Sitting of 22 April 1980

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

  WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords]
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Employment of Women
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to strengthen the rights of employment and prospects for women.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The Government are committed to the advancement of equal opportunities and my right hon. Friend will continue to do all that he can to fulfil that commitment in relation to the employment of women.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the employment statistics issued today mask the fact that a growing number of women face unequal opportunities? Does not he accept that the evidence proves that our legislation which sought to attain equality for women, is failing? Is the Minister further aware that there is an underlying trend in clothing, textiles, offices and shops to eliminate employment for women? Does the hon. and learned Member realise that in my area of Huddersfield and Kirklees, two young girls are unemployed for every unemployed young man?
    Mr. Mayhew: The importance of the contribution that women can make to the economy is very much in the Government's mind. I welcome the fact that the Manpower Services Commission is taking special steps to enlarge the number of opportunities open to women and to break clown any prejudice that may exist about the suitability of women for certain types of employment.
    Mr. Stokes: Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that good women in industry and commerce expect to get on as a result of their own abilities and that they do not expect special privileges from the State?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. However, the theme behind our equal opportunities legislation is that there should be not privileged opportunities, but equal opportunities.
    Mr. John Grant: Does not the Minister accept that the maternity clauses of the Employment Bill, the abolition of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, the Government's public expenditure cuts—which will squeeze nursery education and child-minding services—and the grim unemployment figures that were issued today, will lead to the devastation of employment for women? Is it not true that this woman-led Government is racist and sexist?
    Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman's last observation spoiled his question. The purpose of the legislation, for which my Department is responsible, is to increase the number of opportunities that are available to women. We believe that that is very important.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not only our equal opportunities legislation that matters, but the way in which people behave? Would it not be a good idea for hon. Members to recognise that this House—with the exception of certain right hon. and hon. Ladies—is a glaring example of an area in which women are not fully represented?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am certain that women do not expect privileges when it comes to selection for this House. We all value the contributions of those whom we have.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Raceasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to establish a statutory national minimum wage.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): No, Sir. The Government believe that pay is in general a matter best left for negotiation between employers and employees. Arrangements exist through the wages council machinery to set minimum rates of pay in industries where adequate arrangements for collective bargaining do not exist.
    Mr. Race: Following the publication of the latest earnings survey, which shows that 9 per cent. of male full-time manual workers earn less than £60 a week and that 66 per cent. of women full-time manual workers earn less than that figure, is it not clear that collective bargaining has failed to abolish the differential that exists between the earnings of men and women? Is it not scandalous that the Government are abolishing schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, and that they propose to make no progress towards introducing the only legislation that could help us, namely, provisions for a statutory minimum wage?
    Mr. Prior: No. I think that the collective bargaining procedures cover most of the country. They are better developed here than in any other country, and in cases where they have not provided the right answers, wages councils have been a great help.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Would not a statutory minimum wage enormously increase unemployment among less qualified and poorer sections of the working population? If that is what the Opposition want why do they not stand up and say so?
    Mr. Prior: It is certainly the case that the forecasts show that a statutory minimum wage of two-thirds the average wage could have the effect of increasing unemployment by up to 50,000.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State realise that much of the low pay in this country is in the public service? If he does not intend to introduce legislation for a national minimum wage, will he keep an open mind on this
    196
    matter? In order to avoid a situation similar to that of the winter before last will he set up a working party to examine this?
    Mr. Prior: I do not wish to set up any more working parties. We would be better off making up our own minds about these matters. I do not agree that there are many low-paid workers in the public sector. In fact, the public sector has done extremely well in the last few years, perhaps too well.
    Mr. Budgen: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a national minimum wage would have the effect of pricing out of work the weakest sections of the community, particularly the unemployed young black people in my constituency?
    Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend will be almost disappointed to hear that, very largely, I agree with what he says.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rise in unemployment since May 1979.
    Mr. Prior: Between May 1979 and April 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 145,800.
    Mr. Jones: Is it not a fact that Britain's unemployment will soon reach the 2 million mark, with ever-increasing pressures on the vulnerable regions and localities of the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman fight in the Cabinet against the monetarist policy, and for fundamental changes in policy on unemployment?
    Mr. Prior: The so-called monetarist policies that we are following are exactly the same as those followed by the previous Government. We should always be careful before committing ourselves to forecasts about the level of unemployment because one forecast produced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggested that by the end of 1979 the previous Government would have reduced unemployment to 700,000.
    Mr. Bulmer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the warnings given by the last Government during the winter of discontent that wage and salary increases

    197
    substantially in excess of output will lead to rapidly rising unemployment?
    Mr. Prior: I confirm that wholeheartedly. The more we can keep our increases in wages down, the better the prospects for the rate of inflation and for jobs. That is in no way inconsistent with the policy for controlling the growth of the money supply.
    Mr. Radice: Do the Government understand that the situation in the Northern region is deteriorating dramatically and there are fewer and fewer vacancies with more and more unemployed people and redundancies every week? Does it need a national disaster to make the Government change their policy?
    Mr. Prior: The position in the North, and particularly the North-East, is serious. However, one of the strange things is that there are still vacancies in that part of the world for a number of jobs, such as work on the railways. I hope that the hon. Member will do all that he can to see that such vacancies are filled.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that unemployment is increasing very rapidly in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the North of England? In the absence of any positive efforts by the Government to do something about this is he aware that there is a prevailing view that this Government were elected by the South for the benefit of the South?
    Mr. Prior: I absolutely reject that view. As the former Prime Minister said, we are no longer in a position where we can print our way out of unemployment. The sooner we recognise that fact, the better.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Is it not a fact that unemployment doubled in the five years of the last Labour Government and did that not demonstrate that Socialist remedies for this evil simply do not work? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the only hope for those on the dole is a revival of the private sector, based on incentive and opportunity?
    Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition have no remedies. Unemployment more than doubled under them. As a result we started this recession with double the amount of unemployment with which we started the last.
    Mr. Varley: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what measures he has taken since last May to reduce unemployment?
    Mr. Prior: I have supported Government policies.
    Mr. Varley: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman has no more confidence in Government economic and industrial policies than we have? Is it not about time he started to stand up and fight for the unemployed instead of allowing the drift towards the 2 million unemployed mark by next winter?
    Mr. Prior: When it comes to fighting, I need no lessons from the right hon. Member.

    Disabled persons
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with measures currently in hand to encourage the employment of those suffering from a mental or physical handicap.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): This is an area in which none of us are satisfied. That is why I am fully behind the Manpower Services Commission's "Fit for Work" campaign—which relates specifically to mental and physical handicap—and its review of the existing quota provisions to see how best to protect employment opportunities for disabled people in the future.
    Mr. Viggers: I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. Is it not a matter of great concern that, despite all efforts of successive Governments, the level of long-term unemployment among the disabled remains obstinately high? Is it not appropriate, therefore, that there should be a major initiative in this area?
    Mr. Lester: The "Fit for Work" campaign is a major initiative in this direction. We now have 356 applications for awards under this scheme which will be made by the end of the year. Because the scheme is successful, the overall rate of unemployment for disabled people has fallen by 5·7 per cent. since February 1978.
    Mr. Wigley: Does not the Minister accept that at a time of escalating general unemployment it is that much more difficult for the handicapped to get work

    199
    and to retain it? In these circumstances should there not be a call for more ATCs and sheltered workshops instead of cutting back on this type of provision?
    Mr. Lester: For many disabled people the chance is not for employment in a sheltered workshop, but in the mainstream of employment. For that reason we have made no changes whatever in the services for disabled people.
    Mr. Foster: Does the Minister realise that the chances of the physically disabled gaining employment are reducing day by day? Is it not time for a programme for the disabled that is parallel to the youth opportunities programme?
    Mr. Lester: We already have many agencies doing this. We have the job introduction schemes, special aids to employment, adaptations for premises and equipment, and assistance with fares to work. On many of these things we have not yet been able to spend the budget that we are allowed.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that this weekend I attended the conference of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, when strong views were expressed about the increasing difficulties of its members in finding jobs? Will he arrange to consult that organisation and hear its views?
    Mr. Lester: I am always prepared, as is my right hon. Friend, to consult anybody on problems of the disabled.
    Mr. John Grant: Surely the Minister recognises that at a time of steeply rising unemployment, the disadvantaged groups, particularly the disabled, are hit disproportionately. Is it not time that the Government stopped wringing their hands and saying that they do their best to protect the disabled while at the same time cutting back in some areas, for example, rehabilitation centres? Will they not consider introducing new measures, or at least extending existing measures?
    Mr. Lester: I hope that we shall continue to support all the measures that have proved successful. As already announced, the figures for unemployed disabled people have dropped from 147,404 in February 1978 to 138,996 in February 1980. That is not enough, but it is still a move in the right direction.

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom; and how many are under 25 years of age.
    Mr. Prior: At 10 April, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,522,921. An age analysis of this figure is not yet available, but about one in three are under 25.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit that the Government have finally abandoned even the pretence of attacking unemployment and are instead attacking the victims of unemployment by reducing their job opportunities and their benefits? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that one in three of the unemployed are young people under 25 years of age. In view of the fact that this number is likely to increase to even more alarming proportions, so that thousands—possibly over a million—young people will be unemployed and roaming the streets, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will finally abandon their strategy of using unemployment as an economic weapon?
    Mr. Prior: The Government are not using unemployment as an economic weapon. The effect of the policies that the Government are adopting are more likely to lead to sustained employment than the sort of measures taken by the previous Government.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Does my right hon. Friend reflect on the increasing number of unemployed people who were formerly in work making things that are now being made abroad and imported into this country without let or hindrance? Does he reflect on the fact that there is a traditional and historic Tory remedy to correct this situation?
    Mr. Prior: I reflect on a number of Tory remedies to correct what my hon. Friend speaks about. If my hon. Friend is talking about import controls, he should address his remarks to the Secretary of State for Trade.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: While many hon. Members do not believe that short

    201
    term measures are necessarily the answer to all our problems and feel that there is no substitute for a real job, may I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind, in future deliberations with his colleagues, that some of us were disappointed by his decision to scrap the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme? This decision will hit particularly hard some young people who are unemployed in the difficult regions. Will he consider these measures once again?
    Mr. Prior: The number of people being aided in one way or another by Government measures is 401,000. That does not reduce the number on the unemployment register by 401,000. The registrable effect is somewhere in the region of 192,000. This shows that the Government are giving considerable aid, through a whole range of policies, to try to help with the unemployment problem.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend consider gradually extending the Manpower Services Commission youth opportunities programme into a system of national community service, whereby young people would have the opportunity to work, socially and environmentally, within the community and possibly in a cadet form of national service? This would bring together people from different backgrounds and, perhaps, solve some of the problems exhibited in Bristol not long ago.
    Mr. Prior: It would be very expensive. My hon. Friend must recognise that a considerable increase in public expenditure would be involved. In the meantime, we have increased the youth opportunities programme by 25 per cent. this year compared with last year. The more that we can divert the effort of the youth opportunities programme into social work, home insulation work, and so on—and that is beginning to take place—the better for the whole community.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman refutes the charge that the Government are using unemployment as an economic weapon, but will he recall that when the House debated employment and training a month ago he confirmed to me that the Government were relying entirely on unemployment as a
    202
    means of getting down the level of wage settlements?
    Mr. Prior: I certainly never said that. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly putting words into my mouth. The financial and monetary policy operated by the Government is precisely the same as that operated by the previous Government. I remember well Mr. Jenkins of The Guardian accusing the previous Government at the time of using unemployment as an economic weapon. The Government resisted it at the time as I do now.

