country might not have felt so pessimistic if the media had not taken up consistently particular stories that focussed attention on specific events, as if they were general ones. I think this pessimistic mood has been built up over a number of years—not just over the past three years, but affecting successive Governments in this country—a mood that makes it increasingly difficult for democratically-elected Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers to affect their manifesto and to carry out the will of the people.
In closing, I would say that I am as fully conscious as anyone of the need to articulate the fears of people even when they have perhaps wasted their own opportunities to affect the debate when they have stayed at home, watching television, when they should have been at a union meeting or attending some other meeting in public life. I believe that the law is clear. I believe that, although the distinguished former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, may feel that there should be changes in the law. The law, as it exists, can clearly be implemented to control and monitor the situation we face. I believe it is essential that the institutions that exist and the laws that exist should be properly used for those who really do care for democracy in Britain and for the future in Britain.
6.56 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to start by apologising to the House for the fact that, unfortunately, I may have to leave before the end of the debate because of circumstances beyond my control. Next I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on his admirable, clear and most telling maiden speech.
For as long as I can remember, mobs, or if I may put it in a more emotionally neutral way, large crowds, have been given enormous latitude by authority in this country. I do not want to define the word "authority" too precisely in this context; but a crowd of 1,000 or 10,000 is allowed to get away with things that a crowd of 10 or 20 could never get away
1626
with, and still less a solitary individual. I know there are pragmatic arguments trotted out to justify this, such as avoidance of confrontation and so on; but even so this state of affairs has always made me uneasy and now, with the unions bolstered by the excessive privileges granted to them by Statute from 1974 onwards, we see the logical consequences of this policy. Food and vital raw materials are held up; our export trade is damaged and the reputation of our exporters in the future is damaged even more; farm animals are dying for lack of feedstuffs; medical supplies are interrupted; salt for de-icing the roads is also held up with a consequent danger to human life; cancer patients are evicted and school children are depicted as "blacklegs" for bringing packed lunches to school.
The pickets and their backers, not all of whom are trade unionists—we have heard of students and members of the Socialist Workers Party and many others—have in fact usurped the functions of Government and arrogated to themselves the right to decide which goods and services shall pass and which shall not pass, and whether or not ordinary citizens shall be permitted to go about their lawful business. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned the other day, we see the extortion of money on a gigantic scale. Either this extortion is legal, in which case the Inland Revenue should surely be taking an interest, or it is illegal—in which case the police should surely be doing something. From the Statement made today, I take it that the practice is in fact illegal and I hope that something will shortly be done.
I have been reminded rather forcefully during the last week or two or my one and only visit to Haiti. It was in 1963, at the time of the notorious Francois Duvalier and his Tonton Macoutes; it was in the era of Graham Greene's famous novel set in that island. Haiti was a haunting and fascinating place, but three aspects of its still come to mind very vividly. The first was poverty. I have never seen such poverty anywhere in my travels, with the possible exception of some parts of the Indian Sub-continent. The second was fear, and the wary, cautious look in everyone's eyes—the circumspection and the way in which

1627
nobody was willing to commit themselves openly. In this respect it was worse than the still-Stalinist pre-Dubcek Czechoslovakia which I had visited in the previous year.
The third thing I remember so well was the fact that there were road blocks every few hundred yards, manned by people in civilian clothes, where money was demanded as the price for being allowed to continue on one's way. Provided one paid up and did not argue there were no problems, but I hate to think what might have happened if one had taken any other course.
We certainly do not have Haiti's poverty in this country—yet—but we see the circumspection and we see people reluctant to speak their minds: people who wish to remain anonymous when writing to the newspapers, and those who wish not to be quoted. They are generally fearful, and this is a most disturbing feature of contemporary British life. More shockingly, we have all heard of employers who have sacked faithful employees who have not wished to come out on strike, because the employers do not want to offend some union or other; and, of course, we now have the road blocks where money is extorted from those who wish to pass on their lawful business.
The Government are patting themselves on the back over the fact that there has been virtually no violence so far, but, of course, if everything has been going your own way, and if the spirit of your opponents has been totally crushed, there is no need for violence, because everything is on the point of falling neatly into your lap. Why has the spirit of the opposition, of the silent majority, been crushed? It is surely because of the closed shop, and the consequent fear that anybody who offends the pickets may lose his trade union card, and hence his livelihood, for ever more. In Czechoslovakia, those who offend the powers that be lose their university professorships or whatever and have no option but to end up as road sweepers or in some other unskilled menial job. It is certainly more humane than the practice further East of sending such people to psychiatric hospitals; but it is surely not something to be encouraged or even in the mildest form copied over here.
1628
Surely, all this demonstrates that the closed shop is a gross infringement of individual freedom, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown and the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, among others, said, it must be outlawed or, at least, severely curtailed. The principle of the closed shop is certainly in conflict with the principles underlying the European Convention on Human Rights. It has already been banned in certain West European countries. Similar legislation is bound to be emulated here at some point Let it be sooner rather than later.
One other piece of legislation needs repealing in order—if I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to whom we are very grateful for initiating this debate—to restore the balance of bargaining power which recent legislation has upset. At the last count, there were 147 countries who are members of the United Nations Organisation. I say "at the last count", because the number grows almost weekly. Of those 147, only one, Britain, subsidises strikes by paying supplementary social security benefits to strikers via their families. It is true that three other countries: two Scandinavian countries—I am not sure which two, at the moment—and the Netherlands, make loans to strikers but those loans must be repaid in full when the strike terminates.
It is clear from the Crossman Diaries that the Government of the day saw the flaws in this legislation almost as soon as it reached the Statute Book, but by then they felt it too late to do anything about it. I cannot see that there would be any serious public objection if we were to get into line with the rest of the world once again after an interval of just over 12 years. The point is that it is simply not in human nature to look a gift horse in the mouth, nor is it fair to expect people to do so. If people are even slightly bored with their job, if they have no particular loyalty towards their employer or to their customers, and if, in addition, there is absolutely no financial disadvantage whatsoever in striking, then why on earth not go on strike? Repeal of this legislation would, strange as it may seem at first glance, be very much in the long-term interest of the average trade unionist.
Only two days ago, I met a small employer in North London—a sensitive,

1629
kindly and experienced man who had spent much of his working life on the shop floor himself—who, very sadly, was on the point of closing down his small light engineering works after six years. Because of reasons that he could not put his finger on, there had been a complete breakdown of labour discipline—he did not use that phrase, but that is what he meant—over the past few months; timekeeping had gone to pot, absenteeism was rife and workmanship had become slipshod. He was losing money heavily in consequence, and could not afford to continue, with the result that more than a dozen extra people would be joining the dole queues and swelling the unemployment statistics.
The trouble is that people like his employees had come to assume that—if I may slip for a brief moment into the hideous political jargon of the 1970s—they were in a "no lose situation", and of course, in the very short term, their assumptions were right. But a country simply cannot function in this way effectively, or indeed at all, for any length of time. Surely it is time, calmly and dispassionately, but with determination, to redress the balance and make people once again face the consequences of their deliberate actions. If this and the other necessary reforms were carried out, I believe that this country would be a more prosperous and also a happier place.
7.5 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I would seek to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Parry, on one point he made in his otherwise delightfully poetical speech. He suggested that the tone and standard of this debate had fallen, because among a number of recent speeches there had been criticism directed at the Government's handling of the crisis. I put this to the noble Lord. I think we are all agreed in this House, without dispute, that the country is facing a grave situation in which the very fabric of our society is being shaken. We are incurring losses which will affect our standards of life and our balance of payments for years to come; we are losing export markets, some of which we may never regain, and the relative downward standard of life in this country as compared with our friends in the EEC
1630
is going to take a further jerk downwards. In that situation, surely those, of whom I am one, who believe that the Government are not handling the situation effectively, would really be untrue to our duty if we did not say so. If the patient is seriously ill and you think that the doctor is poisoning him, surely you should not say: "Hush, no disturbance in the sick room. The patient is too seriously ill to challenge the admission of poison". Surely it is up to those who think that way to say so, loud and clear.
I found the speech of the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, towards the beginning of this debate, desperately depressing. We had a long, conscientious and, as always with the noble Lord, courteously delivered summary of the things that are going wrong, of the disasters that are falling on our community. But there was not throughout that speech a single indication that the Government had any new idea or new policy as to how to handle it. We start in the position that this country is in a mess, and it is surely up to those who hold responsibility—however tenuously, however temporarily—as Government to indicate what they are going to do about it, what changes they are going to make.
We had a reference, as we have had again and again in these debates, to the anti-inflation policy. But we had no apparent even realisation that the admirable objectives of that policy—and the objectives are such as we would all support—are not being achieved by the methods that are being used. Surely it is now obvious—and I say this with pain and sadness, as I am sure your Lordships will accept—that the policy has failed that whether or not you call it an anti-inflation policy, it is not inhibiting inflation and we are now seeing wage settlements, some of them in the public sector and within the direct control of the Government, such as that in the BBC, which make the 5 per cent., to which the Prime Minister pinned his faith so eloquently only a few weeks ago, seem like a remote daydream. In that situation, the House should have expected, and the country certainly would, statements from those who sit on that Bench opposite, and a similar Bench in the other place, indicating that the Government will now take steps to deal with the matter.

1631
I think that the basic mistake that the Government have made—and I hope that they are coming to realise this—has been that they have sought to enforce the anti-inflation policy solely by putting pressure on the employers, while leaving the trade unions not only free of any Government interference or pressure, but still entrenched behind their massive legal privileges. This approach ignores the fact that it is not the employers as a whole who are pressing to make inflationary wage settlements. The pressure, of course, comes from the trade unions. In those circumstances, to put all your pressure upon the employer—who in most cases is, to the best of his ability, trying to resist excessive demands while leaving the organisations which are making the demands absolutely unhindered in their attack—is surely a reductio ad absurdum of policy. It is as though, as it were, police action were taken against the householder while all the courtesies were shown to the burglar.
The locus classicus of this policy and the perfect exemplifier of its failure has been the Ford issue, upon which I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a Question two days ago. I am sorry that she is not in her place on the Front Bench. With her usual chivalry, the noble Baroness made her usual gallant efforts to defend the indefensible.
Let us look at what happened in the case of the Ford issue, because it crystallises the failure of the Government's policy. It was made clear to Fords that Government contracts and everything else would be withheld if they settled for more than 5 per cent. They offered 5 per cent., the immediate result of which was a nine weeks' strike which cost Fords several hundred million pounds and this country's balance of payments very substantial sums indeed. At the end of those nine weeks and of those colossal losses, Fords settled for 17 per cent., which everybody knows is very much higher than they could have settled for at the beginning of the dispute, thus avoiding the strike.
Policies of that kind inevitably produce disaster. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, "Oh well, we had to do it, because otherwise other people would have made higher settlements; as it is, they have settled for less". The fallacy of that
1632
argument is that in the light of the Ford settlement and some of the others which are now being made and offered, those unions which a few months ago were content to settle for 5 per cent. are reopening the matter. Therefore, the disaster resulting to the Government's policy and to the interests of the nation from the 17 per cent. Ford settlement, which itself was the result of the course of events which I have described, is all the more severe. In the future, that figure will be taken as the norm or standard.
It is no use moaning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, did two days ago, and as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal did to some extent today, about the fact that another place deprived the Government of the sanctions weapon. If the counter-inflation policy is crucially important—and I personally accept that it is—and if the sanctions weapon were a necesssary instrument for effecting that policy, why on earth did the Government simply accept the decision of another place and not, saying that it was necessary, offer to dissolve Parliament and submit the issue to the electorate? If the sanctions policy were a necessary instrument for restraining inflation in this country and the Government felt that they had been denied it, as they have said, by what they regarded as the misguided decision of another place, they could have taken the constitutional course of appealing to the people. Such a course is even more obvious and evident when you are already getting towards the end of the first half of the fifth year of a Parliament. Oh, but no; the Government stay on, without the weapon, and grumble about it. But they offer no alternative.
I shall seek, as most noble Lords have been, to be constructive. Therefore, I should like to put two suggestions to the Government. If the Government really are sincere about their counter-inflation policy, as they say, why do they not—and here I have much sympathy with the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches—obtain Parliamentary authority, not for a rigid figure but for the guidelines and seek to embody them in a Statute which could be adjusted, with Parliamentary approval, by Statutory Instrument; and, having done that, then legislate to remove the immunity from suit of the trade dispute provisions of the Trades Disputes Act in the case of any strike which is

1633
being pursued to effect a breach of the guidelines? Where a union is demanding something which, in the Government's view, is disastrous and violating guidelines which they regard as essential, why do they not say that such a union need not have the legal privilege which unions otherwise have in pursuit of their lawful claims? If the Government were sincere, why do they not do that?
Equally, why do the Government not use the instrument of the Inland Revenue to secure that proper levels of taxation, payable through PAYE, are imposed upon the fruits of settlements that breach the guidelines? The fact that the Government do not even seem to have explored these possibilities, but are simply going on with their policy of attacking the employers, is what I find to be the most infinitely depressing thing about this debate. Deprived of the sanctions weapon, the Government are now trying to use the other blunt instrument of the Price Commission, the legislation regarding which will be reaching us shortly.
But before that legislation reaches us and before we discuss it may I say this, with great respect, to the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench: do the Government realise that if they simply use the Price Commission to squeeze employers' profits, to squeeze the employers in the upper millstone of the Price Commission and the lower millstone of the unions, they will not achieve their object? They will diminish employment. They will cause investment in this country to be cut off. They will produce a steady running down of the economy. No company with responsibilities to its shareholders will continue with investments and developments on a substantial scale which will give employment if it knows that it is to be subjected to a process of that kind.
May I give the House a small example that I came across the other day of how this kind of thing happens. In a certain case of which I know, the person concerned sought a very useful little device to go into the shoe of somebody who has a badly disabled foot. He went to a shop where previously he had obtained this device but was told that it is no longer made; the Price Commission had denied an increase, so the device is no longer made. That kind of thing, which is a small tragedy to a few disabled
1634
individuals, will be repeated again and again if the Government try to use the Price Commission to pursue their insane policy—I do not think that that is too strong a word—of apply all the pressure to the employer while leaving the unions scot free.
May I say one word more regarding picketing, as the noble and learned Lord who was good enough to repeat today's Statement today is going to wind up this debate, upon which I should like to invite his comments. He said to us, I recall—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that pickets have no right to force a driver to stop. Will the noble and learned Lord tell the House and the people outside in plain language what a driver is to do if he drives up to a depot where he is to collect or deliver goods and finds, as drivers are finding every hour of the day at the moment, a line of pickets? Is he to drive into them, or is he, as they wish him to do, to stop? If he stops, the pickets, by standing there, are effecting what the noble and learned Lord says that they are not allowed to effect.
If I am right, ought not the Government, faced with that situation, to instruct the police to take action to clear the way so that a driver who does not wish to stop and carry on a conversation with the pickets shall be entitled to exercise his right? To say, "You can complain to the police afterwards ", does not take one anywhere, because of the practicalities of identification at the depot where the driver does not know the pickets, who themselves may have come a long distance, and makes a mere retrospective complaint to the police wholly useless and ineffective. What is needed is resolution by the public authorities concerned to enable not only the pickets to exercise their rights under the law as it now stands, as they should do, but equally to allow other people going about their lawful business to exercise their right, and particularly their right of not being stopped. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General will give us the answer to that.
On all our experience of the last week or two it seems that the Government intend to do none of these things. The Government, led by the present Prime Minister, will not take any action which

1635
will seriously displease the major trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in his most remarkable speech—and, if I may say so in parenthesis, this debate was justified if only on account of the opportunity it gave us to hear that very remarkable speech spoken with Lord George-Brown's authority on these subjects—reminded us that it was the present Prime Minister who, consistent with his policy of never displeasing the unions, defeated the attempts of Sir Harold Wilson and of Mrs. Barbara Castle to carry through the trade union legislation embodying the effect of In Place of Strife. Those of us who had the pleasure of reading the late Mr. Richard Crossman's entertaining memoirs were able to read in detail how that was done. If I may say so, I have great personal affection for the present Prime Minister, whom I have known for a great many years, and in personal terms he will not take any action which will displease the unions, and I believe that is the single factor which will bring this Government down. That is a circumstance which I admit I can contemplate with stoical fortitude, but my fortitude is diminished by the damage which can be done in the interval. The Government are tottering to their fall; they are obviously in their last stages—not prepared to take a stand, dominated, as I think one of my noble friends said, by the strong Transport and General Worker element with their majority in the House of Commons and indeed among two members of the Cabinet, including, curiously enough, the Minister responsible for maintaining our food supplies. But when they go—and perhaps the sooner the better—I can contribute an epitaph which, if the most reverend Primate will permit me, is based upon a rather cruel parody of my favourite hymn:
"Trembling they passed, the great surrender made,
Into contempt which never more shall fade;
Their memory hated in the land they failed".
7.24 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, from these Benches may I first say how much we appreciated the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and secondly how much we are looking forward to the maiden speech as a free citizen of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
1636
I make no apology for devoting the whole of my remarks to the present unsatisfactory state of the law of picketing and as to what can be done to improve it. I do that, recognising that of course the present state of the law of picketing is not the cause of our present troubles but I believe it is a very substantial cause of the extent of those troubles. Therefore, I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who appeared to think that it was somewhat indelicate to raise this matter at this stage. On the contrary, I believe it is urgent to do so and perhaps even more urgent that it should be done at a moment when there are a large number of people, both inside the unions and outside, who would welcome such reforms.
May I therefore begin with the simple observation that there is no such right as the right to picket. I think it was Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg—I hope I have the reference right—who spoke about the "inalienable rights with which all men had been endowed by their creator", but he did not go on to enumerate the right to strike or the right to march or the right to picket. The reason why the right to picket is not a human right or a fundamental right or anything of that sort is simply that, certainly under our law, picketing by itself per se is invariably unlawful. It is unlawful from the point of view of the civil law because it must give rise to some effect to induce a breach of contract; it is unlawful under the criminal law because it must invariably at the least give rise to some obstruction of the highway, and therefore the only right which people have to picket is that right which has been specifically granted by legislation in this country. Those are the only circumstances in which it is permissible under our law.
I would not want to blame the present Government for the state of that law. The fact is that Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 re-enacts word for word—except for one (for these purposes) irrelevant phrase—Section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 and I do not need reminding that that Act was passed by a Liberal Government. I hope therefore that it is not entirely inappropriate that it is a Liberal who might perhaps urge the need now drastically to reform that section. I do so in the belief that we are being loyal

1637
to our principles, because we believe still that the law should be used in order to protect the weaker members of society. What has changed in the last 70 years is that the whole balance of power, economically and politically, in our society has changed and the techniques of picketing have developed in a way which was never envisaged back in 1906. They have developed now to such an extent that it is difficult to draw any valid distinction between a major strike in an essential service industry and an apparently minor strike in an industry which is not of such immediate importance, because in the way that picketing has developed the minor strike can develop and progress very rapidly into a major threat to the welfare of the whole community.
As your Lordships will hear in a moment, I come to the conclusion that not only are reforms necessary but in the last resort it is necessary for them to be enforced by the criminal law. I consider, if I may, four immediate reforms, for which I believe there would be a great measure of public support. The first reform is that the number of pickets at any place of access where industrial action is taking place should be limited, perhaps to six or 10 or whatever number is thought appropriate. I know that there are some difficulties in enforcing that, although not quite the absurd difficulty postulated in the Government's consultative document of last November, where it was stated that it would be difficult for the police to decide who were the excess persons who had no right to be there.
There are various criminal statutes of which the law of riot, for example, is one, an offence which is committed by more than 10 people in certain circumstances. If the police find a riot they do not have to determine which is the 11th man and only deal with him; all 11 who were taking part in the riot are guilty of the offence and I can see no practical difficulty at all in the police dealing with the situation if they find more than a permitted statutory number of pickets on any one place of access to premises where there is strike action. I do not believe that any of us in this country want a recurrence of the Grunwick troubles and of the tremendous strain that in particular that put upon the Metropolitan Police Force.
1638
The second reform which I believe is necessary is that picketing should be limited, so that it can lawfully be carried on only by members of the union who are employees of the employers who are involved in the dispute. I believe again there is widespread support for this, and indeed it appears in the guidelines issued by the Transport and General Workers' Union last week and it is clearly acceptable to that union, at any rate, at this stage. It is, I think, very necessary, to some extent for the reason touched on by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in his remarkable speech, and that is that there are groups of people in this country, particularly—there is no point in not naming them—in the Socialist Workers Party, who latch on to every industrial dispute for the purpose of causing complete anarchy and overthrowing our whole state of society. I believe our society is entitled to fight back against that menace and there is no reason at all why these people should be allowed to join in every industrial dispute and adopt it as their own for ulterior motives and with not the slightest interest in the welfare of those who happen to be on strike.
The third limitation that I believe should be considered is simply that those who are picketing should picket only at their own place of employment, and the fourth limitation that again I believe is desirable is that they should seek to dissuade only those who are working for the company with whom the union is in dispute. Again I do not think there is any real difficulty about that, because that also has been accepted by the TGWU in their current instructions to their pickets. I believe that those four proposals would very substantially diminish the risks which the whole community undergoes at the moment from the spread of mass picketing, from the use of flying pickets and from the use of secondary pickets. I do not believe they are any restriction at all upon the legitimate right of those involved in an industrial dispute to further their dispute by striking. I should perhaps add that I cannot see how it is possible to give pickets a legal right to stop vehicles. That seems to me something that would give rise to intolerable problems for the police, and I cannot see how that right can lawfully be given to them.
If these reforms, or some of them, are necessary, I turn to look, lastly, at how