    Preston
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Preston travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Jim Lester: On 10 April, the provisional unemployment rate in the Preston travel-to-work area was 6·8 per cent.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while this figure is not acceptable, it is not as high as it was under the previous Labour Government? Will he recognise the efforts of the Preston borough council, the Central Lancashire Development Corporation, the county council and his own Department in trying to retrieve the position by encouraging more investment in private industry?
    Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Preston is typical of many areas that are necessarily going through structural change but approaching it in an imaginative and co-operative fashion. That is the best way of solving the problem of unemployment.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: Will not the Minister confirm that the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) has misrepresented the position and that unemployment is now higher in the Preston travel-to-work area than it has been for 10 years?
    Mr. Lester: When I answered the main question I was talking about Preston as a whole and not its halves.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on future levels of unemployment.
    Mr. Prior: I have never disguised from the House my view that a rise in unemployment was inevitable. But forecasts of future unemployment levels specifying particular levels are notoriously unreliable.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the fact that it has been announced today that there are over 1½ million unemployed—the highest April figure since the end of the war—and that unemployment has increased by 145,000 under this Government, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a ministerial broadcast and to withdraw the Saatchi and Saatchi poster which said that Labour is not working? What is proved is that this Government's policies are not working. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are forecasts of 2½ million unemployed by next year if present Government policies are continued?
    Mr. Prior: One thing of which we and the country are certain is that Labour Party policy did not work. In 10 months, under the previous Government, unemployment exceeded 1½ million, having more than doubled since they came into office. The previous Government forecast that there would be 700,000 unemployed by the end of 1979. In fact there were 1·3 million or so.
    Mr. Haselhurst: To what extent does my hon. Friend think that we are increasingly faced with a structural unemployment problem? Even if the economy comes back on to a successful course of expansion we shall still have difficulty, without special schemes, in providing enough jobs for those seeking work because the number seeking work is increasing.
    Mr. Prior: Yes, I believe that there is a structural problem. There will be difficult problems resulting from the increase in the number of young people coming into work in the next few years, the return of more women to the labour market and the effects of increasing technology, particularly microtechnology. I expect that we shall have to keep a number of schemes going. We may need to improve or increase these schemes. We must see how we get on.
    Mr. Woolmer: Is the Secretary of State aware that in some areas where structural change is occurring unemployment is ris-
    204
    ing and showing no signs of recovery? In Batley—in my constituency—unemployment is now 13 per cent. among men. Is he aware that in a town of 1,200 unemployed there are only 64 vacancies? Will he consult his colleagues in the Departments of Industry and Trade to consider particular aid for areas such as textile areas, to make sure that alternative jobs are provided as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Prior: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There are difficult problems in particular areas. Structural change in those areas is not proving easy to solve and has not done so for a number of years. I shall take a look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I must hasten to add that I cannot promise him any quick solution.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the wide difference between levels of unemployment in the North and the South of the country make it imperative that people should be able to move house more easily? What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to impress upon the Secretary of State for the Environment that this is necessary?
    Mr. Prior: The sale of council houses will do more to help the problem than any other single factor. Subsidies to aid mobility and cause movement to those parts of the country where jobs are available were ineffective in producing the answer. The right answer involves a combination of sensible regional policies and an improvement in the general level of the economy, which could be achieved if we consumed more of the goods that we produce at home.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of school leavers currently unemployed in the North-West, Merseyside. Ormskirk and Kirkby, respectively.
    Mr. Jim Lester: At 10 April the provisional numbers of school leavers aged under 18 registered as unemployed in the areas specified were:

    North-West region

    8,227

    Merseyside special development area

    4,143

    Ormskirk employment office area

    21

    Kirkby employment office area

    320

    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of those disgraceful figures? Does he accept that thousands of school leavers in the North-West face an extremely bleak and unhappy future as a direct result of the Government's economic policies? Does he accept, in spite of what his right hon. Friend said earlier about the youth opportunities programme, that unemployment is extremely expensive in terms of human resources? Will he therefore urge a massive increase in the youth opportunities programme?
    Mr. Lester: I am not ashamed of what we are trying to do in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I take the matter seriously. We must examine what we are doing and I visit the area regularly. I shall examine any proposals that the hon. Gentleman cares to make to support the scheme, for which he is asking that increased expenditure should be incurred. I should welcome his support in encouraging people to take part in the scheme to enable us to spend the money available. In the Merseyside area only 55 per cent. of the places are taken up. The problem does not involve money or places. People must be encouraged to use the scheme. I never fail to praise the good things that I see. I never suggest that Merseyside is an outcast area—and that is more helpful than anything else.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware of the Index training scheme which takes young people direct from school into training, in full co-operation with local firms and the local authority? Will the Government give us their blessing and support the scheme? Is he aware that if the Government did that we could train youngsters direct from school to take up permanent jobs at the end of the training?
    Mr. Lester: I welcome the Index scheme as a good initiative. The only problem is that it is a two-year scheme and therefore does not fit the rules of either the youth opportunities programme or the STEP scheme. I encourage such moves. We are examining ways in which such schemes might be encouraged.

    Employment Bill
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the likely value of compensation claims which may be made
    206
    under the terms of the Employment Bill by trade unionists to their employers who are unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of their union and who are dismissed by their employer as a result.
    Mr. Mayhew: Such a claim would be on the ground of unfair dismissal. If it succeeds, the maximum compensation that can now be awarded is £16,090; but it is calculated by reference to the loss shown in each case to have resulted or to be likely to result from the dismissal.
    Where pressure exerted by the union concerned induced the dismissal, the employer could join the union in the proceedings and the tribunal could order that the union contribute towards the compensation, up to 100 per cent.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that £16,000 can never compensate a man who has given loyal service to his firm and who has done nothing more than cross swords with his union? Does he agree that such a figure is totally insufficient to compensate a man who merely wishes to continue working and drawing a wage from his firm?
    Mr. Mayhew: The basis for compensation for unfair dismissal is divided into a basic award, a compensation award and an additional award which is based on the loss that results from the action complained of. We shall keep the matter under review. In 1978, when the limits were £14,770, fewer than 3 per cent. of awards were in excess of £3,000 and the median award was £375.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Should not the Minister be more concerned about the people in the steel industry who were declared redundant before the strike began and who worked their notice during the strike? Is he aware that, even when their notice expired, they were refused unemployment benefit? Is that not a reprehensible way for the Department to behave?
    Mr. Mayhew: The provisions for such cases were decided under a statue passed by the last Government.

    Trade Unions (Blacking)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what replies he has received to his consultative document

    207
    containing proposals for legislation to restrict blacking.
    Mr. Mayhew: We received comments from over 60 organisations and very many individuals. Our revised proposals are contained in a new clause to the Employment Bill which we published before Easter and which was considered by this House last week.
    Mr. Miller: Will my hon. and learned Friend take account of the fears expressed by component makers in the motor industry about whether firms in a contractual relationship with a customer who is in dispute should be allowed to recover damages if they suffer loss through being involved in that dispute, of which they form no part?
    Mr. Mayhew: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will have noticed from our debate last week that the action taken against the supplier to whom he refers in his illustration must have, as its sole or principal purpose, the prevention or disruption of the supply of goods or services to the employer with whom the dispute is being conducted. It must also be capable of achieving, or likely to achieve, that result. That is a clearer and tighter restriction than that proposed in the working paper.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Has the Minister any proposals to deal with lock-outs? If not, why not, in view of the damage being done to the country?
    Mr. Mayhew: The new clause applies to lock-outs.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Employment when next he plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 24 April.
    Mr. Madel: How many young unemployed people will be offered training by the Manpower Services Commission in order to assist in the Government's new scheme to help old people insulate their homes?
    Mr. Lester: It is too early to say how many people are likely to be helped by the initiative. Officials are examining how
    208
    the scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, might be implemented.
    Mr. Hooley: Will the Minister explain to the chairman of the MSC, now that unemployment has shot over the 1½ million mark, that we should be expanding skillcentres and training opportunities to provide skilled workers where there are shortages, rather than closing down skill-centres? Will he arrange to examine the arbitrary limits of 26 weeks or 12 weeks which do not help to give opportunities to the unemployed?
    Mr. Lester: I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's final question. The chairman of the MSC assures me that as a result of the review of skillcentres, on which a decision is to be made today, more places overall will be available to provide better training in areas where that is most required.

    Clegg Commission
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in his review of the future of the Clegg Commission.
    Mr. Prior: The Government continue to keep the work of the commission under review.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In Heaven's name why? How many more reports do we have to have from this dangerous old loony before the Government realise the damage that he is doing to employment and services throughout the public sector?
    Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend asks why we keep the commission going. It has a number of outstanding references which must be completed. After that we shall reconsider whether to keep the commission going.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about a matter near to the heart of Professor Clegg? Will he tell us why the university teachers had been promised a conclusion to their investigation by 1 October this year but have suddenly been told that it will not now be ready until mid-1981?
    Mr. Prior: I shall need to have notice of that particular point but I see no reason why the results of the investigation should

    209
    not be ready before the middle of 1981. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. David Price: Is my right Friend aware that Professor Clegg, effort on the professions supplementary to medicine throws a great deal of doubt upon the intellectual ability of that commission to find comparability? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that as a result it puts great prejudice on the Whitley Council which should be handling these matters?
    Mr. Prior: I feel sorry for the professor. When he produces a report that keeps down the level of wage settlements he is criticised. When he produces a report that increases the level of wage settlements he is also criticised. He is obviously in the position not unknown to some other people. He cannot win.
    Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time in the House, now, to repudiate the offensive language used by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? After all, the Government are continuing with the Clegg commission, they rely on its recommendations and as far as we know they have supported those recommendations. Is it not also a question of good manners?
    Mr. Prior: This is the second time my hon. Friend has referred to Professor Clegg in his rather unflattering way. On the last occasion I repudiated his reference. Professor Clegg has a difficult job to do and I do not think that he wishes to go on doing it. That is another reason perhaps, why we should reconsider the future of the commission. I would like to thank Professor Clegg for the hard work that he has done.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Prior: At 10 April the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,522,921.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures he has announced today are further proof that the Tory Party election manifesto was a tissue of
    210
    lies? Is he also aware that fear is increasing in many regions of the country over the rising tide of unemployment? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Employment, exerted himself in Cabinet and made it clear to his colleagues that their policies will lead this country into further disaster?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. We never in any way misled the country as to the likely difficulties of getting down the level of unemployment. That was in stark contrast to the Labour manifesto, and slogan of 1974 which was "Back to Work with Labour". Their policy resulted in a doubling of the employment figures.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he intends to urge upon his Cabinet colleagues the taking of steps that will prevent the undermining of the industrial base of this country? When will my right hon. Friend make representations that will bring about some action from the Government in order to provide fair competition for the textile industry which is now suffering at least one mill closure every week? That is something which I am not prepared to tolerate any longer.
    Mr. Prior: The textile industry, along with a number of other industries is going through a difficult period of recession. However, I do not believe that, as a nation, we shall get out of our difficulties by controlling imports at a time when Britain's paramount need is to export more goods and to export them more competitively.
    Mr. Heffer: In view of the speech made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the weekend—and underlined in a radio programme at Sunday lunchtime—which clearly indicates that the right hon. Gentleman is not happy with Government policy, even though he is a non-interventionist, will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is doing, in discussion with the Prime Minister to change Government policy? If Government policies are not to be changed when will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends get rid of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will choose an oportunity of questioning my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that not only do we

    211
    have to take account of the effect of the increase in the money supply but that we also have to recognise that trading and human factors also contribute. That is something that the Government take very much to heart.