1639
they can be brought about. There are four possible ways of doing it. The first is by a code of practice similar to that which the TGWU have issued recently. I find this difficult to regard as an ideal solution. Codes of practice are invaluable when they define the ways in which agreed objectives can be obtained, but this is not an agreed objective. I am delighted that so many members of the TGWU have in fact abided by the guidelines issued to them from their head office. But the fact remains that there are many who are not abiding by it, and there is no question but that in future industrial disputes there can be no guarantee whatever that a code of practice of this sort would be adhered to by those taking part in industrial strike action. But I add this. The unions for their part have said in terms that they are not there to police codes of practice of this nature; they are indeed quite incapable structurally of doing so.
The second suggestion that was made in the Government's consultative document on this subject is that the code of practice should be given more force by being adopted by Parliament, whereupon it would have the status, as it were, of the Highway Code, so that the rules in the code of practice could be cited in court where proceedings were taken. Again that seems to me to be a misapprehension of the whole position. The rules in the Highway Code are invaluable in court in deciding cases, for example, of careless or reckless driving. But there is no such offence as, for example, unreasonable picketing, and I believe it would be very undesirable to seek to create one. I cannot see how in the course of proceedings under the existing law, for example, for obstructing the police or assaulting the police, or whatever it may be, the rules in the code of practice that I have indicated would be relevant on more than a minute number of occasions. It does not seem to me, therefore, that adopting a code of practice in that way as part of our rules would be of any assistance.
Thirdly, it might be possible to rely on the civil law. I find it again difficult to see how this exclusively can be an adequate remedy. It is placing employers in an impossible position if the burden of en- I forcing the law is placed on their shoulders
1640
exclusively when it really ought to be upon the shoulders of the community as a whole. It means that it must endanger their internal industrial relations in future, and it has, of course, also the very real objection to which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell referred, that the timelag is bound to be so great that it cannot be effective in dealing immediately with any breach of the rules.
I therefore come to the reluctant conclusion that the only way of dealing with what I suggest is an urgent and serious problem is in fact by changing the criminal law to give effect to some of the measures which I have ventured to suggest to your Lordships. I know it will be difficult. I know that there are those in the Government who will point out the problems that may arise. But I believe that the difficulties would be overcome if there were the political will to do so, if there were the will to take measures which some trade unionists might find objectionable. I believe that at this particular moment there are many people, inside the unions as well as out, who would not find such measures objectionable and would be happy to see them brought into effect. I do not want to advocate a coalition Government. I do not think my right honourable friend Mr. David Steel ever used those terms, or anything like them. I do believe that there are in all the political Parties at the moment, and among those outside the political Parties, a great many people of goodwill who could cooperate together in ensuring that these reforms are brought about.
7.38 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, speaking for the first time, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, as a free man, at least a free man so far as the last five years are concerned, it is perhaps appropriate that I do in fact follow the noble Lord, because he and I have spent many hours together going through the delights of the Matrimonial Proceedings Bill and the Criminal Law Bill. On this occasion I find myself speaking from this Back Bench on what is in fact I think one of the most serious issues that this country has been confronted with for a very substantial period of time indeed.
Before I go into the substance of my speech I should like to say two things.

1641
In normal circumstances I would say that I shall speak briefly, but I have learned in this House that anyone beginning a speech by assuring his colleagues that he is going to make a short speech always in fact makes an extremely long one. So I therefore deliberately decide not to use that form of words. Secondly, I speak as someone who has had experience over the last five years as Minister of State in the Home Office with direct responsibility for the Police Service. During that period we have spent a very substantial amount of time dealing with this question of picketing, and it is about that that I wish to speak.
In so doing I would say just two other things. First, during the last two and a half years I have had the good fortune of a very close personal relationship with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I want to make it absolutely clear that nothing I say this evening is to be taken either directly or indirectly as any form of criticism of anything that he has done or not done over the last few weeks. Having worked for so long in the Home Office I know what an enormous burden and responsibility the holder of that office carries at a time of serious national crisis, not only carrying out the responsibilities of his own Department, but being chairman of the Cabinet Committee dealing with the emergency situation. He carries a very heavy burden indeed. Secondly, neither do I regard it as particularly dignified—having held office for so long in a Government—to make a speech within three weeks of leaving the Government which implies that one did, in fact, have the most substantial differences with one's colleagues during the whole of the period of one's time in that office. With that by way of introduction I should like to say that I believe that there can be little dispute about the seriousness of the situation with which we are now confronted.
It is not a question simply of the number of disputes which we are facing at present, although that indeed is certainly serious enough. There have been strikes by the water and sewerage workers; by the railways; in road haulage and among local authority employees ranging from ambulancemen to refuse collectors. We have the possibility of strikes in many other key areas of our economy, not least the very real risk of a major confrontation with the National Union of
1642
Mineworkers which has been brought a great deal closer as a result of what I have just read on the taping machines in this House. This is certainly among the most serious series of disputes with which this country has been confronted in the past 50 years. It is certainly arguable that it is the most serious.
I repeat that it is not just a question of the number of disputes, but rather the manner and the mood in which those disputes are being conducted. Things are being done and said that are quite foreign to the traditions of the British trade union movement. There have been pickets who have attempted to stop school children from going into their schools. There have been acts of intimidation—they are not a media conspiracy; and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is not with us tonight—and that was made absolutely clear by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in his Statement in another place the other day. We have had the squalid episode in Birmingham where cancer patients have been sent home and discharged from hospital because of the attitude of a number of hospital porters. There has been another case where a spokesman for the London ambulancemen has indicated that if grievously ill people died as a result of his colleagues taking industrial action, then that was just too bad. There has also been the suggestion made in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and by others, and yesterday in the Financial Times, that money is being extorted by some pickets in return for which lorries are being allowed through picket lines. These are not just rumours. Two named examples were given in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday, and, as I have indicated, there is another example in the Financial Times of yesterday where a spokesman for the British Plastics Federation stated that the going rate was £1·50 to £10 for allowing lorries through the picket lines.
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland a direct question as regards this particular matter because it is a matter of some importance. He may recall that I raised it with the Leader of the House after he had repeated a Statement in this House on an earlier occasion and I said that I wished to come back to it. I should like to know what is now going to happen

1643
as a result of these statements by clearly defined individuals that money has been collected by pickets. The Statement which has been repeated by my noble and learned friend this afternoon—a Statement made in another place by the Attorney-General—made it clear that a serious criminal offence was committed if what I have described took place. What is going to be done about it? In my view it is a most serious matter and it seems to me that one of those gentlemen who are doing, I am sure, an extremely valuable job—and many civil servants are doing extremely valuable work—on these emergency committees which have been set up throughout the country, should pick up the telephone and ask the gentleman from the British Plastics Federation who has made this statement (there are at least two other examples of such statements), whether he is prepared to make a formal complaint to the police. It seems to me that if there is clear evidence of the commission of a serious criminal offence of this kind, it is crucially important that action should be taken to deal with it.
I have made it clear that in my view what has been done and is being done in these disputes is wholly repugnant not only to this House and another place, but to millions of decent trade unionists and their wives in this country. It is, as I have indicated, entirely alien to the tradition of British trade unions. Many, like myself, who have been involved in the Labour movement throughout the whole of their lives know that what is now taking place would have been denounced in the most biting terms by Ernest Bevin, Arthur Deakin, Will Lawther, Tom Williamson and Vic Feather.
I look forward to an early statement by Mr. Fisher the General Secretary of the National Union of Public Employees about the quite disgraceful behaviour which has been committed in the name of his union and which I believe is most lamentable, doing, as it does, grave damage to the reputation of the British trade union movement. However, we must accept that conduct of that kind has taken place. It really is not a question, as was suggested here the other day, of some form of media conspiracy. I believe that what has been taking place on some of the picket lines is quite unacceptable in a democratic society.
1644
I should now like to set out my own views as to how we should handle this matter. It cannot simply be shrugged off as a matter of little importance. The issue is so serious that it does not brook either evasion or too much delay. Let me say at the outset that I very much agree with what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on this matter last week, both about the menace of secondary picketing and about the grave difficulties of legislating to deal with the problem of picketing. We cannot pretend, having lived through all the convulsions caused by the passage of the Industrial Relations Act, that it simply did not take place. It was a fact. Therefore, I very much agreed with what my right honourable friend said about the desirability of some form of non-statutory code of conduct which he preferred to legislation.
However, in my view two things follow from that. First, that in the case of the lorry drivers' dispute the Transport and General Workers' Union ensures that its members abide by that voluntary code of conduct. And secondly, that it takes disciplinary action against any of its members who refuse to accept that code of conduct. But what, my Lords, has happened? The statement made by Mr. Moss Evans was given a great deal of publicity at the end of last week. No member of the Transport and General Workers' Union on the picket line could have had any doubt about what was in it. Indeed, the Daily Mirror made the whole of its front page available to Mr. Evans. So I am sure that some pickets accepted it. But what is undoubtedly clear is that a very large number did not. Secondary picketing is continuing, and on a substantial scale, and at the moment there is not the slightest indication that the union is prepared to take any action against those responsible.
Let me give one illustration of what this means by drawing on an account given to me by a friend who has a small business. This week he sent three of his own lorries to a port to collect urgently-needed supplies. His men were threatened by the men on the picket line. They were told that they would be thrown out of their own union—and they did not happen to be members of the Transport and General Workers' Union—and would never be allowed to get a job again. They turned

1645
back. My friend spoke to the strike committee and pointed out that this was clearly secondary picketing. He drew the attention of the strike committee to the contents of the front page of the Daily Mirror. He pointed out that conduct of this kind was specifically prohibited by that code and by Mr. Evans' statement. The reply he received was "Moss Evans isn't on our picket line". The following day he again spoke to them. He remonstrated with them. "Yes", they said, they would let the lorries in. That same afternoon he rang them again to confirm the arrangements and they said that they had changed their minds and would not let the lorries through. I do not believe that we in this country can go on in this way.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, these products were required for an urgently-needed export order. If it is not met, to a marginal extent all the people of this country will have their standard of living affected. That is only one illustration; there is case after case of this kind of conduct taking place at our ports. As I have indicated, I recognise that there are great difficulties in dealing with this matter. There is no simple solution to it. Certainly if I thought that there was, my view would have been changed by the time I decided, when I was a Minister at the Home Office, that it was right to go down to the Grunwick factory during that dispute. For all sorts of reasons I do not think it right for Ministers to become involved in "sharp end" situations, even though Sir Winston Churchill did on one occasion become rather involved himself in Sydney Street.
I went to Grunwick because it was quite clear that what was going on there was creating a very serious situation. There was a great deal of public concern about the matter, but there was also a very serious problem affecting the Metropolitan Police who, if I may remind the House, were being most savagely criticised in another place for attempting to enforce the law of this country. Frankly, what I saw then was quite unacceptable. I saw hundreds of men—sometimes thousands of men—who had no conceivable involvement with that dispute picketing the company. Some were Yorkshire Miners
1646
brought down by Mr. Scargill. There was the editor of the Yorkshire Miner, a gentleman who found his conversation with the Metropolitan Police so alarming that he sought some form of political refuge in East Germany.
Certainly, what I saw then concerned me very greatly, because I do not believe that the presence of hundreds or thousands of people on a picket line has anything to do with peaceful persuasion. We must recognise that this is a serious matter, a serious fact, uncomfortable and difficult. There is no easy solution to it. Until we accept some form of analysis on these lines, I do not believe that we shall begin to start dealing with the problems caused by the present difficulties confronting us.
I believe that in this situation there are two requirements. I indicated my preference for a voluntary code of conduct followed by firm disciplinary action by the union against those who ignore it. The code should deal not just with the area covered by the code of conduct which was published in the Daily Mirror last week. First, it should deal with the fact that it is unacceptable that pickets should come other than from the factory that is being picketed; and, secondly—indeed, this is largely the same point—there should be a clear prohibition on outsiders becoming involved in any way.
However, I repeat that this would have to be backed up by the unions agreeing to take disciplinary action against those of their members who defy them. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is to meet the Trades Union Congress next week. I hope that at that meeting he will raise the picketing issue with them. At the moment I believe that, understandably, he is going to talk to them about the incomes policy problems which are now arising. However, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General this direct question. Will the question of picketing be raised at that meeting or not? I believe that it is most important that this matter should be firmly on the agenda at that meeting, because I do not think for a moment that we can tolerate a continuance of what is happening at present. It must be made absolutely clear to the TUC by the Government that this is a high-priority issue. I believe that the TUC should be

1647
left in no doubt whatever that failure to agree to a voluntary code, backed up by disciplinary action against those who ignore it, will lead, not to a quiet and sad resignation that nothing can therefore be done, but to immense pressure from public opinion that Parliament should agree to pass legislation to deal with this abuse.
As I have indicated, I should far prefer to see voluntary action taken by the TUC. Speaking entirely for myself, but I suspect for a great number of other people outside this House—many rank and file trade unionists included, whose jobs are now, of course, being threatened—I believe that the anarchy which we are seeing on the picket lines at present simply must stop. I believe that that is the overwhelming view of our fellow citizens.
I have already indicated that the situation which confronts this country is very serious, and I fear that it is deteriorating. We not only have lawlessness on the picket lines, but a growing threat to the Government's entire counter-inflationary policy. There is a risk that this policy will be swept aside in an avalanche of wildly inflationary pay settlements. In that situation we may well return to riproaring inflation and as a direct consequence of that there will be a further rise in the level of unemployment, still higher interest rates and a further cutback in private sector investments in this country. Without a substantial increase in private sector investment, there is no way in which this country can begin to emerge from its economic difficulties.
However, if hyper-inflation returns, it will do two other things. First, I fear that it will do grievous damage to the self-esteem of the British people. As a nation we have done very poorly in the last two decades. Just after the war, together with the United States, we looked out on a war-devestated Europe. Our record had been a proud one. It is true that the cost had been harsh but our reputation stood high.
What is the situation now? Far from being a country, as we were then, with the highest living standards in Europe, our path has led inexorably downward. We have been overtaken by West Germany, by France, by Holland, by Belgium, by
1648
Luxembourg, by Denmark, and now even by East Germany. It is a dismal story. I believe that this is recognised by a large number of people in this country, and that there is a will in this country to halt this slide towards further national decline.
One central question faces us: have our political leaders the determination to face up to this growing national mood? Let us face it, we start off with something of a problem; the reputation of the profession of politics in this country has declined pretty sharply. I think in public opinion polls we appear a little ahead of second-hand car dealers—not particularly the most attractive group of men or women one would necessarily wish to be associated with. I suppose that that is inevitable in a country with such an unsuccessful economic record.
I believe that that record can be corrected, but only if every serious person in public life accepts that the great divide which exists in this country lies not between the two Front Benches in Parliament, but between Government and those dark forces that exist which have elevated brutal self-interest and reckless disregard for the wellbeing of our fellow citizens into the central principle of their existence. I am certainly not advocating any form of coalition government. I rather thought that Mr. Steel had been suggesting that, but I understand from the noble Lord who preceded me that that was not his intention. In any event, I do not believe that we are going to see a coalition government in this country, certainly at the present time.
However, I believe that, in the critical situation in which the country now finds itself, it is the duty of all of us to minimise, and not to maximise, our differences when we are discussing matters of this sort: not to fight bogus Party battles from one side of Parliament to the other. I believe that the term "the national interest" had a clear meaning for Lord Attlee, for Sir Winston Churchill and, yes, for Anthony Eden, and for the late Hugh Gaitskell, whose death has done such grievous damage to this country. One thought so at the time as one of his very dear personal friends, but everything that has followed since has made his passing even more of a calamity for the

1649
people of this country than it appeared at that time.
In this situation, whatever may be the temptation—and I am talking not just about the immediate situation but even that of a few months ahead—to make any form of Party advantage out of the serious national situation that faces us, it will do still further damage to the reputation of everyone involved in the profession of politics. I believe that, whoever forms the next Government of this country, this is going to be the major test, and that to some extent it is going to be an even greater test for whoever forms the Opposition in this country. Oppositions can, if they are minded to, do great damage to any Government, and I think a call to responsibility in the next few years is going to be even more urgent so far as Oppositions are concerned than is the case for Governments. Speaking for myself, whoever forms the next Government I certainly propose to do everything I can to avoid the repetition of a situation such as we have seen all too often in the last 10 years.
I shall now conclude, aware as I am that I have been detaining your Lordships for a substantial period of time. As I have indicated, we face the particular problem that at this moment in this country we do not have a very high opinion of ourselves. We are suffering from a severe loss of national self-confidence. Our reputation outside this country is an embarrassment to many of our closest friends and allies. To rescue us from this gradual drift into decline will require a supreme effort of national will, and the single-minded effort of everyone who cares for the future of this country.
8.5 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and, secondly, to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on his maiden speech, as he described it, as a free man. I hope he will feel free in due course to move further to the right. If he feels that, like others before him he will get a warm welcome from this side of the House. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who took a similar path, have made outstanding contributions to our debate.
1650
There is one sad thought in my mind, and that is that on this vitally important issue at this critical time we have, as Members of your Lordships' House, some 20 trade union leaders, and not one of them has been here, so far as I could trace, during this debate. Certainly not one has yet spoken. This occurs time after time. It is such a shame that these elder statesmen, who could contribute from their knowledge and present contacts, so seldom come and give us the pleasure of hearing them and their constructive suggestions.
In opening this debate, my noble friend said that he felt that we had all been rather long on analysis and rather short on solutions. I am still hopeful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will, when he winds up, give us less of the analysis and more of the solutions.
Like many others, I have to travel in Europe. I was on business for the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris on Monday. It is so sad that at the luncheon that followed—and they were all speaking fluent English, which makes one rather humble—they said, "What has gone wrong with Britain? Have you gone stark, staring mad? We just cannot believe you are the nation that we know so well". Later they discussed a recent article in Der Spiegel. I have asked the Library to get me a translated copy of a long analysis of the difference between West Germany and ourselves. I understand from the reports I received there, that the key point they make is that there is no basic difference between the workers in Germany and our country. They both come from similar stock; they both have a conscientiousness, and a desire to do a reasonable job for reasonable pay. The only difference is in the structure of their trade unions and the structure of our trade unions, and—perhaps more important—the attitude of the more militant sections in the respective unions of the two countries. Whereas there they are anxious to get new machinery, more competitive machinery, faster machinery, into use at the earliest moment, here there is a reluctance, a Luddite-ism which is reflected all too plainly in Fleet Street and in other places. I do not apologise for spending a moment or two on this trade union problem on which so many others have spent time.