    Professional and Executive Register
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the professional and executive register.
    Mr. Jim Lester: Following a full review of professional and executive recruitment by the Manpower Services Commission my right hon. Friend has agreed to the MSC's proposal that a specialist public employment service should continue to be provided at the professional and executive levels. PER will therefore remain as a fee-charging service, but changes in operating methods are to be made which will enable significant financial and staff savings to be achieved. The MSC will monitor the restyled service closely and will make a further full review by September 1981.
    Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister will agree that most of the people who work on the professional and executive register will be pleased to know that a decision has been made but that they also will be worried about the continuing indications that their service will be further reviewed. Will the Minister confirm that their jobs are secure?
    Mr. Lester: I can confirm that a review has taken place and that we are trying new and more effective methods of operating PER. If the staff of PER operate those methods effectively their jobs will remain secure.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Marlowasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 22 April.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall be having further meetings later today.
  Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the dangerous situation in the Middle East, the respect in which Britain is held in that part of the world, the international prestige of her right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and the restrictions currently imposed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—on American foreign policy, there is both an excellent opportunity and an urgent need for Britain—with or without our European partners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to take an early initiative to bring peace to that area by setting in train measures leading to the just establishment of the Palestinian State that has now become inevitable?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation in the Middle East is extremely dangerous and that, obviously, the greatest possible advance would be to secure a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute. We are, of course, ready with our European partners to make a constructive approach to the matter but at the moment negotiations on the future of the West Bank are taking place. We must not undermine those negotiations.
  Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the steps that she has taken in Iran leading to the virtual withdrawal of diplomatic representation, plus the obvious pressure on President Carter to move towards the use of force pose a serious danger to world peace in that area? Would it not also be helpful to recognise in some public statement the deep sense of resentment that underlay the original aspirations of the Iranian people in seeking to get rid of the Shah and establish greater control over their own affairs?
  The Prime Minister: The future internal government of Iran is a matter for the Iranian people. Our quarrel with the Iranians is that they are holding—wholly contrary to international law—some 50 hostages. All our efforts are designed to secure the release of those hostages. The European ambassadors were recalled for consultations last week after which our ambassador Sir John Graham returned to Iran. The other ambassadors did not. Sir John Graham has now returned to Britain for further consultations.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister give her reaction to the highest postwar unemployment figure for April announced today? Will she now accept that North Sea oil revenues could be used to run the economy at a higher rate of activity than her Government are doing? Will the Prime Minister calculate the long-term consequences on our wealth-producing capacity of leaving school leavers idle in their present numbers?
  The Prime Minister: One is always very worried about any increase in unemployment, and that is a view that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also expressed. Revenues from the North Sea go into the Exchequer in the ordinary way and are used to finance all Exchequer expenditure. Under the employment measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, 401,000 people are now assisted by those special measures compared with 248,000 12 months ago.
  Mr. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the directors and work force of the Ford Motor Company on their record output, exports and profits? Does not that show what British industry can achieve when a company has a relatively strike-free period in which to work?
  The Prime Minister: I am only too happy to join in congratulating a company which has shown considerable improvements both in profitability and output over the past year. I note with great satisfaction that it was due to considerably reduced strikes and interruptions in production. I hope that example will be emulated elsewhere.
  Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 22 April.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.
  Mr. Dubs: Does the Prime Minister agree that democracy in this country would be greatly helped if the cloak of secrecy surrounding the Government and Whitehall were to be lifted? Would she be prepared to take a small but significant step in that direction by making available to the public the names of the Cabinet committees and their member-
  214
  ship, without using the excuse that the collective responsibility of the Cabinet would somehow be prejudiced if she were to do so?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I must confess that I had not noticed an undue amount of secrecy lately.
  As to the second part of his question, I have specified what Cabinet committees we have set up. I am not prepared to specify which members of Government serve on them. I believe that I said in reply to that question—and it is perfectly accurate—that the membership varies according to the matters under discussion.
  Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many trade unionists object to the political one-day strike that trade union leaders aim to instigate on 14 May and that they are not least concerned because they are being threatened with withdrawal of their union cards and fines if they do not participate? Will not this puerile exercise by the trade unions cause a great deal of discomfort to the public while in no way causing my right hon. Friend to change the policies that she believes to be in the best interests of the country?
  The Prime Minister: If that day of action takes place, it will have a totally political objective and nothing to do with a trade dispute. I hope that most trade union members will have no part in it at all.
  Mr. James Callaghan: On this question of unemployment—and a large number of people who would like to be working are now being put out of jobs—since the Chief Secretary has said that there is no mechanistic or demonstrable link between the money supply and the reduction in the rate of inflation, why are the Government subjecting this country to such a savage rate of increase in unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to my right hon. Friend's excellent speech at the weekend—and I trust that he will read it in full—in which he said that the Government must adhere to their policies. He also said that the policy cannot be abandoned because of the price that

  215
  would have to be paid in output and employment in the short term to secure the prize of reducing inflation. Towards the end of his speech, he noted that the money supply policy was now beginning to work.
  Mr. Callaghan: If unemployment is part of the Government's policy as a means of doing this, why are they reducing the level of benefits to those who are unemployed or sick?
  The Prime Minister: The main factor in the Government's policy is to reduce the level of inflation, without which the level of unemployment in the long run cannot be reduced, as the right hon. Gentleman observed in one of his main speeches when he was at this Dispatch Box.
  With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, unemployment benefit is being increased slightly below the level of increases in prices pending the introduction of taxation of short term benefits.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend seen newspaper reports that Walsall Labour councillors, who have imposed one of the largest rate increases in the country, now propose to politicise staff appointments to Walsall borough council? Does she agree that that is a most unfortunate trend in our political process? Will she ask the Department of the Environment to look into ways in which it could safeguard the political impartiality of local government officers?
  The Prime Minister: I saw that report. If what the report contains is true—and it appears to be—the proposals of the Walsall Labour Party are wholly contrary to democracy. I am glad that NALGO has also condemned the proposals. I hope that the official Labour Party will also condemn them for what they are—a thorough disgrace.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Lady give serious consideration to the suggestion by the Danish Government that action against Iran by the European States should be postponed until elections have taken place in that country? Does she agree that would be a useful cooling-off period before matters escalate any further?
  The Prime Minister: The United States has waited for six months and the hostages have not yet been released. The Foreign Ministers are meeting in Europe today. Doubtless the Danish Foreign Minister will be there and will put his viewpoint. I hope and believe that the Foreign Ministers will come out with a joint communiqué at the end of their meeting indicating full solidarity with the United States in diplomatic and economic measures.
  Mr. O'Neill: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the problem of Scottish teachers' salaries and agree to find the £1·5 million necessary to bring the salaries of Scottish primary school teachers up to those recommended for England and Wales by Clegg and, in so doing, ensure that we have industrial peace in the classrooms in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: The salaries of Scottish teachers are negotiated in their own negotiating body. I believe it is best to leave matters to that body.
  Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the trade and diplomatic action that the Government are contemplating to help the United States' hostages in Iran, will the Government express the anger of this country at the failure of the United States—after 11 years of violence in Northern Ireland, where the Provisional IRA has slaughtered and mutilated thousands of men and women and young people—to stop money and guns from going to the Provisional IRA, and their continued refusal to send 3,000 Luger weapons to the police because they feel, wrongly, that they do not wish to take sides in this dispute?
  The Prime Minister: We and, I believe, the vast majority of people in the United States, condemn any supply of money from the United States to the IRA for the continuance of its terrorist activities. When the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, was over there, he openly and courageously condemned such action.
  Regarding the supply of pistols to the RUC, 3,000 were supplied and an application was put in for a further 3,000. A final decision has not yet been made.

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (BENEFITS)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with the co-ordination betwen the Department of Employment and Social Services on the provision of benefit for strikers.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister accept that the logic of the Government's policy in denying to strikers the right to urgent needs payments—if the house is burnt down or is flooded—and in denying to strikers' families supplementary benefit in certain circumstances, means that trade unions must attempt to increase their strike funds? If the trade unions are to increase their strike funds, surely that must be as a result of increasing union dues, which will increase pressure for higher wages. Therefore, docs the right hon. Lady agree that the logic of her policy is to push up wages?
  The Prime Minister: Members of trade unions have been paying substantial trade union dues for quite a time and the income and investment of trade unions is very substantial. It seems only right and proper that, if they call out their own people on strike, the trade unions should take some responsibility for the subsistence of their members during the strike period.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no one who takes part in the day of inaction on 14 May will receive any social security benefits? Will she further confirm that people who strike on that day will be losing pay equivalent to a full year's subscription to their union, and that those who oppose the strike on 14 May should go to work?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the vast majority will go to work on 14 May. I confirm that those who do strike will not be entitled, in any way, to social security benefits.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Following the Prime Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when she said that unemployment would increase in the short term, may I ask how many years constitute a "short term"? Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her statement in which she spoke
  218
  of a slight reduction in the payment to unemployed persons—which will be 11·1 per cent.—while inflation is increasing at the rate of 20 per cent.? Is not 50 per cent. rather more than a slight reduction?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the increase in unemployment, the future will depend upon two things—first, the actual performance of British industry and, secondly, how much both the trade unions and employees demand in pay claims. If the employees take out too much in pay, the result will be increasing unemployment.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILLS
Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, there are two Social Security Bills passing through Parliament at the same time. What makes that unique is that they are similar Bills covering the same areas for debate in many instances. I refer to the Social Security (No. 1) Bill and the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. [Laughter.] I do not know what Government Members find so funny. We are talking about benefits that affect millions of people in this country.
We know that it is impossible to debate exactly the same detailed subjects on both Bills. The problem is that they are both at a stage where amendments can be made, but the amendments are proving contradictory. The Social Security (No. 2) Bill amends the Social Security (No. 1) Bill, which has not yet passed through the House of Lords and is still in Committee. Therefore, debate may be a travesty of parliamentary procedure.
I have looked at pages 491 to 493 of "Erskine May", and they do not appear to cover this unique circumstance. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this matter because we are talking about amendments to a Bill that affects the disabled, the sick and pensioners. As was pointed out yesterday by Lord Elwyn-Jones in another place, the Government are in a shambles over both Social Security Bills.
I believe that this is an important constitutional issue, and one that I have not encountered in the time that I have been in Parliament. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) did me the courtesy of giving me notice, in detail, this morning of his point of order and, therefore, I have had an opportunity to consider the matter and to study other pages of "Erskine May".
It is true that there are two Bills passing through the House which interrelate, although they are not of identical substance. Had they been, the second Bill could not have proceeded. In such circumstances, it is not a matter on which I can rule. It is for the House to do its best to ensure that, when the second Bill reaches its final stage, it does not conflict in detail with the first Bill. But that is not a duty that falls upon the Chair. It is a duty for the House. There is no way in which I can intervene.
Mr. Orme: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Does it not point to the fact that until the Social Security (No. 1) Bill has been dealt with by Parliament we should not proceed with the Social Security (No. 2) Bill? It would be a travesty of Parliament to do so. There was an amendment discussed yesterday in another place which related directly to the Social Security (No. 2) Bill.
I cannot refer in any detail to Committee proceedings, but I feel that the Government have a responsibility, in the interests of Parliament, to stop procedure on the second Bill until the first Bill has passed through Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely understand your ruling on the matter, but it might have been relevant if the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) had pointed out that the passage of "Erskine May" to which he drew attention came under the general heading "Introduction and First Reading" in the Commons. If there had been any question about whether the two Bills were in some way inconsistent and could not be proceeded with, the right hon. Gentleman would have been more than a fortnight late in raising the matter. The Bill is now in Committee. It appears that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, means that the Committee is perfectly in order to proceed with it.

WALSALL LABOUR PARTY
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time reference was made to the Walsall area. The Prime Minister considered it appropriate to launch an attack on the Walsall Labour movement—whose members, incidentally, do not need any lectures from the right hon. Lady or any of her colleagues. They have a difficult enough time in carrying out their duties, bearing in mind the severe Government cuts, as a result of which the housing programme has come virtually to a halt.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not catch my eye after the Prime Minister had referred to his constituency, but there were many hon. Members standing up and I did not see him. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order, I shall let him score his point and register his remark by what he has said already.
Mr. Winnick: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I did not catch your eye, although, obviously, I tried to do so. Is it not the custom in the House that an hon. Member can refute the sort of smear allegations that were made by the Prime Minister against the constituency that he represents?
Mr. Speaker: It is one of the difficulties of life that we cannot always contradict remarks. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I would say to any other hon. Member, that if an hon. Member's constituency is mentioned I try, as a rule, to call that hon. Member. I wish that I had called the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has done better by getting in later.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the three Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Apple and Pear Development Council Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

ABORTION (AMENDMENT)
3.39 pm
Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law on abortion so as to enable registered medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies which have lasted for less than twenty-four weeks.
I apologise to the House for bringing before it yet again an issue which many people may feel has been well aired. I remind hon. Members that we have spent a great deal of time in this Session discussing a matter that concerns many people in this country, and have failed to change one section, one comma or one full stop of the Abortion Act 1967. Yet, when the House debated the subject, it was quite clear that many hon. Members on both sides felt that there was room for change in the 1967 Act. Because of the almost obstinate view of people on both sides of the argument, that they will not give way or compromise at all, I feel that no progress has been made in achieving any sort of reasonable compromise to deal with the problems that many of us feel should be tackled.
I do not believe that a Ten-Minute Bill of this kind will fundamentally alter the reasons why women are forced to have abortions, and I am convinced that as a society we must do something about the stigmas that are attached to one-parent families and to those who feel that it is impossible to cope with having a child and who are driven into the hands of the abortionists. I also believe that the contraceptive services which we offer leave a great deal to be desired. But the fact that there is now one abortion every four minutes in this country must surely convince right hon. and hon. Members that the time has come to look again at the way in which our legislation is working and to challenge the sort of suppositions upon which it has been based.
Whether or not this Bill is given the opportunity of being debated further, I am sure that many hon. Members will continue to have sincerely held views either for or against abortion. However, I am certain that there cannot be many hon. Members whose views have changed since we took a vote only a few weeks ago on whether the length of pregnancy at which an abortion can take place
222
should be reduced. That is the matter to which I want hon. Members to address their minds. I am certain that there is a need to reduce the time at which an abortion can take place from the present 28-week limit. Personally, I should like to see it lower than 24 weeks, and I voted accordingly. However, when the Question was put to the House, the vote was lost by 298 to 120, a majority of 178. When a further vote was taken on the 24-week limit, it was agreed to by 275 to 172, thus demonstrating that a clear majority of the House was in favour of a reduction from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. That is why I believe that we must introduce a series of one-clause Bills in order to amend the legislation, and I make it quite clear to those who hold views that are the opposite of my own that this is not the end of the argument.
Indeed, the Minister himself accepted that if further evidence is brought forward it may be necessary to look at a time limit lower than 24 weeks. Therefore, there can never be an end to this argument, and my Bill will not stop hon. Members from introducing further amendments and further Bills. I believe that there is room for this Bill, which the majority of hon. Members supported just a few weeks ago. In evidence, I refer hon. Members to the Lane committee, which said:
"Numerous organisations and individuals have recommended an upper limit on the period of gestation at which abortion may lawfully take place. Their principal reasons for so doing may be summarised as follows:—

(1) To encourage early application for, and performance of, abortion and thus to avoid or minimise the risks of the operation, which increase substantially after the first trimester of pregnancy.

(2) To spare the patient and the medical and nursing staff the revulsion and distress occasioned by later abortions, such reactions becoming progressively more severe as the fetus assumes an increasingly human form and movements may be seen.

(3) To avoid the destruction of a well-developed fetus and particularly one which might survive termination of pregnancy."

Mrs. Justice Lane had this to say in her recommendations:
"Informed opinion is, and the Committee agrees, that a maximum gestational age of twenty-eight weeks for abortion is too high, having regard to modern methods of sustaining prematurely-born infants. Viability must be a question of fact in each case but, while it may be theoretically possible for a fetus to

223
survive at twenty-four weeks' gestation, in practice there is little hope of survival at a gestational age of less than twenty-six weeks. An upper limit of twenty-four weeks' gestation for abortion should afford protection for any fetus with a real chance of survival independently of its mother. Further research may justify a reduction of this period".
Indeed, that is one of the reasons why in the amendment, which he accepted and supported, the Minister talked in terms of exceptions being made and the possibility of further reductions in the future. The committee recommended
"that the Abortion Act should be amended to authorise abortion up to the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy and not thereafter".
A leader in The Times, commenting on that, said:
"There is still room for medical argument about whether it is necessary to stipulate 20 weeks to secure that objective, or whether 22 or 24 weeks would do; but there should be little disagreement about the objective itself."
The Guardian newspaper said of abortions:
"Two out of every 1,000 are carried out on women who have been pregnant for over 24 weeks. About 200 in a year. But both Mrs. Justice Lane's Committee, which spent three years reviewing our abortion procedures, and the World Health Organisation have recommended a limit of 24 weeks."
In opening, I said that a number of right hon. and hon. Members had tried to amend the legislation since my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) introduced the 1967 Act. I must say that I opposed his views then within the political party of which I am a member, and I have consistently taken that view. However, I am pleased that today both he and I are sponsors of this Bill, which demonstrates that there is support on both sides of the argument for the change.
Since 1967, many attempts have been made to change the legislation. On 15 July 1969, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), now Leader of the House, failed to get a First Reading for his Bill by 210 votes to 199. The Abortion Law (Reform) Bill in the 1969–70 Session, in the name of the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), was talked out on Second Reading. Numerous other attempts were made, but I shall not go into them as my time is running out.
I believe that there is a need for this change. I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill, which seeks
224
"to amend the law on abortion so as to enable registered medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies which have lasted for less than twenty-four weeks."
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) wishes to oppose the motion.
3.47 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is no prerogative of moral concern on this issue. There are those such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edgehill (Mr. Alton) whose moral principles make them oppose abortion in all circumstances. There are many whose moral principles make them believe that it is for a woman to choose whether she wants to have an abortion. I have never taken either of those extreme views, nor did the House in 1967. It came to a balance of the moral concerns, between concern for the life and health of the mother and the life of the foetus. We thought then that we had achieved an appropriate balance.
The arguments that I advance today are addressed not to those who are confirmed in their view on either extreme but rather to those in the middle who accepted that balance but who may consider that, in the light of events since then, it is time to change. To those who argue that perhaps we ought to do so in order to give finality to the argument, I must point out that the hon. Member for Edge Hill has already destroyed that argument by indicating that his Bill would not be the last enactment upon the subject, and that those who are opposed to abortion would continue to introduce Bills in the future.
I suggest that those hon. Members who want finality vote strongly against the Bill today so that the House can show to the country that the balance which was achieved in 1967 was the right one and ought to continue.
I address most of my arguments to the point that has been made in favour of the Bill, namely, that, because it is now possible to save a foetus at a much earlier period than it was in 1967, we ought to reduce the top limit in order to avoid the circumstances in which, because of an abortion, a child may come into the world who was capable of living but who was then put to death. I want to make it as plain as I can that that has never been the law. It will not be the law if we pass the Bill. Indeed, there has never

225
been an occasion when it has been permissible for a viable foetus that is capable of living to come into the world and for it then legitimately to be put to death.
It would be an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, and it would be an offence of murder if it were done deliberately. It would be an offence of manslaughter if the consultant or doctor who brought that child into the world were to neglect it, and thereby imperil its life. For that reason, since 1975 the regulations for carrying out abortions have insisted that whenever an abortion takes place after 20 weeks gestation it should take place in circumstances where there is the machinery to resuscitate the foetus if it is capable of living.
We are not discussing the question—so emotively put in much of the propaganda—whether foetuses will be put to death after they have been born. If a foetus is capable of living, it must continue to live. The argument about a 28-week limit is misconceived. No limit is laid down in the Abortion Act 1967. The limit of 28 weeks is laid down in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. It is stated there that it is an offence
"to kill a child capable of being born alive."
If an abortion takes place after 28 weeks of pregnancy the presumption is against the accused, that the child would have been borne alive, and the accused has to refute that presumption. That has always been a rebuttable presumption, and from 1965 onwards it was always possible for legitimate abortion to be carried out after 28 weeks, which was not an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
The difference between the Corrie Bill—if I may so call it—and this Bill is that that arguable presumption was removed. Any abortion carried out after 24 or 28 weeks would have been an offence. If people argue about whether that offence is desirable, they should then consider the circumstances. At present,
226
very few abortions take place after 24 weeks. Only 183 such abortions took place in 1977, and of those the majority were dictated by the circumstances of the life or health of the foetus or of the life or health of the mother. Some people now say that we should shift the moral balance so that the time limit is held at 24 weeks or less. Incidentally, this Bill does not say that the limit should be 24 weeks or less. It says that the limit should be less than 24 weeks, which means 23 weeks, and when the two weeks that consultants allow as a buffer period are taken off, the limit is 21 weeks. If we say that the balance must be held at 21 weeks we are shifting the balance of moral concern from the life and the health of the mother, and the life and health of the other children, towards the foetus.
Given the circumstances that I have indicated, I do not believe that a foetus that is capable of being born alive will ever be destroyed, and that that is the right balance to hold. It means that we would stop the abortion of a foetus that would be born dead, and we would do so merely on the grounds of the moral concern of some people against the interest of the health and life of the mother and other children and towards the foetus. I do not believe that that is a desirable thesis.
We should now say to the country as a whole, and to all those who campaigned against the 1967 Bill, that we struck the right balance in 1967. It is the right balance for us now and we should hold to it in the future, and we should tell our constituents that. Let us now vote against the Bill in order to make that plain.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EMPLOYMENT BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New Clause 3

  RIGHT OF WORKERS TO DEMAND A BALLOT BEFORE INDUSTRIA ACTION IS TAKEN
  5

  '(1) Whenever action is contemplated by a trade union in furtherance of a trade dispute, any member of that union whose participation in such action may be required under the rules of the union, or because of that employee's membership of the union, or because of his employment by an employer with whom the dispute is contemplated, may give notice in writing to the committee of management or other governing body of the union that he wishes a ballot to be held on the question whether such action should be undertaken by the union.

  10

  (2) If 15 per cent. of the total membership of a union whose participation in action in furtherance of a trade dispute may be required under the rules of the union, or 500 such members, whichever is the lesser number, give the notice specified in subsection (1) before the commencement of such action, the committee of management or other governing body of the union shall give directions for a ballot to be held on the question specified in the said subsection.

  15

  (3) The persons entitled to vote in a ballot under this section shall be all those members of a union whose participation in the action contemplated by the union may be required under the rules of the union and who are members of that union as set out in the latest return to the Certification Officer.

  20

  (4) A ballot under this section shall be so conducted, in the employer's time, as to secure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, all those entitled to vote have an opportunity of voting, and of doing so in secret.

  25

  (5) In the event of a ballot being held in accordance with the provisions of this section, the provisions of section 13 (Acts in contemplation of furtherance of trade disputes) of the 1974 Act shall not apply in respect of any act done in furtherance of the trade dispute concerned by any person or by or on behalf of the trade union concerned—

  (a) between the day following the receipt by the committee of management or other governing body of the union of the number of notices specified in subsection (2) and the day following the publication of the result of the said ballot; and,

  30

  (b) if more than 50 per cent. of those voting in the said ballot voted against the action contemplated by the union, at any time after the publication of the result of the said ballot.

  (6) In the event of there not being a majority for industrial action, it shall not be open to any member of the union to request a further ballot under the provisions of this section for a period of 28 days following the publication of the result of the ballot.

  35

  (7) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any ballot which may be held during the course of industrial action or in the event of any ballot being held by the executive of the union in contemplation of such union action.

  40

  (8) In this section references to a trade union include references to a branch or section of a trade union, and references to the committee of management or other governing body include references to a branch or section committee.'.—(Mr. John Browne.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.56 pm
  Mr. John Browne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following:
  Amendment (a) to the new clause, in line 6, after 'union', insert:
  'or, in confidence, to his employer, the receipt of such notices to be vouched by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service or other similar body'.
  New clause 2—Secret ballot to be held before commencement of trade dispute:
  '(1) It shall not be lawful for any trade union to call a strike or any other form of industrial dispute prior to the holding of a secret ballot of its members in accordance with the following provisions.
  (2) The ballot shall be held on a working day within the next seven working days following the decision by the trade unions to call a strike or other form of industrial action, and shall be conducted by the trade unions concerned.
  (3) A simple majority of those voting shall be required to validate the decision to strike or hold other forms of industrial action.