1651
The Leader of the House, Lord Peart, in opening told us that so far only 200,000 people had been laid off. But I assure your Lordships, as chairman of an engineering company and closely involved in other engineering companies, that this is really the tip of the iceberg. I would suggest that there are probably another 800,000 on short time, or working in a disrupted way, because some of the supplies for almost all of the factories have not come through and are being held up either at the docks or at the suppliers.
Owing to the employment legislation we have had in the last five years, we have a guaranteed wage in one of our factories, and, whereas earnings would be over £100 a week, the guaranteed wage is £60 a week. There is therefore little point in sending people home in order to reduce the overheads of the factory; we might as well keep them under-employed making bits and pieces which can be put into stock and which may be useful at a later stage. This all disrupts the flow of production, it disrupts delivery to our customers both in this country and Western Europe and it all helps to destroy our reputation as an exporting and efficient country.
Price inflation is bound to result—because all this will have to be paid for from sales of products in future—and damage to our export orders is already being felt. For example, one factory is making components for the motor industry. If we get an order from Saab or one of the big producers in Western Europe and we cannot deliver on time, then immediately, because they all dual-source, a competitor company will get more of the work and we shall get less. Inevitably, this must lead to higher unemployment.
I was pleased to hear Lord Harris refer to Grunwick, and I do not apologise for returning to the question of picketing because I believe it is endemic to much of our trouble. George Ward was a constituent of mine for many years and therefore, like Lord Harris, I took a special interest in Grunwick. Earlier than July 1977, Mr. Scargill boasted that he could put 3,000 Yorkshire miners in buses, that he could have them on the road within two hours and that they could be placed on a picket anywhere he liked.
1652
This is a pretty ugly situation. In fact, we did not have 3,000 miners appearing to picket 250 people, mainly women and most of them Asians. Not just 3,000 miners, but another 15,000 assembled, making a total of 18,000 people picketing Grunwick to "influence peacefully" those 250 people. That, surely, was a travesty of the law, and a travesty of fairness and justice.
I have obtained from the Library—I compliment our Library staff; efficiency has improved tremendously in recent years—a copy of The Times (also, by the way, on strike) dated 17th July 1977. Perhaps some of us have forgotten what the situation was like then. The headlines read:
"Police arrest 70 as Grunwick battle leaves 30 hurt. 18,000 join the demonstration".
The sub-heading reads:
"Government considering change in the picket law".
That happened 18 months ago. What has happened since? When one reads on in what was obviously an inspired article, one is told that the Government are to take action because they believe they need to relieve the police. Perhaps Lord Harris had some hand in announcing the fact that 25 per cent. of the entire police population of metropolitan London was siphoned off to Grunwick to look after those demonstrations. The article goes on:
"It is expected the Government will bring forward proposals for amendment of the Employment Protection Act when the Grunwick dispute is settled".
That dispute has been settled for 15 months. Where is the action? Where are the solutions? The article adds:
"Measures would include restriction on numbers".
Where is the action?
"There would be a limit of the right to picket to those who are genuinely interested in the dispute at that works".
Where is the action? Then it says it might be desirable that armbands should be worn by officials picket approved by the unions in order to keep out the baddies and of course to keep out militants and students who have no interest except to cause disruption. It is sad that nothing has happened in 18 months. I understand the police reported almost a year ago. The CBI put in their report many months ago. Where are the solutions?

1653
I suggest, too, that what is going on now is making trade unionists most unpopular. There are 11 million trade unionists in Britain but there are 22 to 23 million workers in a population of 55 million, so trade unionists are a minority. Surely it must be—I put it no higher than that—in the Labour Party's interest to do something to make them less unpopular because this unpopularity of the trade unions will inevitably swing back to the discredit of the Labour Party, with whom they are so closely allied.
I urge the Government to accept the discussions which Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and Mr. David Steel have suggested. That is what the country is looking for; they want some bridges built in areas where there is no difference of opinion. I suggest that in the practice of mass picketing and the disruption of our social services and industrial life, there is common ground on which the Government could move. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, may be able to give us some hope when he replies to the debate.
In his repetition of the Statement made in another place, the noble and learned Lord said prosecution should follow criminal actions "if the facts can be established." Is that realistic? What citizen will come forward and give evidence? I have seen this happen in various factories: "Not me, guvnor, why should I risk losing my card and my job? Why should I risk my children and wife being sent to Coventry or otherwise suffering?" is the answer one gets. Thus there is deep reluctance on the part of those who see these things going on. They will not come forward and give evidence because of the possible threat to their future and that of their families. What employer will come forward? Will he risk his customers and supplies being blacked because he gives evidence in criminal proceedings? I believe it is unrealistic to think this evidence will be forthcoming, however evil the disruption.
I would add to what Lord Harris said about how alarming it is that we are giving more and more power through the trade unions to pickets. They have the power to say, "Yes, you may load this lorry, but not that one." They have the power to say, "If I have £150, guvnor"—or £10 or whatever the figure is—"I'll
1654
let your lorry through." They have the power to let certain lorries out of the docks and to forbid others. This is a free country operating under the law. It should not be operated under pickets, a percentage of whom, I suggest, are not interested in good industrial relations, industrial prosperity or better social services. I feel that many of them have come through the schools of subversion now being operated in Eastern Europe. Many of these trade union leaders have been through courses in Moscow and elsewhere. Surely the time has arrived when this should be exposed and the true facts known.
Many people have suggested the institution of a code of practice. I am becoming rather cynical about codes of practice. Under the Employment Protection Act 1976, a code of practice was to be evolved in the vitally important sphere of the freedom of the Press. We ask Questions about it, but no such code of practice has appeared. The Minister is now responsible for bringing out a code of practice and has been responsible for a year and a half. What talks has he had on the subject? If a code of practice does come, can we rely on the irresponsible militants to carry it out, and if we cannot will the trade unions discipline them? If a goody is to lose his card for standing up to be counted, why should not a baddy lose his card for doing exactly the same? Personally, I believe neither should lose his card and that we should not have closed shop legislation continuing ad infinitum.
It is reported that the transport drivers, having refused 15 per cent., have gone to the Central Arbitration Committee. The Directory of Paid Public Appointments contains a description of the Central Arbitration Committee and I warrant that numbers of your Lordships had not heard of it until it was referred to in the case of the BBC strike just before Christmas. It is a strange body. The number of members is shown, and then, under the heading "functions" it is stated:
"Has taken over the functions of the Industrial Arbitration Board; i.e. to arbitrate in disputes referred for settlement with the consent of the parties, and to settle claims against employers …".
That is a funny one—an arbitration committee to settle claims against employers. Apparently, they are to use comparability, as between lorry drivers

1655
—and who else? How can one compare a lorry driver with anyone else? It was easy in the case of the BBC. The BBC rates of pay for engineers and others were compared with those of the ITA. At least there was one yardstick there; but it was not taken into account that for every three people employed on an ITA programme the BBC generally employ five or six. Many of your Lordships who have worked in both organisations, or who have contacts with them, will recognise that generally there is a considerably more generous manning ratio in the BBC than there is in the ITA. That was not taken into account. An award of 12½ per cent. was made, though the Government had laid down 5 per cent., and another 4 per cent. was given in certain cases to iron out anomalies. So there was an inflationary settlement which took no account of productivity as compared between the ITA and the BBC.
I smell a really inflationary settlement, unless it is laid down by the Government that all matters must be taken into account. I do not know how one compares lorry drivers with others. Does one take mileage, fatigue, unsocial hours, noise, subsistence, or what are known as perks? I am told by lorry drivers that for every three official loads there is one load which goes for cash, or something, into their pockets. Has that been taken into account? If, as has been reported, 22½ per cent. is to be recommended from the Central Arbitration Committee, it will be a really inflationary step, and I hope that the Government will lay down the terms of comparability before the matter is decided.
Lastly, in the dying weeks of the Government, I appeal to them to accept the offer made by Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and Mr. David Steel, and to seek out the common ground, certainly on the matter of picketing. The country wants Parliament to do something about this matter. It would help, not harm, the Labour Party. If, after 11 years of Labour power during the past 15, no action is taken, then God help our country. I urge the Government please to answer the offers made by the other main Parties and to come forward on a basic agreement that something will be done about trade union problems and picketing.
8.23 p.m.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I ought to remind the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that three ex-general secretaries of trade unions have been sitting here during the debate, and there is a total of 80 years of general secretaryship between them. The greatest part of that service was undertaken by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who spent almost 50 years as a general secretary. My noble friend Harold Collison had to leave the Chamber only in the past 10 minutes, but had sat here since the start of the debate. Sixty years ago a similar debate was taking place, and out of that debate was set up the Whitley Committee. The joint secretary of the committee was the father of my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. The terms of reference of the committee, set up over 60 years ago, were:
"To make and consider suggestions for securing a permanent improvement in the relations between employers and workmen "
and
"To recommend means for securing that industrial conditions affecting the relations between employers and workmen shall be systematically reviewed by those concerned, with a view to improving conditions in the future".
The outcome of a report issued at the time was that there should be an advance in joint co-operation in industry between employers and labour. I have been a great believer in the Whitley system. I believe that it has done a tremendous job between the staff side and the official side in a number of spheres: the National Health Service, local government, electricity, gas, water and, in particular, in the Civil Service. My noble friend Lord Houghton was in at the birth of "Whitley-ism" in the Civil Service in the early 1920s. We must persevere and make the Whitley system work in the fields in which it is now operating, as well as extend its principles and structures over a wider field. But of course there are militant groups, especially in local authorities, who want to replace the Whitley system with local shop stewards' committees; that is, more negotiating power in the hands of local people to the detriment of central authority. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, touched upon this issue, and there is much in what he says.
One of the criticisms of the Whitley system, the joint consultative system in

1657
industry, is that there is too great an identity of interest and sentiment with the employers. It is always difficult when one comes to an agreement with the other side to stand in one's corner and say, "I have agreed". From time to time one's members take one to task and say, "You should not have agreed".
I was very interested to read the editorial in the Whitley Bulletin. William Kendall, Secretary General of the National Staff Side of the Civil Service, says that ten years ago:
"Whitleyism was so firmly established that any question of its survival seemed beyond the bounds of possibility. Now, however, there must be a question-mark over its future, and 1979 will probably be a make-or-break year…
"Why is Whitleyism under fire? Mainly, because it no longer recognises the reality of relationships between the basic grades and those attempting to manage them. The concept of proceeding by "administrative action" is no longer acceptable, neither is that involving the exercise of management prerogative. Any revision of the Whitley system must recognise this reality, or the system itself will be increasingly by-passed in favour of more direct industrial relations methods".
I regret that editorial. I believe that the staff side must not take this kind of action and line simply because it might be rebuffed on one or two issues. "Whitleyism" means joint co-operation, joint argument, and coming to an agreement.
We must not assume that the strikes that are taking place at the moment are not representative of rank and file opinion. Judging by the debate so far, it would seem that the strikes that are taking place are engineered by a very small group. I beg leave to doubt that. These people have a grievance. However, I believe that all unions ought to have laid down in their rule books the necessity for a secret ballot before strike action is taken, as the National Union of Mineworkers does. I feel that the action that has taken place on the picket lines is now bringing into question the closed shop and other issues. But the workers have a grievance; we cannot sweep it under the carpet.
I want to give your Lordships a practical example of the National Arbitration Tribunal, which has been accused of being inflationary. The British Waterways Board staff did not have the 30 per cent. pay increase in 1975 which most other groups of workers had. That was
1658
because the dates were unfortunate for them. They have been behind, as indeed were the university teachers and the police. Those two groups of worker; have had this anomaly settled, but not the British Waterways Board staff. Government pay policy has prevented justice being done to this group of staff. All that the Waterways Board can offer is pay well below their analogues elsewhere. Indeed, the chief solicitor post is advertised at £8,500. No wonder there are no takers!
The staff there have a case, but because the British Waterways Board cannot meet their claims due to Government pay policy, the staff are now working to rule. The Transport and General Workers, NALGO, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—their members are all working to rule. Communications between offices does not exist; orders for material are not placed; mail is not being sent; the safety of canals is now at risk. There was a review by the engineers, the Frankel Review, which advised that many millions of pounds had to be spent on canals to make them safe. The Government have offered £5 million during this year. The Board have asked the staff to get on and spend the money in order to make the canals safe. The staff have said, "This is new work; we have not had satisfaction with our pay, and we are not prepared to undertake this new work unless the pay scales are revised". This has now meant that during the next few days a number of canal structures will have to be closed because they are unsafe.
I spent many hours arguing with the trade union movement that they should go to arbitration; and, with the full agreement of the British Waterways Board and, indeed, with the knowledge of the Secretary of State, the unions proceeded to go to arbitration under the umbrella of ACAS. It was a good case; but imagine our surprise when the arbitration tribunal said that the case was not well founded. It was not well founded because it happens to be an industry on its own and there are no comparable analogues. Then they went on to say, "It will be six weeks before we give you a detailed verdict". That is not the way to deal with workers at the present day. There is a flood of messages now going to the British Waterways

1659
Board from the staff telling them to resign or pay them money which the Board themselves went to arbitration, jointly with the staff, to obtain. How do the workers put right such an injustice? There are injustices, but how do they put right an injustice today? A pattern is being set. It is almost a pattern to see which group of workers can get the most. Having done that, no General Secretary can stand aside and get less than the going rate; otherwise, he will be ridiculed by his members, and certainly will be out of a job. No General Secretary is going to accept 5 per cent. It is not on.
Of course, I agree completely that if we take too much out of the common pool we shall inevitably face the tough struggle back from the brink of chaos. It will obviously involve higher taxation, unemployment and a lower standard of life for all of us. The loyalty and endeavour of everyone since 1976 will have been in vain. But who is going to break this vicious circle? Will the miners hold back? I see that, today, they have been offered 3½ per cent. I think Joe Gormley will not take that very seriously. Why? Because his conference, his masters, have told him what to ask for—at least, what to aim for. Will the power workers hold back and say, "We are perfectly content with 5 per cent."? Of course they will not. Their conference, too, have given clear instructions.
The Civil Service settles on 1st April of this year, but it settles on a unique basis. It settles on a pay research exercise, comparing their pay with analogues outside doing work of similar complexity and responsibility. Those reports have now been delivered, and they are being unravelled—a long, arduous job, being supervised by a pay research board. Certain information is leaking. I have no knowledge, but I shall be very surprised, very surprised indeed, if the top end of the Civil Service is not expecting a 20 to 25 per cent. increase in pay out of pay research. I see some of the Clerks smiling, because they will follow that pay. If that is so, there will be howls of indignation. But the Government have said, "We shall accept what comes out of a jointly agreed pay research". Why will it be that the top end of the Civil Service, being compared with managers and executives in private
1660
industry, banking and elsewhere, will have a big pay increase? It is because the perks in private industry have escalated out of all accepted, previous practice. These perks were going to highly taxed, but they are not. There are cars; you now get suits from your employer on a lease-lend basis; free meals; mortgages at 3 per cent.
Then, the workers at the bench see in the Press that Rolls-Royce want to go to the Price Commission to raise the price of Rolls-Royces. Why? Because there is a black market in second-hand Rolls-Royces. How do you expect a low-paid worker to hold back when he sees a second-hand Rolls-Royce being sold for an enhanced profit? He reads in the paper that a footballer is now going to be sold for a million pounds, and the footballer, of course, gets a cut of that. These are the sort of things which set the mood, which set the atmosphere.
I was greatly impressed yesterday to read Geoffrey Goodman's article in the Daily Mirror. I think he has set a reasonable tone. I think we should take to heart some of the things he has been saying. He is pretty hard-hitting. He says:
"The Opposition has unleashed the most militant forces in the trade union movement which they now attack. What difference will a Tory Government make? Is there a credible alternative to the Callaghan pay, prices and inflation policy?"
This is the question that Geoffrey Goodman asks. Clearly, we must try to answer it. If we want more growth, more jobs and better welfare, then there must be some interference by Government, even in free collective bargaining. I am not sure there is any real "free" bargaining or "collective" bargaining. The 5 per cent., obviously, was too rigid; but I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government were absolutely right to say that this was what should be aimed at. If the Prime Minister had not done so, I believe the Opposition would have criticised him. I support moderation, but I am bound to say that the workers have a grievance, and this grievance has to be settled before we get back into calmer waters. All TUC history shows that hasty decision cannot last or be fully implemented. At the moment, we have no sympathy strikes. That is something to be thankful for. There is no

1661
panacea for all time in the settling of our present problems. Much depends on the mood.
Let me illustrate one issue, the mood on 1st April. On 1st April, the child allowance going into the mother's purse is increased from £3 per child to £4 per child, but the father's pay packet is denuded by the income tax child allowance—the allowance is £100. The Government are putting an extra pound per child into the family purse. The father looks at his take-home pay and on 1st April it will be reduced; whereas the mother will be more satisfied because her purse will be enhanced by the extra money. No one has said to the trade union strikers, "There is more money coming to you on 1st April by way of child allowances."
Of course, we have not yet tackled the question of differentials. This has been mentioned during the debate and clearly it is something to which I believe the three sides, Government, TUC and CBI, must give consideration quite quickly. It is very easy to knock the TUC. It is a fact that when there is no agreement with the TUC centrally things go wrong, as now. Free collective bargaining is supposed to be a solution if it is accompanied by a stiff monetary policy. I believe that a monetary policy would only succeed with the TUC's agreement.
The Prime Minister has been fighting a battle for a long time to prevent our falling back into serious inflation. He needs our support and understanding. I am glad he is going to see the full General Council of the TUC and I believe that it will be right for the question of picketing to be on that agenda. I am ashamed when I read—I do not know whether it is true—that money has been extorted from people passing the picket lines. I am ashamed, too, that my fellow trade unionists have caused cancer patients to be sent home from hospitals. These are the things which clearly the Prime Minister must talk about to the General Council. I believe that the antics of some of the strikers and the pickets at the present time have done the trade union movement no good and will bring a question mark over some of their activities. This is something that will have to be answered in the coming months, as my noble friend Lord Harris has said.
1662
In 1969 I was present in Downing Street when we told the Prime Minister and Mrs. Barbara Castle that the TUC was not prepared to have their policy, In Place of Strife. Many meetings were held. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, suggested that Mr. Callaghan was one of the architects of that policy not going forward. I do not accept that. Of course, at that time the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party was also giving advice to Harold Wilson; and my noble friend Lord Houghton may want to put the record straight in relation to that episode. I believe that this debate has fairly reflected the concern of the public at the present time. I believe that some of the suggestions that have been made will have to be reviewed by the Government and certainly must be reviewed by the General Council of the TUC. I hope therefore that the debate will have been timely and will probably persuade many members of the trade union movement to consider their position, and the General Council to try to come to some understanding in the months ahead.
8.45 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to start by expressing my own personal concern at the present industrial situation—concern which has been expressed already by noble Lords on all sides. I regard the present situation as the worst that I have seen in my lifetime, other than perhaps in 1926. I did not feel much comforted from listening to the noble Lord the Leader of the House today in his factual report. I felt that it told us of a very gloomy position with no sign of improvement coming in and every prospect that it was going to look worse in the course of another week. His figure of 200,000 laid off already I think is probably correctly amplified by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing in saying that there are many hundreds of thousands more workers already on short time who will in the course of the next week or so be laid off. This is really a very gloomy situation and I am afraid that it indicates that the Government's pay policy is in course of destruction. Their gallant fight against inflation, which, I must say, had my full support, is being destroyed; and before 12 months are past I think that we shall be in double figures again and I think that we shall be hit hard, too, in

1663
terms of unemployment. Indeed, I would say that before 12 months are out everybody in the country will be worse off, including those who have big pay rises now.
I regard it as a very sombre situation and it indicates that the policies of noble Lords opposite which set out with such confidence that they would be able to win industrial peace, that they would be able to win co-operation, that they would be able to win improved production by co-operation with the trade unions, have proved in the event to have failed. So we face this desperate situation today when the people of the country are looking to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and his right honourable friends in another place to take action that will protect them in their daily lives and work against what is happening to them now, and which, above all, will save us from such suicidal things happening again in the future.
Before suggesting one or two thoughts that I have of how this situation might be dealt with, I should like to say firmly what I am sure we all believe: that the solution will have to be found in terms of co-operation between the Government, the trade unions and the employers. It must be so. The trade unions, of course, have a major part to play. However unhappy they may look as public figures today, they have a major part to play in the future. I should like in a few words to try to differentiate the constructive aspects of the trade union movement from the destructive aspects which are doing such immense damage today. I will record that for the past five years in my position as chairman of the National Water Council I was responsible, first of all, for setting up the new industrial relations structure for the water industry, bringing the three sectors of the industry together—the management of rivers, the supply of water and the sewage treatment—making it all into one structure and then operating it. It became my personal responsibility to conduct this industrial relations machinery, this joint consultative machinery, on the lines to which the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has been referring, and to carry out of course the annual wage and salary negotiations and all the other multitude
1664
of continuing business which is all part of the scene—indeed, the way of life. Nobody knows this better than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who is sitting opposite.
I must record that my experience has been perhaps a very fortunate one. It is true that the water industry has a good tradition—not all that good perhaps in the sewage treatment side of it; but, nevertheless, we were able to construct with the three major unions concerned a relationship of mutual confidence so that we were able to settle our differences. We were able to negotiate our wages with the manual workers and our salaries with the salaried staff annually within the Government's guidelines. We had our differences, but because we had built up a relationship of mutual trust between us they knew that I would do the best for them and I knew they would do the best they could for me, and they did.
We were lucky because when we had local troubles, as everybody has in different parts of the country, the bulk of our workforce were men and women who had a tradition of serving the public. They kept steadily at work and it was relatively easy therefore to isolate militants when trouble broke out. I should certainly record that last year when I had quite a bit of trouble on my hands again in the North-West—where one usually does have trouble—the union leaders were most courageous in going down and meeting the locals who were on unofficial strike and doing their level best to get them back. We did get them back in the end and were able to get our wage settlement through.
It left a situation behind where our manual workers were some £5 a week below the electricity and gas workers who traditionally, as they often work in the same trench, naturally have to be paid the same wage. I recorded before I retired from my post that this was something which would have to be put right this year. It has been put right. The noble Lord the Leader of the House recalled that a settlement was made last week. But in making the extra supplement—and I would add this to what the noble Lord told the House—over and above the 5 per cent. the greater part of it, three-quarters of the extra 8 per cent. or 9 per cent., was covered by the gain that

1665
had been derived from the national productivity scheme which I introduced during the years of my service. So in fact the actual cost to the public of that extra wage award which has been given will be quite small.
I record this because this is a typical picture of what is happening right across the board in the greater part of the industrial scene. We should keep this in mind in looking now at this very troubled scene that we have. As I say, it is typical to find local outbreaks of trouble where militants take action; and usually trade union officials are able to deal with them. What has happened in the past few years—and is especially happening now—is that the militants have won the day and the militants have shown again and again that violence pays. This is what I believe we are really up against; again and again over the past few years militant groups in trade unions have won the day in putting forward some excessive claims, and the trade union officials and leaders concerned have been obliged to go along with them. If they did not, they would find themselves in a position of opposing a wage or salary increase which would benefit all the members, so willy-nilly trade union officials have gone along with these particular people.
As the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said, undoubtedly some of these militants are linked with this very undesirable Socialist Workers' Group with international connections. They are not primarily involved with the interests of the industry concerned; they are there to make trouble, to coerce the Government of the day, to hijack the public in order to put pressure on the Government, in order to cause disruption. These really are the dangerous people whom we are up against.
It is quite clear to me that noble Lords opposite with their friends in the trade union movement are getting all the support that the leaders can give them. It is true that Mr. Moss Evans has gone along with his own union; but, broadly speaking, I am quite sure that the trade union leaders are doing the best that they can to help this Government, with whom they are in close relationship, and more than ever so with an impending General Election. It is quite clear not only to me but to noble Lords in this House—indeed, the whole country—that if this Govern-
1666
ment cannot succeed with this kind of policy, nobody can. Therefore noble Lords opposite, and indeed Parliament as a whole, and the whole country, must be saying: "What changes are needed in order to give effective government?"
Let me turn now to what I think has to be done. There has to be a change in the balance of power between Government, trade unions and employers. The three areas which have been discussed today are the ones which have to be looked at.
First of all is the area of the liability for breach of contract. In this area I feel that it is the civil liability with which I am principally concerned. Although I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I am not myself in favour of criminal liability. I think that this is exceedingly difficult to handle. But that there should be a change in the immunity from civil liability as it now stands, I am sure is right. Again, I recognise that there are great complexities here, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said in answering questions on the Statement.
The second area in which I am sure there should be a change in the law is that of the closed shop. All noble Lords on all sides of the House—indeed, everybody throughout the country—has been affronted by the intimidation which we know is going on because men are threatened with the loss of their union card and therefore their job. It is clear to me that there must be some flexibility in this area. The closed shop has to work; you have to have bargaining machinery in all factories and businesses so there must be union machinery there. I would think that a conscience clause is probably the kind of flexibility which is needed to give protection against intimidation of this kind.
The third area is that of picketing. There is nothing that I can add to the interesting and cogent discussions which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made on this subject. Regarding the reference of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing to the Grunwick affair, we really are entitled to ask the Government: You must have been thinking about it now for the past 18 months. Surely you have something to say on how you think the law should be improved in that respect.

1667
I would think—and I say this with all sincerity to noble Lords, especially those who have been associated with trade unions in the past—that although this is primarily concerned in the interests of the country as a whole, it is going to help the trade union leaders because that will enhance their authority. They would then have some sanction to put against the militants. They will be able to say: "We shall not be able to keep you as a member if you are going to lay us open to liabilities of that kind". But at the present time there seems to be nothing they can do to restrain them. They are obliged to go along even when they know that it is wrong.
I hope, best of all, that this Government will legislate; but perhaps that is too much to ask. But as a minimum I hope they will listen to the plea that has been put to them from several noble Lords that they should seriously consider, together with the leaders of our own Party and the Liberal Party, making a joint statement of how they believe this crisis in our national life should be tackled. It will then be up to the next Government after the General Election to take action along these lines and to carry it out. It is so necessary to get general support and unanimity on these complex matters which, if there are major Party differences on them, the general public cannot understand. This deprives legislation which could have the solution in it of all the force that it might have. I join in making that plea to noble Lords opposite. I hope that they will seriously consider it.
9 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, a sense of crisis soon passes in your Lordships' House. Within a couple of hours it is all over, and after six hours there are scarcely enough noble Lords left in the Chamber to man a secondary picket line outside a fish and chip shop in Battersea! It may be that in this House we ought to have that convenient practice which they have in the Senate of the United States, where you can put a speech on the record without making it. Mark you, it empties the Chamber considerably. When I was there a few months ago there was only one Senator on the Floor. He was speaking and the
1668
official reporter, who has a contraption slung round his neck, was walking up and down looking like a silent organ-grinder. But happily, as members of the public went into the gallery they were given a sheet to explain that if they did not see their Senator there they must not think he had gone home: he would undoubtedly be busy beavering away in one of the many committees throughout the Senate building for the glory of the United States. But we have nothing so convenient as that in your Lordships' House, although I sometimes wonder who we are speaking to and what for. However, we must not despair; something of what is said in your Lordships' House on an occasion like this does penetrate somewhere.
The common fault of memories is that they are usually too short; but a greater fault, I think, is that memories can be too long. My memory is even longer than that of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown; but I am not hag-ridden by it and I do not let it become a kind of nostalgia for the great men controlling the great events of the past—because they were not, and they did not. The General Strike was a miserable affair: I was there. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was too young to be there. The great men of the day were facing the biggest crisis in the trade union movement. They were going to and from No. 10, Downing Street, and mostly being insulted, while the rest of us were singing hymns of praise in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street—mostly "Abide With Me ", because we knew the words and the tune! But within nine days the whole thing was over. The mine-workers were left to go it alone and after a miserable six months they went down to defeat.
The great trade union leaders of the past would not recognise the trade union movement and its shop-floor power today. They lived in an age when workers were dependent upon their union. It was their protective shield, as far as they could get one. They needed the strike pay; they needed collective action to defend small and weak groups of workers; and therefore the discipline of unions was inherent in the movement. It was voluntarily observed; loyalty was given.
Today, however, the position is very different indeed. As I said a week ago, much activity takes place within the nominal framework of the union but the

1669
power belongs to the workers, who do not need the machinery of the unions so much as their own disciplines and rules. All this sepulchral stuff about sinister forces at work in the present strikes is really rather "old hat", and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Plant had something to say on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, just now gave a striking example of the kind of thing which is causing so much upset among the rank and file of today.
My Lords, do we not remember the rash of unofficial strikes in the early part of the Labour Government in 1964? Do we not remember the setting up of the Donovan Commission to have a look at the whole structure and activities of the trade unions, with a view to getting some order and to analysing the problems? Do we not remember, too, the seamen's strike, when we heard from the then Prime Minister that it was being run by a small and closely-knit group of "politically motivated men"? Do we not remember In Place of Strife and the 1971 Industrial Relations Act?
No, my Lords, the present situation is probably no better but certainly no worse than those times. On previous occasions when this kind of unrest has arisen, it has mainly sprung from a very keen sense of dissatisfaction and is not inspired by political motives. That is my general judgment. But in this debate so little has been said about the merits of the wage demands now at the centre of the piece. Hardly a word has been said about the deep sense of grievance caused by the erosion of differentials—how little we have heard about differentials today, and the comparabilities which are so sensitive. I remember the General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen saying he had something like 39 differentials in the pay structure of the members of his union, and woe betide anyone who tried to interfere with any of them! These things, I am afraid, are the stuff of trade union prestige, dignity and identification. I think it is too early to hold an inquest on current events, because I believe we are only at the beginning of the trouble. I think we might have a miserable way to go yet.
The debate has been mostly about the conduct of the strike, and not so much about its substance and its potential
1670
problems for the economy and industrial peace. I shall not dwell on picketing; there are plenty of other noble Lords who are better able to discuss it than I am. Obviously civil liberty is involved in picketing. Our civil rights are there, as well as in the closed shop and so on. But it is not the main issue, and it would be a mistake for us to go rushing in with proposals to change the law at this stage.
Remember, my Lords, that after the General Strike of 1926 punitive legislation was quickly introduced by the then Conservative Government, which shackled the public service trade unions from 1927 to 1946, forbade them to join up with other trade unions and kept them out of any political or other industrial affiliations. That was the punishment for being involved, only indirectly, in the General Strike of 1926. The idea was to keep the public service apart, so that its loyalty should not be contaminated by association with other workers. One can make mistakes by rushing into legislation to remedy a situation which is charged with emotion, but which is not so easily solved when it comes to changing the law.
I want to deal for a few moments with the strike, because when everything else is put aside we are left with the strike itself, and even if all picketing, secondary and primary, finished tomorrow we should still be faced with a stubborn strike. A Minister said that we may have lost a battle but we have not lost a war, but what is going on now may be the decisive battle of the war. Even if the strike itself was settled tomorrow—and could we possibly hope for that?—and the workers went back, they would pick up a 15 per cent. pay rise immediately. Yet if this strike was settled at three times the Government's guidelines, what a wave of relief would go through the land, because the manifestations of industrial strife would be ended; but the economic consequences would remain. But we are not there yet. The end of this strike is not yet in sight. Are we on the way to winning the war, if a settlement cannot be reached with the current strike, even at 15 per cent?
Let us take a more optimistic assumption. Let us suppose that in the pay rounds to come, which are now imminent, the average pay increase was only 10 per cent., or twice the norm,

1671
would that put us on the way to winning the war? It may be—and this may disturb some noble Lords, especially those on the Government Front Bench—that we should redefine our war aims or, at least, say in more specific terms what they are. I assume that we are not after unconditional surrender anywhere, and I hope that other powers in the land are not after the unconditional surrender of the Government either. There must, however, be an objective. What is it?
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said that, when we have said everything about the unions and about their practices during the strike—when that is all over—they will still be there. We shall need them, and we shall have to sit down with them and that is the only way by which peace will come. So should we now look at how peace might be brought about? We need a peace treaty, or at least a truce, or are we just going to wait for the miserable weary end to endurance and attrition?
Let us face it, my Lords. The 5 per cent. guidelines have been trodden underfoot. No trade union leader could or dare attempt to settle at 5 per cent. from now on, because he knows that the settlements that matter so far are far and away above that limit. The trouble—it has been said more than once, and I have said it—is how little authority exists anywhere to settle anything at the present time. If 5 per cent. can no longer be held, should we not be taking up a new position? I suppose that it might be called a strategic withdrawal, but if it is taken in time it might spare the country a bitter descent into chaos. There must surely be a lesser evil than the harmful prospect of months of disruption by industrial indiscipline and discontent.
The first condition of the strategy is the recovery of authority which has been lost by those bodies democratically entrusted with it. Authority must be recovered by the union executives, the TUC, the CBI, the Government and Parliament itself. But authority cannot be recovered without acceptance of authority by those in a democracy who are in a position to yield it. If authority is withheld by the mass of the people, then no Government can continue to govern. In the last analysis, either it is revolution or it is acceptance
1672
by a democracy, under the influence of public opinion, of the authority of those who are democratically elected to have it.
If the Government are to meet the TUC next week, that is the time to begin. I think that the aim must be to find the basis upon which we can stop the disastrous slide into industrial and political chaos. To reach a compact which will hold is the problem. What compact will stick in present circumstances? It clearly has to be realistic. It has to be an indication of fairness and of the reasonable satisfaction of grievances.
There are two major matters to settle. First, what is to be the new guideline which will stick, which can be held? Secondly, what plans shall be followed for closing the gaps where comparabilities have been broken down, especially, of course, in the public services? And the second matters just as much as the first.
Noble Lords should not underestimate the will and the capacity of the public services to indulge in a degree of industrial action that this country has never seen before. Last Monday was surely a striking example. The biggest strike in British history was held last Monday. They were all public servants. This House was not sitting on Monday, and I watched them from my flat in Marsham Court being shepherded by the police from the coach parks at Vauxhall. On this bitterly cold day they were being shephered along the pavement to Central Hall and to the Palace of Westminster. There were thousands of them. There was not a word, not a shout, not a slogan. There was no disorder. They were shuffling along, as ordinary a body of men and women as anybody could meet in a week. What inspired them, what brought them there in the discomfort of the weather on Monday—men and women, old and young—in an orderly fashion? It was really like a silent protest, a silent vote of censure upon Parliament, upon the community. "We can't get our message across", they were saying, "except in this way".
The catching-up process is the most grievous part of the whole exercise—I have had such bitter experience of it—where ground has been lost and an attempt has to be made to close the gap, either in one leap or in a succession of

1673
steps or stages. I see that staged increases similar to those given to the Army and to the police are described in a magazine which I received from Phillips and Drew, the stockbrokers, as forward sterling. They are promissory notes, payable in cash on the due dates as a charge on the production and resources current at the time. This, as I said, is the police kind of settlement. The other is the one with which I was closely concerned—the teacher type of settlement where it took 32 per cent., adding well over £300 million a year to the education bill, to close the gap. It is a question either of that experience all over again or of staged increases.
I must say that I got a bit of a shock when I saw a headline in a teachers' magazine which read, "Houghton must be restored". This I thought was a welcome suggestion! However, another headline, not quite so happy, read, "Houghton must be nailed to the negotiating table". That, I thought, was a rather painful fate for one who did the teachers so much good. There is the choice, and there can be no dodging either the one remedy or the other.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, pointed out a few moments ago, these comparative grievances are the most acute of all. It is astonishing how deep feelings run about disparities of that kind. This is not defeatism, my Lords. I do not regard it as such, but I say quite candidly that the prospective vision of our Prime Minister in what Mr. Merlyn Rees might describe as "a boy on the burning deck situation" is not one which I like to contemplate. I think he has to set about a salvage operation vigorously and urgently. The authority of Government and Parliament must be reasserted and every support given to the union leadership to do the same; otherwise we are all in a vacuum at the mercy of the forces of anarchy and disruption. The Prime Minister must not say to the rank and file, "It is up to you". It is not up to them; it should not be up to them. I do not believe in rank-and-file leadership—never have. I have never allowed it to happen where I have been, and when the present Prime Minister was my assistant secretary in the 1930s he had a good working model of firm leadership to look at, but modesty forbids me to say a single word more!
9.21 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, with all the excellent contributions we have heard in this debate, I shall try to be brief, particularly as I do not want to be greedy as I had a good opportunity last week. I should like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on a marvellous initial effort. I hope we shall hear him a great deal more.
I think everybody wants to do something to change the situation that has allowed the kind of crisis to develop which we now have. I am not going to deal with the immediate short-term crisis as that has been adequately dealt with by more distinguished speakers than myself, but I should like to make a few points on which are the correct lines for us to follow in order to try to get to a situation where these appalling problems do not occur.
It seems to me that the solutions suggested, both today and previously, really come under two main headings and two subsidiary ones. There are those who still feel that, in addition to an adequate control of the money supply, one must have an incomes policy of a kind and who feel that perhaps our incomes policies in the past have not been in the right form and that a flexible one has to be developed. I am not with that school, but at least I feel that it is an area which we shall have to talk through much further.
The second main area which has received a great deal more support today, and progressively over the year, is the area of reform, either through the law, codes or rules, with two objectives: to balance the bargaining position to a greater extent and to strengthen responsible trade union leadership.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, today highlighted a third heading, and he has mentioned it previously; namely, would we really look at arbitration a little more seriously? I entirely support what he said; that is, that arbitration in this country has a very poor reputation because we have only ever used it by throwing some vacillator into the middle of a dispute at the last minute to try to halve or three-quarter the problem. A permanent arbitration system, such as has been worked in Australia, has not been a panacea more than any other cure for these problems,

1675
but in the view of the Australians it has achieved a great deal, and I think that should be looked at.
The final heading which everyone has mentioned on which there is common agreement is, of course, more communication and participation, starting at floor level and building up. So that is not contentious. Of the two main areas—and perhaps with arbitration still in mind—I believe that reform must be regarded as the first necessity. Even those who believe that after reform an incomes policy would still be necessary in some form, or even, if arbitration is to work, at the end of a disputes procedure in order to hold very high pay demands, must agree that those things will only work if reform has taken place so that authority is not flouted; because the incomes policy—let us face it—has now all but broken down and is flouted, and I feel that arbitration would receive the same fate. So I believe that the reform—the law, the code, the rules—is the key. I also believe that the pay policy lasting over the bulk of 12 years, as it has done, has done immense harm, and particularly to differentials, which the noble Lord, Lord Plant, mentioned. The quid pro quos for trying to keep the incomes policy going have also done much harm, including price control, and that strengthens my view that we really must concentrate on the reform of the basic background areas.
I was deeply moved, as many other speakers have said, by the appeal of the most reverend Primate, I would just say that I hope that his appeal will help to improve human nature, but I feel that man will retain his acquisitive nature in the main, and to a degree, of course, we need it; we need it to make incentive schemes work in the factory, and we need it to make businessmen create new wealth. He mentioned, however, the power combined with the acquisitive nature, but in all humility I would say to him that it seems to me that it is the power side of the equation that we have to look at. There is a danger in a crisis situation of looking at the particular topic of that crisis too large and many other problems that have troubled us in recent years too little; as my noble Leader, Lord Carrington, said, when the particular crisis is over, and the particular strikes now on will be
1676
over, because there are economic limits to them, there is danger that the wide-ranging sets of basic problems will not be dealt with sufficiently thoroughly or comprehensively.
I have said in this House before that we have a whole range of completely unique situations in relation to trade unions and collective bargaining. Pickets have been more than adequately discussed today, and that is very closely allied to sympathetic strikes, which are totally illegal in some other countries. The haulage dispute has highlighted them. The rigid closed shop has been mentioned today and has caused problems in the railways before. Our multi-union problem is undoubtedly clearly causing a particular rail problem at the moment, but will cause others again.
It is interesting that we always have our strikes and our main problems at this time of year. That is partly due to the cycle of the bargaining system, but it is also due to the fact that tax rebates between October and the end of the financial year are a more important factor than supplementary benefits, which are often mentioned in this connection. There is the question of key industries, which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, touched on just now when referring to the 1927 Act, which he did not like. But, I like the idea of seeing whether we can outmode the strike weapon in industries of national importance, as has been suggested by the Leader of my Party.
I have left until last, because I want to spend what remaining time I have on it, the dependability of agreements and constitutional behaviour. I have left that matter until last because I believe that it has the biggest single effect on the efficiency of British industry and is the reason why its productivity is so much lower even in multinational companies with the same management standards and the same equipment they have abroad.
The particular aspect of that problem, which is unique to Britain, is the unofficial problem, the unconstitutional problem. It is becoming worse year by year. If there were no law against robbery I hope that we would not all become thieves, but robbery would spread year by year. It seems to me that we have in this country