  229
  (4) In the event of a strike or other industrial action being called without the obtaining of such a majority, or in the event of the other provisions of this section being disregarded by the trade union concerned, section 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 shall not have effect for the purpose of any action in tort which may be taken.'.
  New clause 4—Provision of ballots in relation to industrial disputes:
  '1. (a) 15 per cent. or 500 employees (whichever is the less) at any particular place of work shall be entitled to serve a notice of intent in writing on their trade union requesting that a ballot should be held for the purpose of obtaining a decision or ascertaining the views of employees as to the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action.
  (b) The ballot shall fall within the purposes mentioned in section 1, subsection 3 below, and the certification officer shall cause payments to be made towards expenditure incurred by the trade union in respect of such a ballot.
  (c) Any such ballot shall be held within a period of time, after the receipt by the trade union of notice of intent in writing, not exceeding 14 days.
  (d) Any strike or other industrial action called or pursued in defiance of or before the result of such a ballot shall not fall within the terms of sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.'.
  New clause 5—Right of trades union members to requisition secret ballots:
  '(1) Notwithstanding any provision of its rules it shall be the duty of a trade union, on the requisition of such number of members as is hereinafter specified to conduct or cause to be conducted a ballot of its members for the purpose of seeking their opinions on any of the matters set out below, that is to say—

  (a) the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action;

  (b) a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer in accordance with the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964;

  (c) the matters referred to in section 1, subsection 3(b) to (3)(d).

  (2) The number of members necessary for a requisition under the foregoing subsection shall be—

  (a) in the case of the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action under subsection 1(a) above, one twentieth of the members involved in such strike or industrial action;

  (b) in the case of the purposes referred to in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) above one-twentieth of the members of the trade union.

  (3) The requisition must state the questions which are to be the subject of the ballot, and must be signed by the requisitionists and be deposited at the registered office of the trade union and may consist of several documents in like form each signed by one or more requisitionists.
  230
  (4) On receipt of such a requisition, and pending the result of the required ballot, a trade union shall not take any action to give effect to any proposal or proposals which is or are the subject of the ballot.
  (5) If the trade union does not within twenty-one days from the date of deposit of the requisition proceed duly to conduct a ballot or cause it to be conducted, the requisitionists, or any of them duly nominated as proxies for this purpose, may themselves conduct a ballot or cause it to be conducted, but any ballot so conducted shall not be held after the expiration of three months from the said date.
  (6) A ballot so conducted or caused to be conducted shall in all cases be so conducted as to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those voting may do so in secret.
  (7) It shall be the duty of any official of a trade union to make available to the requisitionists, or to any proxy duly nominated under subsection (5) above, such documents, records and facilities as are necessary for the proper conduct of the ballot.
  (8) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the requisitionists by reason of the failure of the trade union to conduct a ballot or cause it to be conducted shall be repaid to the requisitionists by the trade union. The certification officer shall have the power to make payments in respect of such expenditure as if it were expenditure incurred on a ballot to which section 1 applies.
  (9) the certification officer may, on application by a number of members of a trade union hereinafter specified, make payments in respect of expenditure likely to be reasonably incurred in preparing the requisition in accordance with subsections (1) to (5).
  (10) The number of members necessary for an application under the foregoing subsection shall be—

  (a) in the case of the calling or ending of a strike or other industrial action under subsection 1(a) above, one per cent. of the members involved in such strike or industrial action or 50 whichever is the less;

  (b) in the case of the purposes referred to in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) above one per cent. of the total membership of the trade union in question or 500 whichever is the less;

  (11) The certification officer may refuse to make the payments referred to in subsections (8) and (9) above if members of trades unions seeking the ballot or requisition in question are acting unreasonably, vexatiously or frivolously.
  (12) A trade union shall not be bound under this section to circulate any statement if, on the application either of the trade union or any other person who claims to be aggrieved, the court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter and the courts may order the trade union's cost on an application under this section to be paid in whole or in part by the requisitionists notwithstanding that they are not parties to the application.".
  New Clause 6—Right of workers to demand a ballot before or during industrial action:
  '(1) Whenever action disruptive or likely to be disruptive to full production of an employing organisation in furtherance of a trade dispute is either contemplated by a trade union or has begun but in case of pay negotiations, not before a definitive final offer in writing has been made by the employing organisation and acknowledged in writing by the union, but not within 28 days after publication of the result of a previous ballot under this Act any member of that union whose participation in such action may be required who is employed by the employing organisation may give signed notice in writing either to the committee of management of the union or in confidence to the employing organisation, the receipt of which notices to be vouched by ACAS or other similar body that he wishes a secret ballot to be held on the question of whether such action should be taken by the union.
  (2) If 15 per cent. of the persons employed by the employing organisation who are members of a union whose participation in action in furtherance of a trade dispute may be required, or 500 of such members whichever is the lesser number, give the notice specified in subsection (1) and such notice is certified by ACAS as correct, before the commencement of such action, the committee of management directions for a secret ballot to be held on the question specified in the said subsection (1) before the beginning of any disruptive action. If such notice is received and certified by ACAS after the commencement of such action or a previous ballot under this Act the committee of management of the union shall give directions for the secret ballot to be held within fourteen days of the receipt of such notice and such action is to be immediately suspended pending the outcome of the ballot.
  (3) The persons entitled to vote in a ballot under this section shall be all those members of a union whose participation in the action whether contemplated or begun may be required and who are employed by the employing organisation and are members of the union as set out in the latest return to the Certification Officer.
  (4) A ballot under this section shall be conducted whenever practical in the employing organisation's time so as to secure that so far as is reasonably possible all those entitled to vote have an opportunity of voting and of doing so in secret. The question to be asked in the ballot is to be decided by the committee of management of the union and the employing organisation. In case of dispute, the question to be decided by an independent body. If the specific unions fail to organise such a ballot within 14 days of receipt of notices as specified in subsection (2) the employing organisation may arrange the ballot with the help if required of ACAS, the Electoral Reform Society or similar body.
  (5) In the event of a ballot being held or requested in accordance with this section the provisions of sections 13 (Acts in contemplation of furtherance of trade disputes) of the 1974 Act shall not apply in respect of any act
  232
  done in furtherance of the trade dispute concerned by any person or by or on behalf of the trade union concerned:

  (a) from the day following the receipt by the committee of management and/or employing organisation of the number of notices specified in subsection (2) until the day following the publication of the result of the said ballot; and

  (b) if in any employing organisation, more than 50 per cent. of those eligible voting in the said ballot voted against the action contemplated or undertaken by the union at any time after the publication of the result of the said ballot.

  (6) In this section reference to a union includes a branch or section or group of members of a trade union and references to the committee of management includes a governing body, branch, district or executive Committee of a union or representatives or associations or similar bodies acting on behalf of non union or staff employees.
  (7) In this section reference to an employing organisation includes a state, public or privately owned company or corporation whether incorporated or not or operating division or subsidiary thereof.'.
  Mr. Browne: It is well known that Britain is at a crossroads between becoming either a developed technological country or an underdeveloped industrial country. To attain the former goal and a justified high standard of living, we must achieve a technological revolution. To achieve that we must, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, restore sanity to our industrial relations.
  Speaking personally, I am not anti-trade unions, but I share the views of many of my fellow countrymen, including many rank and file trade union members, that in an alarming number of instances certain trade union leaders appear to have abused the great power vested in them by their rank and file membership. Furthermore, that abuse has not been restricted to conditions of work or pay, but it has, on occasions, been extended to the very politics of our nation and, as such, has abused our basic form of democratic government.
  Sadly, I believe that those union leaders have been allowed and encouraged to abuse their power by weak national leadership. I believe that the true blame for chaotic industrial relations, demoralised managements, low productivity, high unemployment and the fact that we now have one of the worst paid work forces in the developed world lies in this House. This is where the blame for weak leadership must lie, and this is

  233
  where the answers must be found. So many trade union leaders profess democracy but few practise it. Many practise a form of either partial or complete dictatorship—a dictatorship disguised under a veil of democracy. Today, a man must be all but a hero to lead a vote, by show of hands, against his union leader's recommendations at the average mass meeting of his union.
  The result of the last general election convinced me that the majority of our fellow countrymen and, more importantly on this issue, vast numbers of trade union rank and file expect the present Government to induce the trade unions to accept democracy when they interfere with their members' basic right to work where jobs exist. To allow for that, I believe that trade union members on the shop floor should be offered the basic democratic right to a secret ballot on matters concerning industrial action and that a minority should be able to trigger such a secret ballot.
  I emphasise that such a mandatory right of the worker is definitely not the same as a mandatory ballot. I envisage a mandatory right for the shop floor worker, which he is free to use—or not—on a voluntary basis. I have therefore tabled two new clauses to this vital Bill, new clauses 3 and 6. I feel that they should be read in conjunction with each other. The second new clause is a more comprehensive version of the first and overcomes many of the potential problems raised by a secret ballot.
  The purpose of introducing the clauses is to stimulate debate in the House and to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to accept the principle of a secret ballot triggered by a minority of union members. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to introduce a professionally drafted clause in another place or make a firm commitment to the House to introduce the secret ballot in separate legislation in this Parliament.
  The aim of the clause is to reintroduce democracy for workers within their unions regarding industrial action, both in furtherance of a trade dispute and in furtherance of political aims, by allowing members to trigger a democratic secret ballot of their fellow workers. The clauses do not seek to impose a mandatory ballot on the unions from
  234
  outside. They merely allow for a secret ballot internally triggered.
  The main points of the clauses are as follows. Subsection (1) allows a member of a trade union to ask his union, even in confidence, for a secret ballot to be held on whether industrial action, which he is being asked to undertake, should start or continue. In pay negotiations, such a request may not be made before a final pay offer has been received in writing by the union. That is the same provision as that contained in section 173(c) of the United States Labour Code, which allows the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to submit the employer's last offer of a settlement to the employees for approval by secret ballot. Under the subsection, a request for a ballot may not be made within 28 days of a previous ballot.
  Subsection (2) defines the minority that is required for a secret ballot trigger—that is, the minority that is required under the clause before any industrial action is suspended, if it has begun, pending the ballot.
  Subsection (3) specifies who can vote in a ballot. Subsection (4) describes the conduct of a ballot—namely, to be held in secret in employers' time and the ballot question to be decided by union and employer together or, if disputed, by an independent body. It provides for the company to run a ballot should the union fail to do so.
  Subsection (5) describes the sanctions to be imposed should a union fail in its obligations. The sanctions are the removal of section 13 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 immunities, and are identical to the sanctions that are already contained in the Bill for secondary picketing.
  Subsection (6) defines unions and includes groups of members of a trade union. It thereby encompasses unofficial actions.
  Subsection (7) defines employers' organisations, including operating divisions. It therefore allows local union ballots upon national union actions.
  I must emphasise that the new clauses are not professionally drafted and seek only to suggest to my right hon. Friend how some of the main problems in the complex subject of secret ballots may be overcome. In other words, the details