1677
a very strong collective bargaining situation, but we are very weak in the delivery of those bargains. We always hear that there is little that can be done, certainly by law, and even by codes or changes in rules, to make agreements stick—indeed, to cure the problem of unenforceability.
We are often told as regards the law that people will pay no attention, that the law will exacerbate the situation, that this area is too sensitive for the law, and finally that it has been tried before. I shall return to those headings in a moment, but at this stage I should like to say that if the law were of no account then the importance that has been attached to it by trade union leaders over the years in pressing for the immunities which they have and in pressing for the repeal of what very few packages we have had in this country, seems to me to underline the fact that the law is not unimportant when viewed the other way round.
I think that the very thorough Royal Commission, the Donovan Commission, which provided so much information on this vexed subject—it must be remembered that it was a good few years ago—may have underestimated the degree of connection between the official and the unofficial British problem. Was that Commission right to separate official from unofficial action as completely as it did? My view, which is not quite the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is that we have a sprinkling of militants—not Reds under the bed—at all levels.
For a long time the easiest and quickest way to achieve more money or any other union objective in the British scene has been through repeated instant floor-level strikes or more particularly strike threats. Those tactics seem to have been tolerated, even encouraged, or at least not found unwelcome by some union leadership. They have very seldom been condemned by union leadership, certainly not in the first week or two, and if they look as though they are being successful—as in the road haulage dispute—they are declared official.
Almost never has a union threatened to use many, or all the powers in its rule book, which include fining and ultimately the removal of the membership card.
1678
They have not used those threats in order to secure compliance with an agreement or with an agreed disputes procedure—for instance, the Ford dispute and the bakery disputes. Yet, there have been cases, well before the present crisis, when rule books have been used to the full—and many others when they have been threatened—when a union wishes to get unanimous support for a strike, even a political one.
Last week, in the other place when the Prime Minister repeated and endorsed Mr. Evans' assurance that no union action would be taken against workers complying with the code of practice and crossing secondary picket lines, in my view he inadvertently confirmed the power that the rule books contain to secure compliance of members when the unions want it. Is not the trouble that they do not use their rule books when they should?
The practice of the strike threat at shop-floor level has been specifically encouraged. The handbook of the Transport and General Workers' Union for shop stewards in 1972—and I have not looked at it since—says:
"As a shop steward you represent on behalf of the union its members in the workplace. You are responsible for ensuring that wages and working conditions are a credit to the union".
Also at that time the record or magazine of the union contained an article which said:
"Wage increases worth hundreds of millions of pounds have been won by the T … GWU in the last year and the key to this success has been the fact that the union has involved shop stewards and members in taking decisions on agreements".
To me that indicates that it is not all a question of trouble on the shop-floor which cannot be controlled, nor even of weak leadership. I believe that it has been the easiest way in which to achieve aims in this country, with our totally lawless and nearly ruleless situation. I believe that if we can achieve a situation where a union's own rule books are used to ensure constitutional behaviour—the procedure agreement—and the fulfilment of normal yearly or, as they are in America, sometimes three-yearly agreements, we shall see productivity in this country increase by leaps and bounds to the benefit of all, including those trade union members.

1679
I should like to return for a moment to the objections to using the law, which could help to bring about a situation of a requirement to use the rule book in this way. The arguments that people would pay no attention or that it would exacerbate the situation in my view are not valid, or would not be after a time. It may take time to get it accepted, but abroad trade union leaders are, almost tacitly, expected to ensure that agreements which they have signed are carried out, and they do not have unofficial strikes.
If union leaders are obliged to do these things, it will strengthen their position. If it is known that they are obliged to and is expected, it will become accepted fairly quickly. The argument that the area is too sensitive for the law does not stand up when we have laws on subjects like abortion, when we tackle employment protection with complicated laws, and when we want laws on participation and other equally sensitive areas. The argument that it has been tried before is only partially correct. Since 1927 in this country only two packages have been mooted, and that is much less than in most of our competitor countries. One was never tried and the other was tried with a big division—and not the kind of consensus about which we have been talking today—in the establishment of the country over it, at a time of poor monetary control and great trouble with the incomes policy. I do not think we are unique in the world, and I believe that we cannot be the only people who are right. It would be very much easier to tackle the situation if we could get a consensus. Let us hope that we can. It will depend, in my view, on whether the Party opposite is able to reconcile its particular ties with the trade union movement as to whether we can get political consensus or must wait for national consensus without all Parties being involved. I hope that the former is possible.
The fact that the present Government find it necessary still to follow a policy of appeasement in this situation worries me a great deal. The Prices Bill, and the plan to alter the guidelines for the low paid, are, in this sense, measures of appeasement. They have been dealt with before. If I can end on a very much lighter note, I could not help, as I read the Prices Bill
1680
last night, thinking of Alice in Wonderland: thinking, as I did, of the profits of industry at 4 per cent. in real terms as a return on capital; with the cost of money at treble that; with the current rate of inflation at twice that and going up. With that level of profitability I had to think of Alice in Wonderland and I opened it at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. The first thing I saw was that delightful little rhyme:
"Twinkle, twinkle, little bat!
How I wonder what you're at!
Up above the world you fly!
Like a tea tray in the sky".
Then, with apologies to Lewis Carroll, may I transpose as follows:
"Said Alice to the Mad Hatter, 'They've got no money to invest'. 'Then leave them even less' said he.
Alice, perplexed, changing the subject. 'You said just now that flexibility for differentials was important. Now you say more for the low paid. Which do you want?' 'It depends who you are talking to, silly girl, said the March Hare! 'Amen', said the dormouse".
9.42 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, having had the privilege of sponsoring the noble Lord, Lord Smith, of Marlow, when he came to your Lordships' House, I should like, if I may, first of all to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I know that some people often say, "Well, you are much too polite in your Lordships' House". But I should like to assure Lord Smith that it sounds a bit rude but I am not being polite and I am not being merely courteous. I thought it was a first-rate speech. Your Lordships may not know, but one of the pursuits that Lord Smith is particularly interested in is music, and while obviously the remark I am going to make may come from a type of music to which he is not particularly addicted, I thought it was a very perfect model of a model maiden speech. I say that because it was short and it was obviously spoken with great knowledge. Fortunately for Lord Smith, and unfortunately for the country, it was a very topical speech at a topical time, and I thought it brooked no alteration, and was completely unanswerable. We all hope very much that we shall hear a good deal of him in the future. I really congratulate him with all my heart and not out of politeness.
Apart from this, I have got nothing of cheer to say. For a week I have been

1681
trying to make up my mind whether or not to take part in this debate. Really and truly, I was trying to decide whether or not I had anything which I thought it was worth while to contribute. Monday made the decision for me. By chance I happened to hear some elderly people on the radio. There were no sob stories, they were just words of despair and helplessness, and those words have been with me ever since. I might have seen something since which made me want to join in, but I could not forget them and I thought that everyone who has an opportunity, as we in this House have, should get up and say so and be counted for what they feel.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke, I noted down five points which gave me great courage because I thought, and hoped, that it would not harm him or me in that they were what I wanted to talk about. As for those five points, he said people should speak up from all Benches; that this type of action would continue in future, whatever Party was in power; he spoke of the authority of Government, which I noted as "Government/Parliament"; he spoke of the harnessing of public opinion; and he said he thought the crisis—and I believe there is a crisis today—meant that the public were prepared to accept what they would not have done in, say, 1973 or 1974. After that I listened, in company with your Lordships, to the speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I again drew courage from what he said.
Reference has been made to the terrible headline in the Daily Telegraph—it may have been in other newspapers—about the 68 cancer patients sent home, and I simply want to say that what is going on is sheer unadulterated wickedness, and there is no other word for it. I believe that nobody, however justified their grievance, has the right to inflict such suffering on others. I repeat, it is wicked and it can have no place in our society. Such behaviour, such callousness, would shame any country, and we have always regarded ourselves as being a civilised one.
I therefore felt that what I had to say, particularly what may be unpopular in part, is best said from these Benches, but I am drawing courage because I am obviously not alone in what I have to say.
1682
We may differ on small points, but while at the beginning I thought I would be getting into terrible trouble—and if that were to be the case, so be it—I now feel that that may not be the case.
I rise from a feeling of despair, despair of what has happened to our country and to so many people in it; despair at the number of people in our community who I believe feel as most of us do, and many speakers today have made that point. I will never believe that the ordinary decent people of this country condone what is going on. I am sure of that. Also despair because so many are afraid to speak out, and, most of all, from a realisation that those who do protest will get nowhere.
Tonight I do not want to single out any group or groups; unfortunately there are too many to make singling out of any value. We have a position today, as everyone realises, where various sections of the community say before any negotiations start, "Give us what we demand or we take industrial action". That is the starting point now. My believe is that although our present troubles may be bought off, they will recur time and again, whichever Party is in power, unless Parliament can deal with them once and for all.
I do not intend to talk about the weak, the low paid, the old, the sick or the defenceless, because quite simply they do not count. Nobody cares any more. That has been obvious for some time, and never more so than last week when, as has already been mentioned this evening, the spokesman for the ambulance service in London, speaking of the then pending 24-hour strike on Monday last said, "If it means lives lost, that is how it must be." I saw and heard him myself on television—and so it was not a case of "the wicked Press".
In addition to not talking about those affected, I do not propose to deal with whether or not claims are justified. We have got beyond that. Certainly the country cannot afford them, but we have got beyond that, too. I see it as the responsibility of Parliament to deal with this situation—and this applies in particular to those in another place, the elected representatives of the people. I believe that unless we can deal with the

1683
root of the problem, it will continue. I think that it will continue for two reasons. Strikes are successful—if you are strong enough and you do not care who gets hurt. Secondly, I believe that there are in this country people who are determined that our democracy as we know it shall not continue and that certainly our industry shall not succeed. That has been clear for a long time.
Last week, like many others, I spent considerable time in another place. We all know that it is only by being there that reactions and atmosphere can be seen and felt. The Prime Minister spoke of the
"indefensible hardship [that] can be imposed on innocent people and on people who are not connected with the dispute".
He then went on to say, as reported at column 1547 of the Official Report:
"I begin by asserting two fundamental principles of our society. First, we cannot deny the right of men and women to withdraw their labour and still call ourselves a free society. That to me is fundamental. The second principle that I assert is that the community has an overriding right against all sectional interests. These principles must be reconciled. This is the difficulty of a modern society".
Remarks have been made about the Prime Minister tonight. I do not believe that anybody could doubt his determination to stand against inflation, and I believe that most ordinary people in the country feel that way. I believe they feel that if he gives way then indeed we shall be back to the inflation which ruins everyone of us, and of course the country. But when he spoke of the overriding right of the community against sectional interests I looked at the Left-Wing Benches on the Government side. They did not approve—and I shall leave it at that. Expressions speak much more loudly than any words. I am sure that the Prime Minister realises this position as well as anyone. He has plenty of experience of it. He meets it almost every week in the National Executive Committee or elsewhere. But it is hardly a contribution to the struggle that he is putting up.
So what is the solution? Is there one? I return to what many noble Lords have said. Parliament is supposed to be sovereign. At the moment it is far from that. Every Member of both Houses must surely accept that, and I believe that the public has a right to demand that sovereignty.
1684
We cannot go on like this, however unfair pay rates may be. We in this House are quite clear, and I think the country is quite clear, but it does not know quite what to do about it. The Motion which we are debating speaks of the present industrial situation. We shall never get anywhere on productivity or investment until we come to our senses. One does not need to be a captain of industry to realise that fact. I believe that to be sovereign Parliament as a whole should say that it is not prepared to go on like this. People do not want to know who is to blame; which Party said this or that; or which Party wants confrontation. They are sick and tired of this bickering on television, and I do not blame them. There is little respect for Parliament today, and I think that must sadden all of us.
My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition offered support to the Government last week, and she has done so again since. The conditions she offered, then and now, may not have been acceptable, but Mrs. Thatcher did make an offer. I would suggest—I nearly said "with great respect", but I do not see why I should say "with great respect" because it is not what I feel—on behalf of the general public that the offer should be considered. Before any words of wrath descend on my head—and they do not seem likely at the moment, unless my noble friend who is to wind up feels he has to admonish me—I want to say, and I want to make it quite clear, that I am not talking of a coalition, I am not talking of a National Government; but I do ask the Government, the Opposition, the Liberal Party and all others to join with the Prime Minister for a period of emergency. I am sure that ordinary people everywhere want this, and I wonder when the politicians are going to realise it.
I think time is too short to wait for the General Election. I do not think we can wait like this. And whenever the General Election comes, and whoever wins it, this industrial action will continue. Do not let us deceive ourselves of that; I do not care who is in power. The losers will be those least able to fight—the sick, the poor, the old, the unemployed and, of course, the country. Is that what we want? Are we prepared to acquiesce in such a prospect? Is that the best that we in Parliament can do?

1685
My Lords, I do not sit on the Front Bench and I am much more simple on the Back Benches, but I want to say this: Is this honestly the time to boggle at conditions for coming together? The country, I think, has a right to expect something better. Could we not try to sink our differences for this period of emergency for the wellbeing of all our citizens and for the future of democratic government in this country as we understand and believe in it? We can do this in wartime—and the country is at war today; make no mistake about that at all. Two or three years ago I spoke in this House about the battle for men's minds. I think that battle is still there to be won, and I believe that we can win that battle if we go forward together.
9.58 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I am an admirer, though sometimes a somewhat reluctant one, of the vitality and persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Last night, at about this time, she was castigating her colleague on the Front Bench, Lady Stedman, for the inadequacy of passenger facilities at Gatwick. Tonight she has made another most telling speech; and although, last night, my sympathies were somewhat with Lady Stedman, tonight I found much in the speech of the noble Baroness with which I thoroughly agreed.
This House of Parliament in times of economic crisis or public disorder has the role, so it seems to me, of a chorus in a Greek play. We may explain and comment, but we have not the power to control the evolution of events or determine the attitudes of the principal actors. We sometimes tend to believe, I think, that what we say in this House can inflame passions or embarrass those who carry direct responsibility for national policy. I very much doubt whether that is ever the case. Our duty, as I see it, is set out in the time-honoured words of our Writs of Summons:
"To give counsel, considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending, for the honour, safety and defence of the Kingdom".
Like my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, this is the first time since as a child in 1926 I felt real apprehension
1686
about the breakdown of ordered, good-humoured, moderate-minded life in this country. I have always believed that ordinary people in Britain—sensible, humane, patriotic—had established institutions of government and control which represented their national qualities: institutions from parish councils to Parliament and the great professional bodies, the great trade unions, the centres of higher education, the industrial organisations in the private and public sector, institutions well-attuned and developed to meet national needs.
I believe that England must be "one nation". It was the late Iain Macleod who gave the group of young Conservative Members in the early '50s that name. It represented exactly the country and the ideal that we sought to serve; and the phrase has now become part of the common currency of contemporary politics. It seems to me that today we are almost as far from it as ever we were. Today, I see in this country the breaking down of established systems of human relationships which are the essential levers of control in an industrialised society. It is not, for instance, the power of the official trade union movement that causes me anxiety; it is the lack of authority and the ineffectiveness of its leaders—not least the collective weakness of the TUC—which pose to me the greatest dangers. Power now rests, as so many noble Lords have said earlier, with the faceless men who have no responsibility—the so-called militants. Strike action is aimed no longer to put short-term pressure on the employers but at the most vulnerable sections of the public, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said. She quoted that statement by Mr. Dunn: "If the strike means that lives are lost, so be it!" He could have gone further and said: "The more the merrier!" because it might well follow that the public might be counted to bring pressure on the authorities to give way to strikers' demands in the event of people dying from lack of medical attention.
The losses caused by the modern strike weapon are not felt principally by the pockets of the employers but by those of their fellow workers in other industries who are put on short time or who lose their jobs. The hardships involved are not affecting so much the well to do as

1687
the old age pensioners and all who possess no reserves to tide them over periods of scarcity and disruption. It is evidence of the powerlessness of the trade union leadership that Mr. Moss Evans had to make the lorry drivers' strike official in order to regain initiative from the unofficial militants who were in control. Even more convincing to those of us who have been steeped in politics for many years is the fact that in Election year, the trade union wing of the Labour movement—for that is what it is—has allowed a situation to arise which will almost inevitably entail the defeat of the political wing at the next Election. That is really what Mr. Len Murray said in the statement that he made yesterday.
If the purpose of withdrawing labour has become corrupted and the authority of the official trade union leadership dangerously diminished, industrial action has become increasingly designed to coerce the Government of the day and, again, as so many of your Lordships have said, substituted narrow sectional interests for the national interest.
I remember the late Lord Mitchison saying to me after a very short time as a Minister that Britain had become ungovernable. But no country can continue to exist in prosperity and stability unless the people accept government and unless the Government is allowed to exercise authority over them. I have no doubt that the root cause of this is the impact of inflation on the standards of living and contemporary expectations. When inflation exceeds 10 per cent. it has, I think, been generally true that social disruption has followed. The gravity of the situation is compounded by the fact that for several reasons Parliament itself has lost authority. I am always amazed by the fact—and here again I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry—that those who today sit in another place seem unaware of the danger which they face collectively of losing control to an even greater extent than has already happened. When a senior Minister talks about having to rely upon democratic persuasion, it is a sign that the Government recognise that they have ceased to have the authority to pursue policies which are in their collective judgment essential to the wellbeing of the nation as a whole.
1688
Following the line taken earlier in this debate by the most reverend Primate, I believe we have a situation in which the key centres of authority in our political life in this country have lost the power to act effectively in the national interest and when sectional interests have learned to employ the industrial weapon of the strike not only to coerce the Government but to intimidate and victimise the most vulnerable sections of the community and, in addition, to victimise their fellow workers by means of creating hardship of both a financial and physical kind. In some respects—and here I agree with the noble Baroness—this is the equivalent of an industrial civil war.
When we have experienced periods of unrest before—and there have been many such occasions during these past 20 years or so—somehow it seemed to me that the memories of the harsh days in the winter months have tended to dissipate with the ensuing spring and holiday season. It will not, I think, happen this time. There is a deep and widespread feeling of anger nationally and a sense of injustice at what is happening. That bodes ill for the Labour movement as a whole and for the trade unions in particular. I prophesy that sooner or later there will be trouble.
When any institution like the trade unions in this country is obviously in need of regulation and reform, and this principle has been applied to financial institutions, the professions, the City and the rest of it, it has been our practice—and I think it a good one—to give it a chance of putting its own house in order by self-examination and regulation, and to support its conclusion where may be necessary by legislation through Parliament. I personally believe that a strong, responsible trade union organisation is essential in any industrialised country, particularly in Britain. It was, after all, I would remind your Lordships, British trade unionists who after the war gave an effective trade union movement to defeated Germany. Surely, if we can do that for the Germans, we can do that for ourselves.
I said earlier on that I was concerned with the decline of the authority of Parliament, and, as other noble Lords have said during this debate, this has been