  235
  as drafted are only suggestions and are in no way sacrosanct.
  It is the principle of secret ballots about which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel so strongly. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members in the Liberal Party also have strong views. I remind my right hon. Friend that the sentiments set out in the new clauses have been approved by the Conservative trade union national conference on no fewer than three occasions, on the last by a vote of 500 to three.
  My right hon. Friend may argue that the ideas contained within the clauses do not fit within the parametres of the Bill. If he does, I shall dispute that. The idea is a voluntary secret ballot. The only imposition is upon trade union leaders to recognise democracy, and only if and when a minority of their members request it. As I have said, the sanctions, including the removal of section 13 TULRA immunities, are entirely consistent with the Bill's present provisions for sanctions under secondary picketing. In my view, the proposal is a mere mouse, a first small step towards a mandatory secret ballot, which Conservative Members and Conservative voters expect of the Government. I submit that my proposal meets the step-by-step criteria of my right hon. Friend.
  Finally, my right hon. Friend may argue that there has been no consultation and that the Robens proposal will be a good first step. My reply will be that there have been two months in which to consult on the specific proposal in detail and years—yes, years—in which to consult on the idea of secret ballots.
  Mr. Richard Needham Mr. Richard Needham (Chippenham) rose—
  Mr. Browne: As for the Robens amendment, I believe that it will increase rather than decrease the power of trade union leaders. A trade union leader who is a wrecker is far more dangerous to the country than 100 political wreckers on the shop floor. Furthermore, the Robens amendment will leave the poor employer still poorer.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: The hon. Gentleman has spoken a good deal about democracy. Does he agree that the ultimate in democracy is allowing people to make up their own minds, on
  236
  the basis of a democratic vote within their union, what the rules should be? Is he not aware that many unions already have provisions in their rules for secret ballots and that the rules are determined by the union members? Surely, that is what real democracy is about. Surely, it is not about the imposition of rules on trade unions from this place.
  Mr. Browne: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Like many things that are said about union democracy, what the hon. Gentleman says sounds so good and so abundantly democratic. However, the actual workings are not nearly so convincing. If the hon. Gentleman was correct, there would be no objection to my proposal. I am merely saying that in the unions where he is not correct, members should be free, especially as we are talking about their means of earning their livelihood, to say whether they agree with one man in a union of 2 million members. Without some form of ballot, how can that one man possibly know whether the union should instruct its members to strike?
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of subsection (8) of new clause 3? It is there stated that
  "references to a trade union include references to a branch or section of a trade union".
  Does that mean that a branch of a trade union could organise a ballot and take industrial action on its own regardless of the wishes of the rest of the union?
  Mr. Browne: No, it does not. The purpose of the subsection is to try to include unofficial action, which may not be action resulting from the policy of the union leader.
  Mr. Needham rose—
  Mr. Browne: In closing, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Needham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is obliged to give way when he has been called to speak. It is a matter for the hon. Member who is speaking.
  Mr. Browne: I remind the House that it is the principle of the secret ballot about which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel so strongly. We do not hold as sacrosanct the provisions of these

  237
  unprofessionally drafted clauses; they are merely suggestions. The idea is for a voluntary secret ballot triggered from the shop floor. It is not an imposed or mandatory secret ballot. It is just a first step—a very important first step—that could provide invaluable experience for the future—experience that is now so sadly lacking—upon which to base subsequent legislation for a mandatory secret ballot. I do not believe that this idea will provide a panacea for stopping strikes. At best, it will prevent some strikes and may shorten others.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I have supported his Bill as Government policy and that I have kept him informed of my views and my movements. I therefore hope that when he has listened to the debate he will meet the strong feelings on this issue by giving the House a firm commitment to introduce either relevant Government-drafted changes to the Bill in another place or separate legislation later in this Parliament. I believe that the trade union rank and file and the majority of our fellow countrymen expect such a commitment.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on the clear and pleasant diction with which he read his speech. His vowels were pure and his consonants sharply articulated, but I fear that I cannot congratulate him on the content of his speech, whoever may have been its author or authors. It shows a great deal of evidence of theoretical—
  Mr. John Browne:—Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mikardo: I have not yet come to the end of my first sentence. The hon. Member for Winchester was so worried about his diction that he did not want to give way even to one of his hon. Friends. Now he wants me to give way before I have finished my first sentence. May I ask him to wait another minute or so? I am quite ready to see him stick his neck out and get it wet.
  I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the content of his speech. I intend no disrespect to him, but his speech bears the hallmark of someone who has come to this subject from a theoretical rather than from a practical standpoint.
  238
  I do not propose to speak at length because I think that we should not spend a long time on this debate. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that we have before us in the days remaining on Report debates on several subjects of major importance on which there is room for and there is a clear difference of view, both sides of which can be fairly argued. The House should spend its time on the serious issues in the Bill. I am sure the Secretary of State will not wish to waste a lot of time on the clause, and I hope the debate on it will be brought to an end fairly quickly.
  Mr. Browne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my speech was drafted entirely by me without any outside interference. I am amazed that he should consider a secret ballot as being immaterial. To me and many of the people I meet in daily life, see on television or consult, it is of overriding importance.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman confess that he wrote the speech himself. I tried hard to think well of him and I was hoping that my good opinion of him could be sustained by his ascribing the authorship of that garrulous nonsense elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman does not know what goes on in industry. He said that it took a lot of courage for one man to get up at an open meeting where there is a show of hands ballot and oppose the union's recommendation. It happens every day of the week. All of us on the Opposition Benches have been present on many occasions when that has happened. The hon. Gentleman cannot read his newspapers very thoroughly, because in the past few weeks there have been some highly publicised mass meetings where workers have turned down the recommendations, either of the union executive or of the shop stewards. Mr. Robinson can provide some evidence of that, can he not?
  Tory Members do not know what goes on in the real world. The hon. Member for Winchester spoke as though secret ballots were new in the trade union movement. They go on all the time in many unions. Nor should he assume that a secret ballot will always be a ballot against the holding of a strike. That is the thought behind the clause. The

  239
  hon. Gentleman did not say that, but we know that is what is behind it. We might ask the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who lost the highest position in Government because of a strike carried out as the result of a secret ballot in the National Union of Mine-workers. No strike ever takes place in that union without a secret ballot, and that is true of many other unions.
  The hon. Gentleman asked us to follow the practice of the legislature of the United States of America in this regard. He manifestly is unaware that, in spite of all the legislation in the United States, for many years the number of days lost in strikes per million workers in the United States has always been many times as high—sometimes five or six times as high—as the number of days per million workers lost in strikes in this country. America is nearly the world champion in the number of days lost in strikes per million workers. Therefore, I see no basis for adjuring the House to copy the example of the United States.
  Strikes nearly always happen as the result of a lot of straws being put one by one on a camel's back. There is always the final straw. Sometimes people who are investigating strikes get the analysis wrong because they see only the final straw and do not look hard enough at what went before. The Donovan Commission brought out this important factor in its great report. When something happens as a final straw people do not take a ballot. The most common cause of walk-outs in industry is a shop steward being sacked or disciplined—
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Like "Robbo."
  Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Lady should not interrupt. She should stick to arguments about the period of 20 weeks. She discredited herself by misleading her constituents in that regard, and I am not disposed to take much notice of her now.
  The most common cause of an immediate walk-out at a work place is when a couple of chaps are trying to organise for a trade union in an unorganised place and the employer gets to hear about it and fires them, with the result that the other chaps either walk out or down tools and sit down.
  240
  That will happen whatever sort of legislation we have. If those who speak and act for their fellow workers are discriminated against, those fellow workers will not stand for it. There are no circumstances in which anyone will take a ballot in such a case—because a ballot takes time. Anyway, if the employer is refusing his employees the right to join a trade union, who will organise the ballot?
  Suppose the workers do not walk out but down tools and sit down, which often happens. Often the employer locks them out. Who will he take a ballot of in order to decide on a lock-out? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if one man can unilaterally decide on a lock-out, where are the pleas of the hon. Member for Winchester for democracy? A lock-out can affect the livelihoods of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of workers. There is no ballot and no consultation with anyone. That is how it often works out.
  I appeal to my hon. Friends who wish to speak in the debate not to take too long, because we should try to get rid of this rubbish in an hour or two and get on to the meat of the Bill.
  My final point is that if there is to be a ballot to start a strike trade union leaders will have no authority to end it without a ballot. The hon. Member for Winchester says that one trade union leader ought not to have the right, on his own say-so, to call a strike and that it ought to be left to the chaps. Suppose they have a ballot and call a strike. Does the hon. Member suggest that one trade union leader, on his own say-so, should have the right to tell them that, whether they like it or not, they must go back to work?
  If there is a ballot before a strike, there must be a ballot to end it and if the hon. Member studies the American experience he will find many examples where there has been great difficulty in getting the chaps back to work in the United States because of the legislation that the hon. Gentleman quoted and applauded.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his general argument would be a great deal stronger but for the fact that so many trade unionists are locked into unions by closed shops and cannot exercise the ultimate discipline on their trade

  241
  union leaders of saying "I do not like the way that you are running the union. I shall leave it and either not be a trade unionist or join another trade union"?
  Mr. Mikardo: I go along with some of the thought behind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, the existence of the closed shop affects many aspects of industrial relations. I have been a trade unionist all my working life—I was on the executive committee of a trade union for more than 30 years and was its president for five years—and I have never been a great devotee of the closed shop. I am in favour of closed shops, because I am in favour of workers joining their trade unions, but I never sought to get an employer to help me create a closed shop. I always wanted to do it myself. I go along with the hon. Gentleman that far, but the issue before us is not affected by the existence of the closed shop.
  Whether a shop is closed or not, if there is a ballot to start a strike there must be a ballot to end it. That is a fact that the hon. Member for Winchester has never faced.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has just set out the original non sequitur. If people do not want to go on strike, but stay at work, they are in grave danger of losing their union cards and their employment. If there has been a ballot to go on strike and union representatives recommend a return to work without a ballot, those who are not in favour of returning to work will not do so, but they will not lose their union cards or their employment.
  Mr. Mikardo: I have never in my life seen so many pheasants flying straight into the guns. Conservative Members really do ask for trouble. What the hon. Gentleman has said is so manifest nonsense that it does not need even an argument against it. If it is dictatorial to compel people to come out, it is dictatorial to compel them to go back. There must be the same mechanisms for both.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mikardo: No; I have finished. In fact, I finished two minutes ago and I want this silly debate to come to an end.
  242
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to bring it to an end as soon as he decently can.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I wish to speak in support of new clause 3, and of new clause 2 in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends.
  I should like first to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary for their handling of the Bill. My right hon. Friend set the tone for the debate when he said last week:
  "Change is urgently necessary to give people more control over their own lives—to think and act for themselves free from some of the pressures to which they have been subjected for so long."—[Official Report, 17 April 1980; Vol. 982, c, 1503.]
  That is a view that Conservative Members unanimously endorse.
  I am sorry that, despite the growth of informed opinion in the Conservative Party and the country, the Bill makes no real or sufficient provision for a secret ballot to be held by the work force before a dispute can commence. To permit the omission of such a provision would seem to fly in the face of our national history and the growth of working and middle-class political consciousness in the nineteenth century and to date.
  Since 1832, political activity in pursuit of democracy has been the goal of working class and trade union leadership. Indeed, the People's Charter published in London in May 1838 contained six points, which were regarded as revolutionary by contemporaries but which we consider to be part of the political complexion of a Western liberal democracy.
  The Chartists demanded annual Parliaments, universal male suffrage, no property qualification for Members of Parliament, the payment of Members, equal electoral districts and the ballot—the secret ballot.
  Five of the six objectives have been achieved and the secret ballot in which an elector can demonstrate his or her preference for a political party, or not to vote at all, is recognised as important. For hon. Members to deny the application of the democratic processes to any adult Briton would be considered unthinkable, yet the right of the man or woman on the shop floor to participate in the decision-making process in connection with a proposal to strike or to