1689
partly due to what I regard as the misuse of the Party system. I think that the experience of In Place of Strife and the Heath débâcle of 1974 show that the reform of the British trade union movement must be a Parliamentary and not a Party operation. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in his interesting speech, made the same point. Although I have often spoken in your Lordships' House in favour of a national Government, I accept that it is not possible at the present moment. But the fact of the matter is that there must be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, said, co-operation between the Parties because all Parties have something to gain, and something to lose by lack of co-operating in this field.
We shall have an Election in a matter of months or perhaps a matter of weeks. I suggest that before that date the three Parties agree that, whatever may be their differences and the form of their manifestoes, one item is included in it. That is that, whether there is a Tory or Labour Government in power after the Election, the new Government will give to the trade union movement the opportunity of considering its existing organisation with the view to reform and regulation, and this review must be completed by the beginning of the Session of 1980–81. Thus any necessary legislation should be put on the Statute Book by the end of that Session. In the event of failure to accept this challenge, or the inadequacy of the regulatory machinery proposed, then the Government of the day, of whatever Party or group of Parties it may be, will introduce its own code of regulation in the national interest.
I feel that such a process would be regarded by public opinion in Britain as being fair. I believe it would greatly enhance the authority of Parliament as a whole. I believe it would impose on the leadership of the trade union movement a responsibility which they should be able to exercise in return for the undoubted privileges they enjoy. It would, I hope, give back control to the leadership of the unions, where it rightly belongs, and I hope it would start a new era of economic stability and sanity for a Britain which cannot afford, and will not put up with, the continued repetition of what is happening today.
10.11 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, rising at this time of night gives one the feeling of speaking in a secret conclave, a small group certain that it will not be reported, and certainly not in today's Hansard. I therefore whisper my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Smith on his excellent maiden speech. We hope to hear from him often in the future.
It seems to me that we need to look at the present unhappy position of our country in a very long-term perspective. It seems to me we need to ask ourselves: Where did we go wrong? And also to ask: Where, if at all, can we begin to put things right? I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the time is past when politics can be left to the Party professionals, to the people who enjoy the game, the scoring of points and the tactics. They, of course, have their place, but in really difficult times we have to get down to some fundamental issues, and I hope that in getting down to this position we shall pay due attention to the wise words spoken with great clarity and force by the most reverend Primate.
Perhaps a speech in this Chamber is hardly the place in which to get down to fundamentals, particularly at this time of night. I am also slightly terrified, when I rise in this House, that I might fall into the professorial deformation of lecturing your Lordships. When I was first asked to come to this House, my friend Tony Crosland, whom I questioned on this point said to me: "It will do them no harm to be lectured"—adding thoughtfully, "occasionally".
My Lords, this is not a lecture: it is a personal statement. I have tried to be honest with myself in preparing for this debate. I am conscious that I have very great friendship for many people whose ideas and beliefs I find I no longer share, not least a number—I am interested to discover a diminishing number—of people in this House. But in my case, at least, the old New England practice of the town meeting applies. You will recall that at those meetings people had to stand up in front of their fellows and be counted—a practice to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred a few moments ago. That is what I am doing, with some discomfort, now. The events of these past few months—probably these past

1691
few years—have led me to rethink my own position. In so doing, I have come to two sets of conclusions and neither set, I may say, is compatible with what I have hitherto believed. I no longer think that the social democratic position is a tenable one in this country. I have been a social democrat all my adult life. Why do I think that this position is no longer a tenable one? To explain that, I have to go back to first principles, and I apologise if I appear to be departing from the immediate problems of our country.
What, I ask myself, is this crisis? It is a crisis of authority; it is a crisis of responsibility. Obviously, those who are on strike, or who are threatening to use the strike weapon, have great power. Is this power used responsibly? Do the men and women concerned behave as they would if they were faced directly by an appeal to their emotions, to their sense of duty, to their sense of obligation, as we all do when we are called upon by our families, our friends and our neighbours? No, my Lords. I do not believe that that London ambulance leader who made that unfortunate statement on television is a human monster. I just do not believe it. But in startling contrast to their everyday human attitudes, when they get involved in these strikes and industrial disputes they seem to feel little sense of responsibility towards the community, which, after all, pays them for their services. This is the paradox. After all, these people are perfectly ordinary decent people, and I ask myself why it is that this sense of responsibility breaks down in these industrial disputes.
The answer, I suggest, is a breakdown of the idea of authority. I ask your Lordships to take the phrase: The unions have too much power. That is a statement that would command wide assent, even—perhaps particularly—among large sections of trade unionists. And how right was the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. The trade union leaders, so-called, have little or no power at all. They lead from behind. Their proposals, their ideas and their suggestions carry no weight at all with those whom they purport to lead. If the trade unions have too much power, it is certainly not wielded by those pompous and inadequate men who pontificate on the television night
1692
after night between high-level ministerial meetings. They utter threats. They are not obeyed and they have little power, because they carry no authority. The crisis then, in my view, is about authority.
People of my generation, and people of my intellectual background, have problems about authority. The very word is linked with authoritarianism, paternalism, hierarchy—all the things that we were taught to reject and rejected. I am now convinced that very little can be done in this country till authority is restored. Most immediately relevant, of course, is authority in the trade unions. Once a union executive is elected it must, in the general run of things, be accepted by its members. Union leaders must try to stop leading from behind. In order to help this, I am convinced, reluctantly, by the arguments that have been put forward in your Lordships' debate today and elsewhere throughout the land, that traditional attitudes towards trade unions need careful rethinking.
Since the 1870s, the trade unions have been given great legal immunity. Since 1940, they have indeed been incorporated in every way into the very framework of government. They are, of course, deeply embedded in a very great political Party. It is clear, however, to me, and it must be clear to many others, that their position in our country needs rethinking. If I tried to spell out now and in shorthand what it seems to me is necessary, I should indeed lay myself open to serious misrepresentation. Let me just say that, in my view, the steps that have to be taken are the steps to restore the authority of the trade union leaders within the trade unions, and that means that their authority must rest upon free, secret and fair elections—no more mass meetings. The rule of the mob is a very terrifying thing, as those of us who have experienced it know. Also, the unions must become accountable to the community for their actions.
These two simple statements, if fully followed through, would, I am convinced, go far towards alleviating our present discontent. We shall be told that steps cannot be taken; that nobody can touch the trade unions; that we should think of 1971 and 1974. I must say that that is not my view. Nor, if noble Lords really read it, was that the view of the Donovan

1693
Commission. What makes such a view uncomfortable is that it represents a major break with a powerful social domocratic tradition. The tradition in which I was brought up is that it is a bargain between trade union power and political action. That bargain has been broken. I say that with great regret, but I believe it to be true.
I said earlier in my speech that I had come to two sets of conclusions. I have stated the first: that trade unions have to rearrange their affairs or their affairs have to be rearranged for them. My second set of conclusions is that the sphere of public activity is far too big. The State machine is now literally irresponsible because it is so vast. It cannot be controlled, least of all by Parliament and by the Ministers who sit in Parliament. That much, I think, is widely accepted, not least by many members of the present Cabinet.
What follows inescapably, however, from the conclusion that the State machine is irresponsible is that the State itself carries an ever-diminishing authority. The whole strength of our civil Government has rested for centuries upon the acceptance of the authority of the civil power. We have seen that authority seriously challenged. We have seen the power to allocate food and fuel handed over to self-appointed groups of pickets, responsible to themselves alone. We have seen Ministers humbly supplicating trade union bosses for permission to carry on the Queen's Government. It is intensely humiliating for them. It is gravely dangerous for us. What is happening is the ending of civil authority, an ending of civil authority which may be seen in all sorts of ways.
This debate is on a Motion about the present industrial situation. I wonder whether your Lordships know what is Britain's fastest growing industry. Is it oil? Is it micro-processes? No, it is not. Britain's fastest growing industry is crime. Eight per cent. of boys aged 14 to 16 have been convicted of serious crime—theft, burglary, robbery and violence—compared with only 2 per cent. only a generation ago. I hope that I am making no trivial point, and I hope that I am not wandering far from the substance of your Lordships' debate if I find in this at least one index of a break-
1694
down of authority. It seems to me that when the State controls so much, many people seem to be saying, "To hell with everything". I am led inescapably to the conclusion that the time has come to roll back the carpet of State authority that lies across our community. These huge corporations have bred huge unions. Nobody is responsible to anybody any longer for anything.
Let me conclude by saying that the great Socialists whom I have had the privilege to know, and to know well, would have been horrified by what is now happening. I share fully the view of my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry that they would have been horrified by the breakdown of responsibility, the lack of respect for duly constituted, freely elected authority in the country and in the unions, and I think that they would have had the courage to reconsider their position and their actions.
In this crisis I therefore come to the view that we have to try to reverse two historical trends: a trend away from responsibility for our own actions, and a trend away from the willing acceptance of authority. Historical trends exist, of course, to be reversed. There is no time like the present for beginning to return to a responsible society. It will be uncomfortable, but we were not born into a comfortable age. I do not despair of such a change. Contrast, my Lords, the spirit of 1938 with the actions of 1940. We are seeing a change in public attitudes no less profound and perhaps no less important than the change at that time.
10.26 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FER-RARD: My Lords, to start with, I should like to apologise because, owing to the fact that I had to speak in Thanet earlier today and was caught up in a most appalling traffic block resulting from an accident, which delayed me for about an hour and a half, I was, much to my disadvantage, unable to hear the speeches of my noble Leader and the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down. I wholeheartedly agree with him, as I think the whole House will agree with him. The real problem today is one of authority. When it comes to secondary picketing, I have

1695
always regarded that as being illegal, but there appear to be different points of view on that. I do not think we can completely blame trade unions for secondary picketing because I think to a great extent it results from the attitude of lawlessness which is general in this country, particularly among young people, although certainly not all young people. In all types of society there appear today to be instances of irresponsibility.
I should like to say how much I enjoyed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, because he brought up the question of Communist cells in the unions. I have been speaking on that subject for 20 years or more because I have seen one or two at work. I was always laughed at and people thought that I was speaking through the top of my hat. My noble friend Lord Trenchard thinks there is only just a sprinkling, but there is definitely more than a sprinkling. How long are we going to endure seeing this country torn apart by militant minorities? I remember referring to something I said in this House a few years ago and which I shall now repeat. It is in Hansard. A friend of mine had an acquaintance who was going to import goods into this country from Czechoslovakia; he went out there in March and was told, "Don't import them in August because there is going to be a dock strike in London". To a great extent, that bears out what the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said today.
We have heard today that in the productivity table of the industrial nations of Europe we scrape in near the bottom and that we shall soon be on a par with the Portuguese. This is very sad because we have North Sea oil and I believe that in the last four years the Government have had £5,000 million from North Sea oil. What has happened to it? I thought it was meant to strengthen the economy but it must have gone in higher wages—unearned—which of course has meant greater personal consumption and thus more imports. So the benefit from North Sea oil appears to have been frittered away so far.
Of course, when we come to exports, we have heard about ICI. I think one noble Lord told us how they are losing £2 million a day. I went to the Boat
1696
Show, and I am told now that a lot of the yachts and boats there cannot be moved, boats which would have been very good for the export trade, and which were due in Dusseldorf. Now they cannot be moved and they cannot go to the Boat Show in Dusseldorf, so there are more exports lost. If you cannot please your buyers—if you cannot produce the goods for exhibition after three weeks they forget about you. I think this is very serious.
Of course, we are told by various bodies—not only by the Labour Government—that voluntary agreements and codes of practice are the way to deal with union power. Well, my Lords, we have been trying this for quite a long time. I quite agree it might succeed if the unions could control their own members, we were told by one noble Lord from the Front Bench opposite a few days ago that last year nearly 90 per cent. of strikes were unofficial. That is really a disgraceful state of affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, was saying it is a question of authority. The union executives cannot exert their powers; they cannot control their members. If they could, everything might probably be satisfactory.
I do not believe that it is impossible to bring the unions in this country within the law, because they are within the law in every other industrialised nation and it has not hurt the unions of those nations; it has helped them. I intervened on a Question last week pointing out that public utility employees on the Continent, in most democracies—I think, nearly all democracies—cannot come out on lightning strikes. They cannot say on Monday, "We are going to strike on Tuesday". But, of course, they can send their notice in under their service contracts. The gas workers, the water workers, the hospitals and so on cannot go out on strike like that. I do not really see that it would be a great hardship on the unions in this country to follow the custom adopted by Europe generally.
Luckily, we have not, so far as I am aware, had any particular violence with the picketing in these strikes, though we had that very unfortunate incident when a poor man was run over; but I do not think we have had any physical violence. Yet you do get victimisation in secret. I remember the strike of the footplate men on the railways in the days of Sir Anthony

1697
Eden. I think two, or it may have been three, drivers who disobeyed the union committed suicide, and quite a few had to emigrate. It is that victimisation that I think is so unpleasant, terrorising the families and children.
I understand that the situation is very difficult for the present Government or, indeed any Labour Government. I do not want to be rude, but it is very difficult to turn on one's paymasters. After all, the Labour Party receives the majority of its funds from the unions: it is the child of the unions. I think that ours is the only country in Europe where a political party is the complete child of the trade unions.
As regards public utility or local authority employees, I should like to see their wages index linked to rises in the cost of living in return for which they would not strike, but could send their notice in under the terms of their contract. I am told that in Liverpool at present 250 people are dying every day and there is no one to bury them. As regards the hospitals, we have heard today about the poor cancer patients who have been sent home. We cannot allow that to continue in a civilised country. The unions must adhere to their contracts. Let me take shipbuilding as an example, because I once had occasion to have a small interest in building a ship. The shipbuilder makes an agreement with the union and he then does his costing. The union is quite liable to break the agreement thus making his costing complete nonsense. One cannot do business like that, and therefore one has one's ship built abroad.
My Lords—I nearly said my God! I am glad that the most reverend Primate is not here—I have always spoken out against the closed shop. So far as I know it is contrary to the Atlantic Charter on Human Rights and, I think, the European Convention on Human Rights. Some Government must legislate about it. It has always been the case that everyone in this country—rich or poor—has always been equal before the law, but what worries me is that that is no longer so. Under the law the employer is now definitely at a great disadvantage as compared with the employee. The employee can walk out within an hour and the employer can do nothing about it. No decent employer would get rid of anyone in less than four
1698
weeks—certainly I would not do so—but even then the employer is guilty under the Employment Protection Act and must prove his innocence. That is a complete reversal of British law and it must be put right.
I see that I have spoken for 12 minutes, but it will take me only about three minutes to make some observations on a subject which I have raised previously. I think that during strikes the trade unions should look after their members. After all, they are one of the biggest operators on the Stock Exchange. My son is a stock broker and his firm has done a little business for the unions. They arc some of the biggest operators on the Stock Exchange: they are one of the biggest capitalist investment blocks. It is no good the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, laughing, because it is true. Therefore, I think that the unions should be responsible for looking after their members when there is a strike. How crazy our situation is! The Government, the State, has a nationalised industry; that industry goes on strike and Government, the State, pays them to be on strike. People on the Continent must think that we are mad. There are many issues involved, apart from the trade unions, regarding our economy, but I do not intend to go into them now because I have already spoken for 13 minutes.
I should like to make two points. The Government ought to call a state of emergency because it is extremely easy to frighten people with shells and bombs, but it is very difficult to frighten them economically—by the time they are frightened, economically it is often too late. Therefore, a state of emergency would show people the seriousness of the situation. If these strikes are to continue, the Government ought to set up a corps of volunteers. I am sure that they would get 200 or 300 thousand volunteers to drive lorries and trains. The Government should set up such a register. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who said that these strikes hit the poor people and the pensioners. They cause inconvenience, but they do not cause great hardship to the rich. We must try to guard against causing hardship to the ordinary people of this country. It is not their fault that these things happen; it is the fault of authority. That brings me to the end of

1699
my remarks. I hope that I have not spoken for too long, but I feel very strongly about this. I believe that a state of emergency would make people realise the seriousness of the situation.
10.43 p.m.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, I hesitated before putting down my name in this long debate, but, among other things, I felt so sad for this country that I decided to speak. What is happening to this island?—in living memory so great and still the best country to live in. Recently I was talking to a middle-aged taxi driver, who told me that his nine-year-old son asked why Britain was called "Great". He was trying to explain the British Empire when the boy said, "And have they thrown it all away?" I do not suppose that there are many families represented in this House who did not lose sons in the 1914–1918 war. Why did we fight it? For national survival, not for Socialist ideologies. The 1939–1945 war: more sons lost. Why did we fight it? For national survival, not for Socialist ideologies.
How did we win those wars? Not with Socialist ideologies, but with that Bulldog spirit and our country in danger. It is in danger now, and where is that Bulldog spirit? I believe that it is still there, if only it had had the right leadership. But ever since the war, through Socialist ideologies—not social justice because that is quite another thing and I think that we have social justice in this country, but Socialist idealogies—both from Socialist and Conservative Governments (you do not have to be a Socialist to be a socialist), we have indulged ourselves to a laughable degree. We have gone soft; we have behaved as if the world owed us a living. We have squandered our wealth and in every successive crisis we have given way and given in; but alas! always to the wrong elements which have crept into our society, and which are not in sympathy with our way of life, with the result that we are faced with social disruption. Between us, unless we can find a way to stop this social disruption tearing our country to pieces, there may well be precious little left of England as we know it and for which we have fought and won two world wars.
1700
So I say to the people of England, "Wake up. Band yourselves together. Don't any longer allow the disrupters of this country to pull the wool over your eyes—the disrupters, so determined to disrupt, and yet so angry when thwarted. The disrupters—our country cannot afford them any longer. So in the name of freedom fight back. Rout them. Show them who is master in the house, before we find ourselves pushed out through our own back-door, out into the cold and the snow outside".
My Lords, you may think I am a little over-imaginative. I hope you are right. But as a nation we are inclined to act like the ostrich bird—it cannot happen here. My Lords, it can and it might. The Times newspaper is shut down, but last Saturday the Daily Telegraph said this of your Lordships:
"Never, in the history of Parliament, have their counsels, their attitudes, their tones of voice, been so urgently needed".
Having read that, I felt like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton: I had to stand up and say what I had to say.
Before I sit down I want to quote from Lord Lovat's recent book entitled March Past. It reads:
"The future is best built on good things that have emerged from the past. In the 1970's we seem to have lost our way, but surely not the map as well"—
Lord Lovat, the great Commando leader. I have no means of knowing how good this Government are at map reading, nor even if they have lost the map. But if they have lost the way—and I repeat, if they have lost the way—and if they have lost control of the situation, then, in heaven's name, they had far better either call in those, or, failing that, give way to others, who have not.
10.47 p.m.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, five minutes ago I had to make my mind up whether or not to take part in this debate. I apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers, but I quote no better authority than the Companion to Standing Orders which says in fact that we should not have prepared speeches, and prepared speeches have a habit of ruining debates. I indicated to my Front Bench that I should like to make a contribution, but in view of the lateness of the hour I was

1701
still doubtful about speaking until the noble Lord who spoke last made his contribution, opening with an explanation of how we won the war, and said that we did not win it with any socialist ideology.
I am old enough to remember the last war, and I am old enough to remember the day when this nation faced up to the simple and inescapable fact that they had not faced up to until then, that we were fighting for our existence, just as I say the nation should face up now to the fact that we are fighting for our existence. Winston Churchill, by popular acclaim right throughout the nation, stirred the nation to take the necessary steps to win that war when everyone else had deserted this country.
I remember the headlines of one of our important Right-Wing journals which said, "Britain goes Socialist". It said it because that Government, consisting of all Parties, had decided to take control of the whole of the economy of this nation. In that sense the application of what the Daily Express termed "Socialist government" was needed to win this war, and it meant nothing more nor less than the fact that everybody with influence contributed to the national effort. That is what it meant in effect. It did not distinguish between trade unions and employers; between persons responsible for the investment of capital and persons responsible for the use of that capital. It did not distinguish between anybody. It abolished sectional interests.
I have been rather amazed, listening to the debate, to see the unity between both sides of the House on the question of what was the major problem today. It seemed to come over crystal clear that the major problem was not the unemployment of 1½ million—that was never mentioned, though we are talking about the industrial situation; and it was not the problem of certain regions of the country which are now, and have been, suffering unemployment beyond a tenable level for the last 15 years; that was never mentioned either. The major problem was the conduct of the strikers and how they were affecting the life of the nation. That was the major problem that linked both sides, and I heard my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich spend about 20 minutes on that; I know one should not use extravagant language like "union bashing"
1702
in this House, but to say he was critical of the trade union movement would be an understatement.
My noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry was emotional about the effect on some people and on the social life of the nation, and I sympathise with her; but surely she did not mean all the people who are on strike. Surely she did not mean all the people who marched in those demonstrations last Monday, because I do not believe that. There is a very small minority of people who will say things regardless of the damage they do to the community. They should be condemned, but we should not condemn all the people involved in the industrial troubles.
If we do that we understate the problem we face because the industrial situation will not be rectified very much when this strike is over, or when we have settled the public sector, or when we have settled all the wage claims that are coming in. Following this bout of inflationary activity we will be facing a situation of unemployment affecting getting on for 2 million people. One of the sections of this country that will be damaged by that increased unemployment will be that in which I have lived all my life, the Northwest; and let me give an illustration of what I am concerned about.
We heard the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—I regret that he is not in his place now—along with others make a genuine appeal that we should get together across the boundaries of Parties for the sake of the nation. I agree absolutely. When there was talk about the social and economic problems facing Merseyside I received a letter over the name of the Bishop of Liverpool. He urged me, after 25 years in local government fighting for Government investment in that city, to do what I could to ensure that investment took up the slack in that city and began to correct some of the social and economic problems there.
I replied to the Bishop of Liverpool suggesting it was not only the Government's responsibility to see that investment was steered into the places where it was needed, it was also the responsibility of those who had control of that investment; and I said that if he examined the Church of England he would see that it

1703
had an income of £43 million available for investment every year. I said that if the Church steered it away from the lucrative areas of Victorian London to Merseyside it might lose some money, but it would be making a tremendous contribution to the economic life of Merseyside. He agreed with the principle and undertook to take the matter up with the appropriate body inside the Church of England. That was 18 months ago and a reply has still not come. I do not believe the Church of England can divorce itself from being a section within our community.
My noble friend Lord George-Brown regaled us with terrible stories of "Reds under the bed". I well remember Lord George-Brown trying to establish a national plan, working within the Department of Economic Affairs, and I remember him urgently saying, "We must get a contribution from the private sector in our community to make national planning right". What a great tragedy that the CBI and the employers categorically turned down any question of having anything to do with planning agreements some years ago, when in fact if they had given it a cautious welcome they could possibly have included in those planning agreements something like a long-term wage agreement in certain industries, so leading to a more stable pattern in industry than we have today.
So all that I feel I should say is that certainly everybody in this House, and everybody in the nation, almost without exception, would want to contribute to the simple philosophy that all sectional interests must be forgotten in the interests of the nation as a whole. But do not let us forget that when in fact the trade union movement set out, consciously or unconsciously, completely to destroy the philosophy of this Labour Government that we should be able to negotiate these matters reasonably and rationally, and have a proper control of the economy, they were very well supported by a certain lady in another place who was determined to put Party interests before the nation.
10.56 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, this has been a momentous debate, and I wish now, however inadequately, to try in the
1704
course of my remarks in winding up on behalf of my noble friends, to respond to some of the points that have been made in the speeches. For me those speeches to which I most warmed were those which emphasised the need for us to come together in confronting our common danger and for courageous and disinterested leadership in seeking to overcome that danger. I think that that was the spirit at least of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, initiated the debate, and it has been taken up first, and most notably, by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and by Lord Orr-Ewing, Lady Burton of Coventry, Lord Nugent of Guildford, Lord Alport, and a number of others.
The most reverend Primate suggested that there was a need for the three Parties to come together to tackle some of our basic economic and industrial problems. I agree. This is exactly the suggestion that was made a day or two ago by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Party. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, thought that my right honourable friend was calling for a coalition Government. That is not so. A coalition Government is not at present practical politics. The suggestion was made because of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, himself; namely, that in his view neither of the major Parties is really in a position to solve the nation's problems on its own. In my view, this can be done only if there are elements at least of the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Parties who are willing to do it.
If we are to find common ground on which we can build together, it seems to me that a number of things are called for. First, the Government should not introduce policies which are clearly unacceptable to the opposition Parties. An example of what I have in mind is the Bill, which is to be debated in another place on, I think, Monday, to strengthen price controls. Reference has already been made to this, and in the view of the Conservative and Liberal Parties it can only serve to aggravate our problems. Worse—and I do not think that the point has been made quite so specifically in the debate so far—it shows the inconsistency of Government policy, for just when the Government are warning the unions that excessive wage claims will lead inexorably

1705
to higher prices, they then seek to reduce, or altogether to eliminate, price increases, thus shielding those who make excessive claims from the consequence of their actions.
Secondly, in my view, the Government should immediately consult the Opposition Parties to see whether any agreement can be reached concerning the most contentious items of existing industrial legislation, such as picketing, the closed shop, the Employment Protection Act and so on. It is perhaps best that I should speak on this from the heart and from my own experience. Many of your Lordships will have seen the article which appeared in the Guardian last Saturday about the imminent risk of the Mond Division of ICI, which produces a wide range of chemical products essential to other industries much nearer the consumer, having to close down altogether, with all that that would imply for the nation's economy in general and our export trade in particular. I feel this very keenly, because I spent nearly 30 years of my life, I will not claim in improving but I hope in at least maintaining, the excellent industrial relations and performance which have characterised that division for rather more than a hundred years. Now, in my view, if more resolute action is not taken immediately by the Government regarding in particular this question of secondary picketing, what has taken so long to build up may prove to be irreparably damaged within only a few days.
I know very well from first-hand experience that there are merits in industry operating on the basis of consent and persuasion, and I know the danger which is inherent in agreements, regulations and laws which, in practice, may prove to be unenforceable. But in the last resort, surely, we must be prepared to put our democratic inheritance to the test, and combine to uphold it instead of submitting in fear and ignominy to being governed—as it seems to me we now effectively are—by unofficial and in some cases self-appointed strike committees.
I have said something of what, in my view, the Government should and should not do, but the other main point I should like to make is this: the problems with which we have to contend are highly complex, and there are no ready-made solutions. Whatever the complexion of
1706
the Government in nine months' time, those problems will still be there; and in this situation I suggest that it behoves us all to share a certain humility, and not pretend that the Party we belong to has, for some odd reason, a monopoly of wisdom in these matters. On the contrary, in my view, as politicians, we bear between us a heavy responsibility, largely due, I think, to lack of knowledge of what actually goes on in industry, for having advocated and implemented legislation which has culminated in our present troubles. Further, because of the overriding need, as I see it, for Government and Oppsoition Parties now to take agreed action, we should show ourselves willing, whatever our Party, if necessary, to sacrifice, at least temporarily, some sacred cows.
I say this because it is very easy for us to ask everybody but ourselves to give something up, and I say it also because it enables me to respond to something which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about my Party at the beginning of this debate. We have for long advocated the need for a statutorily enforceable incomes policy, but if a more generally acceptable means of determining pay could now be agreed between the Parties which would be effective in conquering inflation, then in my view Liberals should not—indeed, they would no longer have need to do so—insist on this particular point.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had to say on this subject when, as I understood it, he suggested that the Government should form a judgment on what the nation could afford by way of wage and salary increases in future and, as I understood him, said that he thought there was a strong case for that judgment being endorsed by Parliament. I see this as an illustration of the way in which we may start from different positions but may be able to reach some common ground. For the rest, in the short term it seems to me that there may be no other honourable way open to us than simply to endure. I must say that I had a feeling of some relief when I learned the other day that the lorry drivers' strike was not to be settled at a figure which I had come to feel it would be settled at—well over 15 per cent.

1707
I say "no other honourable way" having in mind three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, in what I thought was a remarkable speech in the debate initiated the other day by Lord Trenchard. The noble Lord is not here but it seems to me, if your Lordships will forgive me for going on for a few more moments, that they bear repetition. The first was in relation to the lorry drivers' strike which had, as he put it, brought the surpeme irony that
"trade union dues paid by those whose jobs may now disappear have to be used as strike benefit for those whose actions have rendered them unemployed".
The second was that it was nonsense to suggest that there is a need for increases in wages and salaries of the order now claimed when in the last pay round there had been a rise of no less than 7½ per cent. in personal disposable incomes; and, third:
"We are faced with demands on national resources which … do not even exist…the price of defeat on this issue is the…ending of the Welfare State…".
Surely, in the face of these facts, common sense and justice combine to counsel us to unite to hold the line. We should be greatly helped if the Government could give a clear lead in this direction. As it is, I must confess I am not at all clear what their policy now is. In the longer term, I can only say once again that if as a nation we are to remain solvent, and if the very fabric of our society is to survive, we shall have painfully to learn to share an understanding that we cannot go on taking out of the national kitty more than we put into it. The Prime Minister gave a lead in this direction in the debate in the other place on 16th January. I applaud him for it because I have been looking hard for something that I can say as a compliment to the Government. He said, for example, that if local authority pay seettlments are as high as 15 per cent. and the same services were to be provided as at present, the domestic rates would have to increase by about 27 per cent.; and that excessive pay settlements for the public servants generally would mean cuts in rail services, longer hospital queues, poorer education and fewer jobs.
My Lords, those are the harsh economic facts of the situation and we all need to join together, I suggest, in proclaiming
1708
them. I hope very much that this debate will serve at least to influence public opinion to come to feel what I think has been the consensus to a very large degree in the debate; namely, the need, as I said at the beginning, for us to unite to face a common danger and for Parliament to give a lead as to how that danger can be overcome.
11.10 p.m.
Lord HAILS HAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who has just spoken, made a poignant plea to us all to sacrifice sacred cows of our own at least temporarily. In the absence of our great high priest, the most reverend Primate, I have been wracking my brains as to how sacred cows can be temporarily sacrificed. I understand only too well how one can sacrifice a sacred cow; but I always thought the resurrection was confined to the human race. However, no doubt further debates will elucidate this esoteric subject. I shall sacrifice one sacred cow, not temporarily but for ever; and that is very largely the speech which at one time I thought I was going to make.
We put down this debate on the Order Paper because we thought Parliament ought to be consulted about what we believe to be a very grave national crisis. There has been, I think, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—who seemed to think it was nothing worse that he had known when he was a boy—a general consensus that there is a very grave national crisis to consult about. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who very early in the debate made such a notable and I thought moving maiden speech derived from his personal experience, which was only a particular application of the more general situation to which the most reverend Primate drew attention.
We have to ask ourselves what is becoming of this country. It is not only the number of strikes; it is not only the number of people who have been laid off as the result of strikes. It is not only the pitilessness of the action of some of the pickets, of which the Birmingham episode of the cancer patients is only one.
But, more and more as the debate has proceeded, I have been impressed by one noble Lord after another who really was

1709
asking the question what sort of a nation we want to be. This did not come only from the Conservative Benches. I was impressed of course by my noble friend who sits behind me; but the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, almost delivered the speech which I have now sacrificed, only she put it much better than I could ever have done; and so did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and so did my noble friend Lord Alport.
We have to decide whether our system of government can continue on these lines. I do not know that the answer which has been given is an unequivocal "Yes". It is only three months ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was addressing the Labour Conference. Three months is a long time in politics, if I may borrow an idea. There is no copyright in ideas. He said:
"Our economic record is something to be proud about; something we shall have to shout about. The prospect ahead is a very encouraging one indeed. Whoever wins the next Election is going to inherit the best balanced economy, the best economic prospects of any Government since the war".
It was only on 1st November that the Prime Minister was telling another place:
"…this country is at a watershed in its history. So many things are going better for Britain through the advantages of North Sea oil. We can win great benefits in the years ahead…If we succeed we shall be one of the industrial leaders of the world by the mid-1980s".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/78; col. 56.]
It does not sound like that tonight. That was less than three months ago. This country is tearing itself apart, in my opinion, and it is because, as more than one speaker has said, sectional interests are not prepared to put the interests of the community first. This country, my noble friend Lord Kinnaird reminded us only a few moments ago—a country for which many sacrifices have been made both by the living and by the dead—is tearing itself apart. Of course, we have not, any one of us, the monopoly of wisdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has told us; but there is something which I must say, harsh as it is to say it. No Party has the monopoly of wisdom, but the Labour Party has the monopoly of Government and it has therefore the sole responsibility for leadership.
The most reverend Primate asked us all to get together. His plea had already
1710
been heeded by Mrs. Thatcher and by David Steel; but there has been a deafening silence from the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, whom we were very glad to welcome when he appeared, said that there were trade union leaders in the House. Indeed, there are 20, but during the whole of this crisis there has been almost a deafening silence from the leadership of the TUC while this country is tearing itself apart. No one of us has a monopoly of wisdom, but there are some of us who ought to exercise leadership. And I must say this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey: I think the Prime Minister and the Labour Party must bear a very serious degree of responsibility for what is happening.
It must be obvious to all of us—and our brief interchange this afternoon was only a particular example of a more general proposition—that we are faced with a situation in trade union law which was geared to a social condition of the 1906 era, when trade unions and industrial relations meant something utterly different from what they do now; when the strike was by the oppressed employees of Mr. Gradgrind against Mr. Gradgrind, and the picketing took place against Mr. Gradgrind continuing his business. But we are not faced with that kind of strike today, when cancer patients are turned away from hospitals, when sewage is not being disposed of, when the exports of the country are being throttled, and when food is rotting at the docks.
We are not in the presence of situations such as Taff Vale and Osborne and the classic trade union cases which were legislated against in 1906—but we still have that law in force, and not only in force but reinforced by the present Government. The present Prime Minister, when he was a lieutenant of Mr. Harold Wilson, as he then was, was the principal Cabinet Minister responsible for the distruction of In Place of Strife. But for him, Mrs. Barbara Castle and Mr. Harold Wilson might have succeeded; but thanks to Mr. Callaghan, In Place of Strife was dropped. He is also responsible for the manner in which the Opposition was ranged against our own Industrial Relations Bill in 1971.
Of course, that Bill had its defects. I think that it had nothing to do with the defeat in the Election of 1974, but of

1711
course it had its defects. I said so privately, as my noble friend beside me knows. When we were in Opposition and when we were planning it, I had my criticisms of it, but it was an honest attempt to deal with the real problem. But over the years of this Government, we have not only not dealt with it, we have not merely wasted our time, but we have put it in the minds of the unions and of Parliament that unions ought not to be subject to the law in the most sensitive areas in which they operate, and now we are reaping the result. We have legalised the closed shop and encouraged it. We have extended by Section 13 of the Act of 1976, to which the noble and learned Lord referred this afternoon when he repeated the Attorney-General's Statement, interference with contracts other than the contract of employment, and now we are reaping the result. So that I think the Labour Party has a very serious responsibility to bear.
For five years, the Conservative Party has been subjected to taunts and jibes from the opposite Benches of the other place and of this House, to the effect that we cannot deal with the trade unions; that Tory Governments mean confrontation. Those taunts and jibes look a little odd this evening—do they not?—when this country is like a toy yacht on the Round Pond without a steersman, being blown this way and that by each wind of each militant group that chooses to do something against the law.
I think, as a matter of fact, that there is something which the Government would do well for a moment to consider, and that is the state of emergency. I have been round this course, too. I have been round this course more than once in office and in opposition, and such experience as I have is that it is always best, when you are faced with the possibility of an emergency, to put it on early; have your regulations in force before tempers begin to be lost.
The reason for that, of course, is that if you let that critical moment pass, you find that the danger is that you put on your state of emergency at a time when you either create panic or you make the situation worse. If you start early with your state of emergency in this kind of situation, you will save yourself a lot of bother and
1712
the nation a lot of tears. The Government have chosen the other course. I only hope they may be right, because we can do nothing about it. But I can only say that by choosing the other course they have taken upon themselves a very heavy burden of responsibility, and the nation will hold them responsible should they have proved to be wrong.
The second point I should like to make is this. I have said it before, but I want to say it in the context of this crisis. There has been a great deal of argument inside the Parties and across the Floor about what is called a statutory incomes policy. Both Parties have started with an ideological objection to it. Both Parties prefer responsible, free collective bargaining. Both Parties have been compelled at one time or another to accept a statutory incomes freeze—Phase 1—and it has almost always succeeded. Then comes the next stage—Phase 2—which is a little less severe, usually a flat rate rise, and this succeeds, but not quite so well. Then you get Phase 3 and that fails, but not completely. Finally, you get Phase 4, and Phase 4 always has failed hitherto. When we argue about whether or not we want a statutory incomes policy we ought to ask ourselves at what stage of this extraordinary cycle we have reached, because I think that the argument is about nothing.
I think the Government were perfectly right to say that if general wage settlements exceeded X per cent.—and I do not know whether 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 or 10 per cent. was right—there would be an unacceptable degree of inflation. Nobody complained about that, but that is not a statutory incomes policy and it is not a Phase 4 policy. It was the attempt to impose a Phase 4 policy which caused the confrontation in 1974 and which is causing the confrontation today. For that, on this occasion the Labour Government, with their presupposition that our confrontation was due to the Industrial Relations Act and was not an attempt to impose sanctions during Phase 4, bear again a very heavy burden of responsibility.
The next point I want to make is that when Mr. Heath was beaten by a whisker at the end of February 1974 he was in the fourth year of his term of office. I think that the lesson which should have been

1713
learned from that is that an old Government and a failing Parliament is not fit to handle a situation of this gravity. When he refused to face the country in October 1978, the present Prime Minister was making the greatest error that a Prime Minister has made for very many years. I said so at the time and I say so again now. If he had faced the country in October, for aught I know he might have won. I do not know; we might have won. But whichever Party had won in the Election which did not take place, we should have faced this period of anarchy with a fresh mandate from the electorate.
I had intended to say a very great deal more but I see that already I have been speaking for too long. By way of conclusion, therefore, I am going to say only this. I agree with those noble Lords who say that we ought to re-establish authority. The authority of the people is what we need to re-establish against sectional interests. We need to re-establish the authority of the people, and the only instrument which can re-establish the authority of the people is Parliament: the grand inquest of the nation down the corridor, the high court of Parliament when the two Houses are in consensus. That is what is needed.
I do not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, but I do believe in the sovereignty of the people. I think that the unlimited powers of legislation that we possess are both unnecessary, dangerous and deleterious. But our authority ought to be unquestioned, and it is the responsibility of the Government to re-establish the authority of Parliament. If they set about that course and show a little leadership, even if the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, is right that we cannot wait for an Election—and she may well be right—the Government will receive a very great measure of support, both from these Benches and, I doubt not, from the Benches below the Gangway.
I was reminded last night of a poem by Chesterton, and I shall paraphrase it: Let them smile at us, picket us, starve us; but do not let them quite forget we are the people of Britain and we have not spoken yet.
But when the people speak they will pass judgment on those who have been responsible for our present sufferings.
11.30 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, at least I am at one with the noble and learned Lord in one important matter—I rise to my feet to make a speech which will have to be rather different from the speech that I thought I was going to make when I was thinking about it yesterday and earlier today. I cannot hope for one moment to match the rhetoric to which we have just listened, or indeed have heard from a number of noble Lords, because again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is right in saying that the Government have the monopoly of government, and that forces me to avoid rhetoric and to address myself to the day-to-day realities of the situation, and that I hope to do. I apologise if I cannot reply to all the points that have been made in the debate, but again I shall try to deal with those that I can properly and sensibly deal with, having regard to the lateness of the hour.
One constantly reiterated theme throughout this debate has been in the mouths of various speakers, calling upon the Government to announce solutions to what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, called the highly complex problems. We were asked repeatedly for a clear lead. My Lords, there are no magic solutions. I have not heard any in the course of this debate and, despite what the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said about these present troubles, they are in fact pay disputes which are taking place and they must be dealt with first of all at that level. Of course the Government deplore them, and deplore the form that they have taken from time to time and in some instances. But the Government cannot intervene in private pay negotiations in the way that some people seem to imagine. If the Government did, that would worsen the situation in these pay disputes.
Furthermore, when we bear in mind that the Government believe, and have consistently reminded the country for 12 months now, that in order to get the kind of growth and the kind of employment levels that we want, and the kind of continued recovery that we have seen for the last 24 months, we need a rate of inflation of no more than 5 to 8 per cent. and a rate of pay increase of the order of 5 per cent., how can the Government intervene in a