  243
  take another form of industrial action is not enshrined in law and will not be unless the Bill is changed.
  I cannot rid myself of the knowledge gained in Dartford in the general election that many thousands of blue-collar workers and their families voted Conservative for the first time in greater numbers than ever before because they wanted a radical change in the mechanisms currently obtaining on the shop floor. I cannot permit, in terms of legislation, the drawing of conclusions in opposition which are denied in government.
  This view is supported by Sir Leonard Neal who wrote to the The Times on Monday 31 March and said
  "My second doubt about the Bill concerns its failure to give rank-and-file membership the right to demand a ballot "…
  and
  "There is much evidence of strike-weariness in this country—witness recent events at Ford's of Eastleigh, Cowley, Leyland, private steel, BSC itself, etc.—and of the rank-and-file membership being dragooned into striking despite their obvious inclinations to the contrary, all of which strongly underlines the need for a measure of this sort."
  In his final paragraph, Sir Leonard says:
  "In dealing with all these undoubtedly difficult matters, we need to bear in mind that although the right to strike is, and must remain a basic freedom, it can never be a right that is superior to all other rights."
  That is a view that Conservative Members would endorse and they would add that the right to be consulted can never be denied.
  4.30 pm
  Most Members of Parliament have received a letter today from Mr. Roger Gale, vice-chairman of the Conservative Trades Unionists' Communications Group. [Interruption.] I understand that all Conservative Members have received it, and there are not many of them on the Opposition Benches. He writes:
  "The mandatory right of a worker to demand a secret ballot is not the same as a 'mandatory ballot'. The latter is imposed by Government—as was the 1974 ballot—but the former comes from the unionist himself. It is the latter—and the spectre of the 1974 Railwaymen's Vote—that Jim Prior has used to fend off demands for more meaningful legislation. It is the former—the mandatory right of a worker to demand a secret ballot—that the Conservative Trades Unionists' National
  244
  Council has endorsed three times in successive meetings and which was backed by 500 votes to 3 at the CTU National Conference in Nottingham."
  I should like now to commend my own new clause, which provides for a compulsory secret ballot to be held before the commencement of a trade dispute. I part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) in this respect, in that whereas I accept that the trigger mechanism is supported by members of my own party in the Conservative trade union branches, I would prefer Parliament to legislate for the right for a ballot to take place when a strike call is made and on that consideration alone.
  I can foresee difficulties when it is necessary to ask 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of a work force to sign a petition requiring a ballot to be held. If I were the shop floor convener of the union of which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is a member, I would demand to see the list of members who had signed the petition, in order to make sure that Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Adolf Hitler had not signed in order to make up the numbers and I would consequently know who the moderates are.
  Although today we are discussing new clauses whose construction is defective, we hope that the Secretary of State will give us a guarantee or assurance that legislation will be introduced, next Session, or within the lifetime of this Parliament, which will cause secret ballots to be held when a strike call is made.
  In conclusion, I remind my right hon. Friend of the verse of a beautiful hymn:
  "Through the night of doubt and sorrow
  Onward goes the pilgrim band,
  Singing songs of expectation,
  Marching to the Promised and."
  I urge my right hon. Friend to become a pilgrim and to join with us on the road to the Promised Land. By so doing, he will strike a chord that will go beyond this House and through our party to the majority of people who support us today in this crucial debate.
  I was speaking to members of my own party in Dartford over the weekend, and one said to me "When you see Jim Prior, tell him to get his spinnaker up and take advantage of the wind that is blowing

  245
  his way." I hope that my right hon. Friend will do just that.
  Mr. Giles Radice: What has been interesting about the speeches so far from the Conservative Benches is that they have illustrated once again the endless ability of Members on the Right wing of the Conservative Party to misunderstand industrial relations problems. They did it in the last Parliament, they did it in the Parliament before that, and they seem to be doing it again in this Parliament.
  I am strongly in favour of ballots; in fact, I have taken part in them and helped to organise some trade union ballots—unlike Conservative Members. I am strongly in favour of them, where they are appropriate. They are not always appropriate. The issue, however, is not ballots as such; the issue before the House this afternoon is the new clause.
  The truth is that the clause will harm industrial relations, and it will be almost totally unworkable. The first argument against the clause is that it will divide the work force. It is a recipe for minorities to stir up trouble against majorities. It could exacerbate rather than ameliorate organisational and inter-union disputes. Any Conservative Member who doubts that should consider what would happen, for example, in British Leyland if this kind of clause were to be applied. We should be likely, as a consequence, to get a much more divided work force. Conservative Members should ponder that before voting for the clause.
  Secondly, it would be likely to cause more unofficial strikes. It would be likely to encourage unions to say "If our unofficial strike strategy is to be interrupted by this kind of action, with ballots demanded by any small group of workers, we shall cause more unofficial strikes"—and it should be remembered that most strikes are unofficial.
  The third argument is that it could well prolong strikes rather than make them shorter, because the assumption behind the clause seems to be that minorities are always pacific, where as they are very often militant. It is the militant minorities who will very often use this kind of ballot clause to prolong strikes rather than to shorten them. Conservative Members ought also to consider that point.
  246
  The fourth point relates to the authority of trade union leaders. We often hear from Conservatives about the weakness of trade union leaders; indeed they are the first to criticise trade union leaders for not having sufficient authority. What do they think the clause would be likely to do to trade union authority if any small group of workers could demand a ballot during a strike or at any time? Conservative Members ought also to ponder that point.
  Then there is the general atmosphere of industrial relations. I do not know whether some of the new Conservative Members remember the Industrial Relations Act. I do not know whether they remember how it soured the general atmosphere of industrial relations in the early 1970s, so that instead of the reforms that were needed in industrial relations, following the Donovan report, we had an Industrial Relations Act which set back industrial relations in this country by at least 10 years.
  Let Conservative Members consider what would be likely to happen, particularly if there were a question of removing trade union immunities.
  It is for these reasons that the trade union movement would be strongly against the clause; indeed, not just the trade union movement, but the employers as well.
  The Engineering Employers' Federation has sent a letter to The Times, as have also some sensible Conservatives. The chairman of the Left-wing Tory Reform Group is reported in The Times today as saying that the Employment Bill critics are "out of touch". I think he is right. He goes on to say that those who are trying to amend the Employment Bill to impose compulsory ballots
  "appear to believe that radical changes in attitude and behaviour can be brought about by the magic wand of merely changing the law".
  Conservative Members should think about that, too. The trouble is that many Conservatives are still harking back to the Industrial Relations Act. They really want compulsory ballots. That is the truth of the matter. This is just a halfway house to it. They want to remove trade union immunities, and this is one way of doing that. Like the Bourbons, they have learnt nothing and forgotten

  247
  nothing, and I hope that the House will treat the clause with the contempt that it deserves.
  Mr. John Townend: I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). He seemed to consider that the record of his Government in industrial relations was very much better than that of the present Government. I seem to remember that last May one of the principal reasons why the Conservative Party was elected to office was that the British public had lost confidence completely during the winter of discontent, when there was rubbish on the streets and when it was not possible to get the dead buried.
  New clause 4, which is tabled in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, differs in detail, but not in principle, from the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I know that the House is short of time and I shall not go into the differences of detail in drafting. I shall restrict my remarks to the principle, as I feel strongly that this is a matter of principle. Secret ballots are close to the heart of every true democrat. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, (Mr. Dunn) said, this principle has been fought for long and hard during election periods. It is difficult to argue against it. We should examine the Government's proposals in the light of that principle, rather than considering the sordid question of what trade union leaders are prepared to accept.
  The Government are merely offering cash to finance ballots. If trade unions accept the recommendations of the TUC, the cash will be refused, and that will be the end of the matter. A union member will then be forced to go on strike without his having been consulted by a union boss, who might well be motivated by political considerations. He may have little or no regard for the desires or interests of the ordinary working man.
  I submit that one of our great problems is that the trade union movement has its own political party which it finances. Many trade union leaders have a vested interest in ensuring that all Conservative Governments fail. Some trade union leaders may be tempted to use the weapon of a strike as a means of undermining the Government and their policies.
  248
  As has been pointed out, what better example could be given than that of the proposed one-day general strike. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated that that strike will be a political strike.
  It is therefore essential to give the rank and file—the majority of whom are interested only in their livelihoods, their companies and their country—the right to express its view. It is only right that it should be able to overrule the politicos, who often masquerade as trade union leaders.
  Alternatively, the union member could be consulted as at a mass meeting. However, I challenge the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He seems to have a lot of faith in mass meetings. It is clear from television programmes that organisers often do not count hands. It is very difficult for a man who wishes to vote against a strike—that has been called by shop stewards—to declare himself. He is often frightened by the bully boys.
  I have spoken to many dockers in Hull. They have told me that the best way of asking for a swim in the docks is to vote against the shop steward's recommendation at a mass meeting. Although I do not necessarily agree with the Government's arguments against a mandatory ballot, as provided in the 1971 Act, I understand them. If a ballot could be described as a Government or bosses' ballot, trade unionists might close ranks and vote in favour of their leaders. New clauses 3 and 4 therefore give workers a right to call for a ballot.
  It is insignificant whether the percentage involved is 15 per cent., 5 per cent., or 10 per cent. If the Government were to suggest a few percentage points more or less, those of my hon. Friends who support these new clauses would agree. By analogy, trade unionists should have a right to call a ballot just as shareholders have a right to call an extraordinary meeting of a limited company. Men have to make a momentous decision before striking.
  Mr. Leighton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that shareholders of private companies should always be balloted before money is given to the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Townend: Actions, such as those involved in a take-over of a limited company are often subject to the approval of a general meeting of shareholders.
  Mr. Leighton rose—
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Townend: Many hon. Members wish to speak and I have undertaken not to speak for too long. A strike affects not only a man's livelihood, but the well-being of his family. In extreme cases, his job may be put at risk. We should remember that strikers will not receive the same amount of social security and although I support that measure, it is only fair that they should have a right in law to express their views.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that if the Government had made more concessions and had made closed shops illegal, there might have been less feeling among Conservative Members about secret ballots. People talk more and more about consultation and industrial democracy. What is more important for a worker than to be consulted before a strike? There is no doubt that public opinion demands secret ballots. I accept that the Government's proposals are exactly the same as those that appeared in the manifesto. However, my right hon. Friends should bear in mind that people do not read the small print in manifestos. The general public wanted secret ballots and they felt that if they voted Conservative and returned a Conservative Government, that would be achieved. Whatever appeared in the manifesto, if we do not give the public that which they expect, they will become disillusioned.
  The issue is one of principle, not practicality. I appeal to my right hon. Friends to listen to the overwhelming mass of opinion, to Conservative trade unions and to many of their Back Benchers. I beseech them to meet us more than halfway. They should undertake to introduce further amendments in the House of Lords, or, if that is not practical, to accept in principle that more legislation should be brought in during the lifetime of this Parliament. If they accept that principle, they should promise to introduce a Green Paper in order that methods may be discussed.
  250
  The Government should put their trust in the sound common sense of the working man. They should cut the chain of thraldom and end the monopoly power of trades unions. I hope that I shall not have to vote against the Government. However, unless I receive some assurances, I shall have to support whichever new clause is put to the vote.
  Mr. John Evans: I am glad to have an opportunity to participate briefly in the debate. Like my hon. Friends, I believe that it is important for the House to dispose quickly of these new clauses. I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to sit here until 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning discussing such peripheral matters.
  The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) indicated that Tory Members felt strongly about this subject. I suspect that any Conservative Member who is called to speak will give vent to strong feelings. Those of us who have been at the sharp end of industrial relations—as shop stewards, conveners and branch secretaries—should try to convey to Conservative Members the practicalities of life on the shop floor. Conservative Members have a theoretical approach. The hon. Member for Winchester spoke about "national strikes". There are very few national strikes. The overwhelming majority of industrial disputes fake only one to four days. They are settled quickly. They are brush fires that have arisen as a result of strong feeling about an issue on the shop floor.
  The clause does not differentiate between small brush fires—which occur throughout industry—and national strikes. I recommend that Conservative Members should read one of their favourite newspapers, The Daily Telegraph. The leader in yesterday's edition discussed this Back Bench proposal, and stated that
  "in the end this is a proposition which falls down on the test of practicality. Most strikes and stoppages are transitory affairs, which could only be rendered more complex and time-consuming by the withdrawal of legal immunities unless ballots had first been held."
  Mr. John Gorst: On the other hand, The Times today suggested that this group of proposals should be supported by the House.
  Mr. Evans: Well, I could quote from The Times, The Guardian and many other newspapers. All I can say is that

  251
  The Times does not have a very good industrial relations record itself, and it should keep its opinions to itself until it puts its own house in order.
  It has been pointed out that, if ballots are held to start strikes, equally it is necessary to have ballots to stop strikes. Contrary to the views of many Conservative Members, the vast majority of shop stewards and full-time union officials spend more time keeping their members in work than persuading them to come out. One of the weaknesses in adopting clauses of this nature is that, once a strike has started as a result of a ballot, the chances are that individuals will flatly refuse to go back until what they felt were their just demands had been met in full. That would create anarchy and chaos in industry.
  Many unions already hold ballots before participating in industrial action on a national basis. Many unions, my own included, have ballots for every single officer elected, from the assistant district secretary up to the general secretary or president of the union. Our officials always lay their policies before the membership in a manifesto and they are the subject of all sorts or checks and balances in relation to the form that industrial relations should take.
  Conservative Members have a love-hate relationship with trade union leaders. The hon. Member for Winchester made the point that one of the great problems was that trade union leaders were a weak and spineless lot, incapable of giving proper leadership to the rank and file. He claimed that that was why the leadership had passed to the militants on the shop floor. Later he attacked the leaders as dictators and demanded what individual had the right to call thousands of workers out on strike and threby put their jobs in jeopardy. Conservatives must make up their minds about trade union leaders—whether they are to be responsible or whether they are to take account of the collective views of their members. Conservatives must not assume that trade union leaders work in a vacuum and call their members out on strike whenever they feel like it.
  Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Member has prayed in aid the fact that some unions volun-
  252
  tarily conduct ballots in accordance with their rules. Yet the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) claims that if there are secret ballots they will cause all sorts of difficulties and troubles. He believes that they will set one part of the union against another. I cannot understand that. Is he saying that voluntary ballots in unions such as the National Union of Mineworkers are all right but if we try to give that right to members of other unions there is something wrong?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend said that it was up to the members in each union to work out the procedures which best suited their union. I should have thought that that was the normal and correct procedure to adopt.
  Mr. George Park: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in common with other organisations, the trade union movement set up its rule book in accordance with the wishes of its members? It has periodic opportunities to alter the rules if the members do not like them. In addition, ballots are written in to the rule books of the unions. If the members want a ballot, they have every opportunity to write it into their rules.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If time allowed, I would go through the procedures of my union and explain how the rules apply. However, it is only my intention to try to put across to the Conservatives the practicalities and realities of industrial life.
  I urge Conservatives to recognise that men and women who work for their living do not want to go on strike. Circumstances invariably force them to take action for one reason or another and very often that reason is not wages. Employers have often unilaterally sought to impose change in conditions on workers and often the reaction is instantaneous. The workers down tools and walk out with the shop stewards begging them to come back and enter negotiations. Industrial relations are complex and involve millions of people.
  I ask Tory Back Benchers to appreciate that the Secretary of State is wrestling with a Bill that is difficult and complex. The Opposition are completely opposed to it, but at least we appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with complex affairs. The sledgehammer contained

  253
  in the new clause would sour industrial affairs and be a recipe for disaster, resulting in far more time being lost in strikes than was the case in the past. Even at this eleventh hour I beg Conservative Members to withdraw these dangerous clauses which they seek to force upon the Government and the trade unions. God help them if they do not.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I wish also to speak to new clause 5, which I have tabled. It must be fairly unusual to debate five new clauses and one amendment at the same time, but I readily accept that the reason why they have all been grouped together is that they are similar in principle.
  Tonight we are debating a question of principle, not detail. In spite of what the press and Labour Members have said, I do not believe that this is a Tory Back-Bench revolt—or at least not yet. The variations in these new clauses show that there has been no concerted attempt to rebel, but a spontaneous feeling that the principle of secret ballots should be debated in more detail than hitherto and at the earliest opportunity. That opportunity is now.
  I support the new clauses, but I admit that we do not expect to win the vote tonight. Perhaps we may not need to vote. I believe that we have performed a useful function in giving the House the opportunity to debate the question of statutory ballots for almost the first time—[Hon. Members: "That is not true."] With respect, the question has never been debated in the Standing Committee or on Second Reading. The Government said that there was no mandatory obligation to hold a ballot and that was the end of the argument.
  It is surprising that this matter has not been debated because many of us feel that the question of the democratic voice of trade union members goes to the core of good industrial relations. Yet the Bill in its present form tends to ignore the rank and file in favour of trade union officialdom. There has been virtually no debate about ordinary trade union members having the right to ballots on matters that are of profound importance to their livelihoods.
  254
  I am not setting out the arguments in favour of statutory ballots. That is what went wrong with the railwaymen's vote in 1974. I am advocating not statutory ballots but the statutory right of workers to demand secret ballots. There is a fundamental difference, as anyone who understands industrial relations appreciates. That is why there is now total silence on the Opposition Benches.
  5 pm
  I am convinced that the broad strategy and the step-by-step approach to industrial relations legislation adopted by my right hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend is wise to proceed carefully and only after maximum consultation. It has been seen that this aproach is beginning to pay off. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends. My aim is to indicate to my right hon. Friend what might be his next step and to suggest that the issue of secret ballots is one on which the country, the trade unions and certainly the Conservative Party feel strongly.
  Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend says that my right hon. Friend is right to proceed step by step and after full consultation. Does he not agree that if these proposals are carried there will not have been time for full consultation with outside interests on either side of industry? In a matter as complex and difficult as this one should not proceed without full consultation.
  Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has a point. I do not believe that any of the new clauses will be carried, but we will have made a strong statement in principle. There may not be a vote. I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend may give an undertaking that will satisfy us. In that case, there will be no Division. I have had very little consultation with the Whips.
  The purpose of these new clauses is to give rank and file trade union members the means whereby they may take the initiative in ensuring that their views are known on the subjects specified in clause 1 of the Bill, thereby making sure that when significant numbers of active trade unionists are in disagreement with the centrally expressed policy of a trade union on the subject specified they may have the right to ascertain the views of the entire membership on those issues. There is nothing in my new clause 5 that would

  255
  impose the views expressed through the ballot on trade unions' decision-making bodies. The purpose of such ballots should be consultative. They would not conflict with the unions' present constitutional arrangements.
  There is a fundamental flaw in the other new clauses that we are debating. They would impose a legal obligation on the trade unions concerned to implement the decision of the ballot. That is a mistake. It then becomes necessary to consider penalties if a union refuses to obey, with all that this means by way of court action and the prolonging of industrial disputes. That is the one thing we want to avoid.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Can the hon. Gentleman quote one example of any union which has held a national ballot on any issue when the national executive of that union has not carried through the decision of its members?
  Mr. Colvin: I have a feeling that the NUJ is one example. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. The whole point is that, under the proposal contained in my clause, essentially a consultative process, if the result is in favour of a certain course of action, the trade union leadership will be under a strong moral obligation—not a statutory obligation—to carry out the process. What happens if they refuse to have the ballot? I am giving the right to ordinary working people to say to the bosses of the unions "Look mate, we don't agree. We want a ballot. We don't think you have got matters right. We think our commonsense approach is better". That is what I am advocating. If Opposition Members will listen more to what I have to say, they will find that my remarks make a lot of sense.
  No Government, employer or any other outside agency should dictate to a union that it must hold a secret ballot. Under the clauses, with the exception of new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the workers within the union—the ordinary rank and file—will trigger the process, thereby exercising their democratic right to have a say in matters that are crucially important to them and their families. Balloting arrangements such as I have suggested are not an imposition on trade unions. They will help prevent the im-
  256
  of unwanted policies. They are less a legal obligation and more a conferral of rights.
  The 1968 Donovan report, often quoted in debates on industrial matters, put forward three major practical objections to compulsory strike ballots. The first was that they could not be enforced in the case of small-scale, unofficial stoppages. The second, mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), was that experience in the United States showed that such ballots usually resulted in a vote in favour of a strike. The third was that ballots might delay and restrict union leaders' ability to agree a settlement during collective bargaining.
  My new clause 5 attempts to overcome these problems in two ways. First, ballots would not be mandatory for every strike. They would be mandatory only if a sufficient number of workers felt strongly enough to demand a ballot. Secondly, the results of the ballots would not be compulsory in the legal sense. They would provide an indication of the level of support for a proposed settlement and so enable a union leader to know whether a bargain could be made to stick. It gives him information and power.
  I should perhaps add that, in the United States, collective bargaining is a darned sight tougher than in this country. There are more legal restrictions on strike action. It is hardly surprising that ballots in the United States normally come out in favour of strikes. The situation is so dissimilar to that in the United Kingdom that we should not be too hidebound by it.
  Mr. Crowther: The hon. Gentleman now talks of ballots that are not binding. He spoke of the NUJ, of which I happen to be a member, as an example of a union that, in his view and in his recollection, had not observed the result of a ballot. At that time, from a sedentary position, I shouted "No". What he says is absolutely wrong. Is he aware that the NUJ is one union that writes ballots into its rules and that its ballots are binding on the national executive? There can be no question ever in that union of the executive not carrying out the result of a ballot.
  Will the hon. Gentleman do his homework before coming to the Chamber and

  257
  trotting out things he has somewhere in his mind that are usually wrong? Would it not be helpful if Conservative Members knew what they were talking about before uttering such nonsense?
  Mr. Colvin: I bow to the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman as a member of the NUJ, the union in question. I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman has got the matter right. I thought that the NUJ blew hot and cold and never made up its mind whether to obey the instructions of a ballot. I stand to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman's was an interesting and lengthy intervention.
  My new clause is based largely on the rights that shareholders enjoy under the Companies Act 1948. This analogy with the Companies Act was first suggested by the Institute of Directors. Its argument is that shareholders have the right to requisition general meetings and the circulation of resolutions and so have a direct impact on decisions that will affect the use made of their investments.
  Statutory balloting arrangements would surely give trade union members the same right to have an impact on decisions of their trade unions and, in turn, have an effect on the investment that each worker makes of his time and labour.
  Surely it is not for me to demonstrate that trade union members should be granted that obvious right. The case proves itself. It is for the Secretary of State to convince the House that ordinary rank and file trade unionists should be denied the rights which shareholders enjoy under the Companies Act 1948. The ball is in the Secretary of State's court.
  On many occasions the Government have said that they are determined to get the complex industrial relations law right. They have proposed their step-by-step approach. I agree with their aims, just as I agree with almost everything in the Bill. I welcome the way in which the Secretary of State has fought his corner on industrial relations and the way in which he has bent over backwards to ensure full and detailed consultation. Even while his Bill is before Parliament he is prepared to introduce and consider new ideas in working paper form for further consideration. That is all that we ask.
  If the Secretary of State accepts the principle that the worker should have the
  258
  right to demand a secret ballot, we might not have to vote this evening. The vote is immaterial but it is important that the principle is accepted. If it is, that will be a major step towards giving ordinary working people a real say in their future and the opportunity to demonstrate that, when their voice is heard, common sense usually prevails.
  Mr. Leighton: I am reluctant to intervene in the debate for any length of time because I do not wish to prolong the most nonsensical and least important debate that we shall have on the Bill. However, I derive some wry amusement from seeing such a large collection of Tory hawks. I am reluctant to intervene in a family row. Tory Members exhibit animus and hostility whenever trade unions are discussed. They have demonstrated their naivety about the industrial world. The further away hon. Members' lives have been from industry the more likely they are to vote for new clause 3. Government Members show a complete lack of knowledge of industry. They believe their own simplistic propaganda. They live in a fantasy world where the vast majority of trade union members are "moderates" and trade union general secretaries are "militants" who spend their time rampaging round the country and calling strikes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government Members seem to believe that with secret ballots the goodies will always win and the baddies always lose.
  We are not against ballots. The trade union movement lives by ballots. It is our way of life. We need no lectures about ballots. I am pleased that Government Members are in favour of them. Perhaps we could extend ballots to the place down the Corridor. Perhaps Tory members will join us in seeking to abolish that place.
  Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend contemplates extending ballots. Does he recognise that the most harmful and damaging decisions for workers are taken by employers? Perhaps we should consider balloting workers about employers' decisions.
  Mr. Leighton: In my industry The Times locked out its workers for a year and there was no question of a ballot. What about a ballot for the Prime Minister? Perhaps there should be a secret

  259
  postal ballot of all members of the Conservative Party to decide upon their leader. Soon the Post Office will have a new boss. Will there be a secret ballot of workers in the postal industry to decide who he or she should be? How did Michael Edwardes get his job? Was there a secret ballot? I am pleased to see that Conservative Members have been converted.
  Hon. Members talked of shareholders being consulted about whether their money should go to the Conservative Party. We were told that they can commission a meeting, but not a secret ballot. Conservative Members argue in favour of secret ballots but shareholders cannot ballot about whether their money should go to the Conservative Party. I was amused that the CBI voted this year in favour of secret ballots—and they did that on a show of hands.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Colvin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my