1715
situation between the Road Haulage Association, on the one hand, and the drivers, on the other, when the drivers have refused to accept 15 per cent.? What role do noble Lords imagine the Government can play in intervening in that particular dispute?
I shall have to deal later with points that have been made about the emergency and proposals for legislation, but I do ask noble Lords to bear these general matters in mind. If there were magic solutions they would have emerged already, and I certainly cannot produce them. I also want to warn again, if I may, against hysteria. I can point—and I shall have to do so—to some of the solutions that have been looked at before, for example by Donovan and by others. Some of the solutions have been tried, and particularly in the 1971 legislation, but have failed. I believe that the mature and sober approach was best displayed by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby in his speech, and I think there was an echo of it in what the noble and learned Lord has just said: we absolutely depend on the acceptance by the people as a whole of Government policy, and we must look to the people for support in relation to that; but I shall come back to that shortly.
I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in opening the debate and many others have repeated. The situation is serious and I accept as well that some at least of the damage is bound to be long term. One certainly deplores what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, described as the wickedness that some have displayed in the course of some of these disputes. I believe that there is a tendency in the Press to exaggerate them, but, on the other hand, I accept that in some instances it would appear that the facts reported are correct. The wickedness is of such a kind that one has to condemn it, even if the instances are fairly isolated.
Many of the diagnoses that have been made of the troubles were accompanied by fairly unspecific calls for action. If the Government have to take action they must take action now. We must look at what we can do now, and in the short term. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, brings great authority
1716
and eloquence to bear on a matter of this kind. He called for specific legislation and I do not want to attack these proposals, other than to say this: the proposals he put forward give some indication of the kind of measures that are suggested but which certainly cannot be taken immediately and certainly would not improve the situation in the short term.
For example, he asked for legislation to tax excessive wage increases. I recognise that as a proposal that normally comes from the Liberal Benches, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will agree with me that no other Party has hitherto supported any such proposal. So what prospect is there in the short term, or even for that matter in the long term, of putting through such legislation? I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would find that the right honourable lady would not support such a measure. Furthermore, he called for a removal of immunities from strikers in respect of strikes against percentages laid down in guidelines. Does he really imagine that in Parliament as presently constituted, or likely to be constituted at any time within the next 12 months, such legislation would pass? If he does, I have to disagree with him.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord challenges me on that. If the Government have said, as they have done, that holding pay guidelines is vital to the nation's survival, and if the Government are prepared to use all their other powers to stop wage settlements above the guidelines, why does he not come to Parliament and see whether Parliament would not support such a proposal instead of dismissing it out of hand and offering no solution of his own?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, one makes a judgment on the utterances which have emerged from the leaders of different Parties in another place, and the Government's judgment is that these proposals would not command a majority in another place. That is all I can properly say in relation to that. I have no quarrel with the general sentiments that have been given eloquent voice by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others. One certainly agrees—the Government certainly agree—that there is a too frequent resort

1717
to the strike weapon, that strikers resort to that too soon, too readily and too irresponsibly, as the most reverend Primate said. But I would remind him, when he calls in the course of his speech for some kind of body that would adjudicate, some kind of judicial type of body, that in fact when there was a body of that character, not perhaps as far-reaching as he had in mind—the Prices and Incomes Board—and that body was acting in relation to this type of claim some decades ago, the Party which had sponsored that body lost the next General Election, and thereafter the body was instantly abolished.
It is easy to pour scorn on trade union leaders. That was not done by noble Lords opposite and I compliment them for resisting that kind of temptation. But one or two speakers did in fact do that. I was deeply sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who is not with us any longer, make such remarks about Mr. David Basnett, because if one wanted to find a trade union leader of responsibility, who has done his best and argued the case for responsible free collective bargaining, and in particular for responsibility, one could not do better than to select Mr. David Basnett. It is fairly easy to do what the noble Lord did and to point to alleged malign conspiracies and call for dramatic gestures. It is not my approach to do any such thing. The noble Lord also referred to the need for meetings with trade union leaders. Does he imagine, does this House imagine, that we have not had such meetings? If one reads the newspapers, for months past the Prime Minister and trade union leaders have met from time to time, and repeatedly at all hours of the day or night. The Government have striven, even if one looks at it very narrowly, even for their own electoral advantage, to reach a compact. One cannot blame it for lack of trying. The Prime Minister is meeting the leaders of the TUC very shortly. The agenda for that meeting has not been disclosed, but undoubtedly the discussions will be wide-ranging and not confined to any formal agenda which ignores the real probems which face us today.
I should like at this point to pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, which has been mentioned by various speakers. He brought immense experience to this particular debate, and I think put his finger very much on the
1718
heart of the issue when he asked if it was beyond the intelligence and ingenuity of our society to devise some way in which at least the safety of patients in hospital was guaranteed. I think again it will be clear to the House that, in this particular as in the general field, it is easier to propound the problem than to provide the solution. I can assure him that solutions are being sought most urgently and that his suggestions among others will be studied most carefully. I thank him for his contribution and hope that we will hear many more of that kind from him.
To turn from the general matters that have been touched upon in the past few hours, I believe that the specific problem should be seen in the perspective of the general assessment which was provided by my noble friend and Leader Lord Peart at the start of this debate. That is the best assessment that we can make at present and I shall come back to it briefly when I refer to the suggestions that there should be a declaration of a state of emergency. Your Lordships will appreciate from what was then said that, so far at least as the food situation is concerned, supplies in the shops are, in fact, well maintained and there is every reason to think that that will continue for the foreseeable future. However, I am, of course, thinking in terms of days rather than months.
Our current concern, as has been mentioned by others, is the effect upon industry and, of course, when one looks at the other disputes, possible incidents in the public services and the Health Service. I shall not at this time of night repeat the survey of the present situation as it affects industry and daily life, but let me turn to a number of specific points which have been mentioned and with which it is right that I should deal.
Many questions have been raised today about the law relating to various aspects of industrial action, and I shall endeavour to concentrate upon those points. However, in doing so, I should like to mention what the noble and learned Lord was saying a moment ago. He has drawn attention most eloquently to the circumstances in which the 1906 Act was passed and said that the situation is very different today. The situation is, indeed, very different today, but the way he has put matters—and I would not dream of criticising him for it—is different from the

1719
way in which matters have hitherto been put from the Front Bench opposite me, either here or in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, will recall making a speech a week ago in which his approach was much less sweeping than the approach which the noble and learned Lord seemed to be advocating tonight. Let me make some points absolutely clear. I indicated earlier that there is no statutory right to picket. There is no specific statutory prohibition upon picketing. The criminal law, ever since 1906, has never distinguished between primary and secondary picketing. So, in one sense, the concern that is deeply felt about secondary picketing and about the behaviour of pickets who are doing this or doing that or who are said to be doing various things, is tending to induce a hysterical mood that matters that have stood in the law for 100 years, or at least for 70 years, ought to be changed overnight, despite the experience of attempting to make such changes in the past and the way in which such changes have in fact failed.
I dealt earlier with picketing and it would be wrong for me to go into the matter at any length tonight. But it is important to bear in mind what I said when I was repeating the Statement of my right honourable friend the Attorney-General. When secondary picketing was considered by the Donovan Royal Commission, the recommendation was that secondary picketing at least in one of its senses—that is, the blacking type of secondary picketing—ought to be made illegal. In doing that, the Government were acting upon advice which proceeded from a most authoritative source.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene, but as he has mentioned me perhaps he will forgive me. Of course, I know that that was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Donovan Commission but it must be read very closely with the other main unanimous recommendation of that Commission; namely, that all the special immunities should attach only to the official action of registered trade unions and should not attach to all the unofficial actions of unregistered and ad hoc groups, which is the curse at present.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, indeed the noble Lord is absolutely right, and in pursuance of the conviction, which he has obviously held for a number of years, that in that respect Donovan was correct, he was a member of the Cabinet which introduced the 1971 Industrial Relations Act which had exactly that provision. I do not want to criticise the then Government for introducing that Act—that is not my purpose at all. I do not want to make that type of point. But I want to make the point that that Act was in force for the best part of three years and, in fact, very few unions registered under that Act. Accordingly, almost all the actions of strikers including pickets, during that time—whether they were official in the ordinary sense or unofficial—were illegal under the Act. Despite that the strikes went on; despite that the secondary picketing went on; and despite that the country was brought almost to its knees in February 1974. Therefore, it is wild to imagine that by introducing that kind of legislation, one somehow solves the problem. One simply does not.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, what secondary picketing?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if I heard him correctly the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is asking: what secondary picketing? As I said, there is more than one sense of secondary picketing, but he will recall that the miners established flying pickets and that they also picketed the oil stations and power stations. It was that which, in a matter of a few days—certainly a few weeks—brought us to the three-day week.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to interrupt again, but that was official action by what is now a certificated union, according to their rules and after balloting their members. That is a very different circumstance from what is happening today.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is very careful in what he says. It was not a registered union at the time. Of course, they balloted their members. The noble Lord referred to another of the provisions of the 1971 Act, to the effect that one

1721
should be able to have a ballot. He will recall that that was tried once in the whole period of three years when the Act was in force, and that during that period of three years all that happened was that a ballot was held among the rail unions and there was an ample majority for the strike action. It was never tried again. So, again, one has a piece of legislation which, on the face of it, is seen to provide some kind of a solution but, when one put it to the test, it provided no solution at all.
I should like to turn to another matter, that of intimidation and violence. I do not want to give noble Lords the impression that I am trying to defend the indefensible. Let me make it abundantly clear that the Government for which I speak deplore and condemn any breach of the criminal law by any person in the course of an industrial or trade dispute, whether he is a primary picket, a secondary picket, a trade union member, a member of the Socialist Workers' Party or anyone else. That condemnation extends to any form of criminal behaviour.
Secondary picketing as such no more involves, excuses or, indeed, encourages such criminal activities than does primary picketing. So the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 gives no protection to intimidation or violence by pickets. It gives no protection to pickets who threaten intimidation or violence. It gives no protection to pickets who commit, or who threaten to commit, a breach of the peace, assault or anything of the kind. So one cannot blame that legislation for that result. As I said at an earlier stage today, the 1976 Act, which was passed at a time when the Labour Party held a majority in another place, made no change whatever in relation to the criminal law of picketing.
However, of course, in that context it is quite right to ask the kind of questions that I was asked by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who asked, "What is a driver to do if he comes to a line of pickets?" That is a question to which I can only offer this answer: Of course he must stop. Then the noble Lord would say to me, "If that is not obstruction, what is?" Of course, if he is forced to stop by a line of pickets, it is obstruction and it is an offence against
1722
the criminal law; we do not need legislation to make that an offence; it is an offence. If that offence is reported to the police or if the police observe it, they can arrest the pickets because, as I understand it, it is an arrestable offence.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will not have forgotten that I put to him this afternoon that that is precisely the situation where the police should be on duty, so that they can observe the offence and prosecute it themselves. It was that which he did not accept.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with respect, what I indicated at that time was that it is undesirable to have the police at all situations where there are pickets because they are normally not necessary. Of course one may have to revise one's view if this kind of thing is to happen, but one must also remember that police resources are already very seriously stretched, and to require vast numbers of policemen to be at every possible dock or depot in the country where there may be a picket line is to ask too much.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I have given way several times. I have been speaking for 20 minutes and I should like, if I may, to continue.
Lord KINNAIRD: Just one point?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should prefer, if I may, to continue. My noble friend Lord Harris said: What is going to happen if money is in fact being demanded as reported in the Press? As the Attorney-General said in his Statement, that is a serious criminal offence. Again I have to say that in England at least enforcement of the law is a matter for the police; if complaints are made, then the police must investigate them, and if there is evidence they must prosecute them.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said: What happens if the evidence cannot be obtained? I am sure lawyers in the House at least will agree with me that if the evidence cannot be obtained there is

1723
nothing one can do about it, unless one wants to introduce special kinds of measures which exist in countries where there is terrorism, as in Northern Ireland, and one has to abandon all the normal protections of the common law. Do we have to do that? Surely, on the evidence before us, we are not yet at that stage.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was good enough to make quite clear what changes he would like to see. He made four specific points. I hope he will forgive me if at this late hour I do not give him detailed replies. In relation to the matters on which he spoke, these are matters which have already been attempted, and certainly deeply thought about if not attempted. For example, the suggestion he made that the only ones entitled to picket should be the employees engaged in the dispute was in fact a provision in Section 96 of the Act of 1971, and it simply did not work.
The Earl of GOWRIE: But why?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I will remind the noble Earl opposite, who said: "But why?" For three years that was on the Statute Book and there were a great many industrial disputes, and it did not work, and there was no serious attempt to enforce it.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the reason this legislation did not work was, in very large part, because it was not backed by the then Opposition. The present Opposition is now making a very large offer to the Government to try to revitalise and reform the situation. This is what we want to hear a response to from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, we were reminded a moment ago that the Government have the monopoly of government. We have been told today that the Home Secretary ought to tell chief constables to do this and that, and that men ought to be encouraged to claim their civil rights. For three years that Act was in force, and neither the civil remedies nor the criminal remedies worked. You cannot blame the Labour Opposition for that. They fought the Bill, and one can make what criticisms one likes of the manner in which that fight was conducted,
1724
but one cannot blame the Labour Party for the fact that the 1971 Act did not work.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I am sorry that we are pursuing this rather cantankerous line, but what the noble and learned Lord must realise is that the case against him is not that they opposed the Act in Parliament, as they were fully entitled to do, but that they sabotaged it after it was passed.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I have to respond to that. The noble and learned Lord will recall that that Act contained a good deal of elaborate legal machinery, particularly of a civil kind and with the Industrial Relations Court. What does he suppose made a laughing stock of the Industrial Relations Court? It was not the Labour Opposition. It was as much the Official Solicitor and the nonsense of that kind of case, which simply demonstrated that you cannot have lawyers sitting in courts regulating industrial relations and disputes in that way in this country. It simply does not work.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, that is again lending currency to the idea that, when Lord Chancellor, I gave any instructions to the Official Solicitor of any kind at all in relation to that matter. I have repeatedly said that I did not, and I repeatedly said that he was acting, so far as I was concerned, under his general remit, whoever else may have spoken to him.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Well, my Lords, I do not know where his instructions came from. I certainly never suggested, I do not suggest, and I did not think I suggested today, that the noble and learned Lord had anything to do with it. But somehow he was whipped from a decent obscurity, brought into the limelight, and acted on behalf of people who had not instructed him; and thus they were released from prison and from the consequences of contempt, and somehow set at liberty. After that, the whole thing collapsed. By the end of the affair, by February 1974, neither trade unionists nor people in industry nor, for that matter, I believe very many politicians would support that kind of scheme. When the

1725
noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, spoke on 17th January—I have his speech before me—he certainly did not advocate a return to that kind of legalistic machinery.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, that is not true. The noble and learned Lord must quote me correctly. I hold very deeply and strongly that the machinery established under the Industrial Relations Act was extremely good, and if he will look at the exact way in which the present Employment Arbitration Tribunal is set up—its composition, powers and everything about it—and the wording of the statute, he will see that it is lifted almost word for word from the whole section of the Industrial Relations Act. I never denied the machinery be set up. It was first-class machinery and I am delighted to see it still in existence.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I will not, as I had originally intended to do, refer in detail to the noble Lord's speech, but noble Lords may look at the legislative proposals which Lord Carr proposed in column 987 of the Official Report for 17th January.
I must deal with the accusation that the Government have given too much power and too many privileges to trade unions. I want to make the quite general point that I believe there is a degree of exaggeration and misunderstanding here. The only way in which the privileges have been extended concerns the civil law immunities in relation to tort and matters of that kind. I would like to signify my total agreement with what Lord Carr said on that occasion and what was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, when he spoke tonight. Lord Carr said we should not forget that we need strong unions; we do not want weak unions. Lord Alport said, if I may say, with respect, sensibly, that we want strong and responsible sensible unions. That is absolutely correct, but the remedy for our present troubles cannot be to weaken the union leadership; that would only ensure that effective power would pass to the irregulars, to the militants who are answerable to no one. The remedy cannot be for the Government to dictate to union leaders how to act in this or each particular situation. I believe that would not work and, if it did, the militants and others might see their leaders as mere pawns in the hands of Ministers.
1726
I wish also, without repeating, to direct the attention of noble Lords who did not hear or read his speech to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton. He gave the same message, in effect, from the vantage point of a lifelong devotion to the Labour and trade union movement, that we must think hard and honestly about these problems. So indeed must the whole community. The temptation for any of us to seek short-term political advantage must of course be resisted.
I return to the question which I am going to have great difficulty answering; namely, what do we do?—as my noble friend Lord Shinwell put it. We do not rush foolishly into legislation which will not work and has not in the past worked. We endeavour to persuade the union leaders to take measures that will enable them to gain control over the unofficial pickets, and I believe we are having some, though only moderate, success in that regard. We have set up, as the Government must, emergency committees to try to ensure that the latter day situation is kept under control. We urge that the criminal law be enforced. We exhort, and that is one of the things the Government can and must do. We point to the consequences of selfish actions to the whole community and we try to invoke the pressure of public opinion. We have discussions of the kind that are continuing to take place with union leaders and with representatives of industry to try to find solutions, and we try to support these people against irresponsible hotheads who give trade unionism a bad name. The changes that are needed, if they are to be obtained quickly, and which are needed now, must be sought and obtained by agreement. I do not believe there is any other solution.
I wish to conclude my consideration of the points raised in the debate by referring to the suggestion that we should have an emergency, and that it should be declared, as the noble and learned Lord said, soon. It is very important to acknowledge that the purpose of proclaiming a state of emergency under the 1920 Act is to enable the Government to take powers which they would not otherwise have. There is no advantage in a state of emergency being proclaimed unless, and until, such powers would enable the Government to

1727
deal more effectively with the supply of essential requirements than other methods would do. My Lords, that situation has not yet been reached. For example, we do not believe that, if we were to introduce a state of emergency, the Services could provide more than a very small fraction of the vehicles required to move the goods which are currently being moved, despite the efforts of those who are trying to stop the movement of goods.
There is one other matter I want to refer to. There is no power under the Act of 1920 to make emergency regulations which would make it an offence to strike, or to persuade another person to strike, or to withdraw his labour; and much of the secondary picketing, and indeed the primary picketing of essential supplies is being done with this purpose. Even if we took the maximum powers available to us under the Act of 1920, we would not advance the situation.
I hope that I can agree with most of the speakers in the debate that the public reaction to the stupidity, the selfishness, and the contempt for the community which some at least of the militants have displayed is a factor of great importance in dealing with the situation. But I should like to say this: We have heard many people speak about the ordinary, decent members of the public. It will not do for ordinary, decent members of the public to complain only when something has gone wrong. They must face the responsibility that now and every day they have to consider this: Shall I stay at home this Thursday night, or this Wednesday night, and watch television, and leave the union meeting to be run by other people? If they do, if people simply abdicate their responsibility, they cannot then turn round when every thing goes sour and say, "It's the Government's fault." The Government cannot send a representative to every branch meeting, in every trade union organisation up and down the country.
So the public must understand this: They must not make scapegoats for their own shortcomings, however ordinary and however decent they may be. If the public give the Government, and the trade union movement, the kind of support that they ought to get, we should have nothing to fear. Without that
1728
support we would indeed be in trouble. I would believe that the debate, if it receives the publicity it deserves, will perhaps help us to get that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for giving us the opportunity to consider matters in this way.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  RATE SUPPORT GRANT AND PAY GUIDELINES
  RATE SUPPORT GRANT AND PAY GUIDELINES
  OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING AND TAXATION
  OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING AND TAXATION
  TAX RELIEF AND REVENUE LOSS
  TAX RELIEF AND REVENUE LOSS
  HEALTH EDUCATION COUNCIL: CHAIRMAN
  HEALTH EDUCATION COUNCIL: CHAIRMAN
  NHS: NUMBER AND COST OF PRESCRIPTIONS
  NHS: NUMBER AND COST OF PRESCRIPTIONS
  NHS: BRANDED MEDICINE PRESCRIPTIONS
  NHS: BRANDED MEDICINE PRESCRIPTIONS
  JAPANESE SEAWEED: POTENTIAL DAMAGE
  JAPANESE SEAWEED: POTENTIAL DAMAGE
  SPEEDOMETER TESTING
  SPEEDOMETER TESTING
  LORRIES: EEC PROPOSALS
  LORRIES: EEC PROPOSALS
  NEWSPAPER "GHOST" WORKERS AND THE INLAND REVENUE
  NEWSPAPER "GHOST" WORKERS AND THE INLAND REVENUE
  MEDICAL INSURANCE AND TAX RELIEF
  MEDICAL INSURANCE AND TAX RELIEF
  GNP AND PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURE
  GNP AND PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURE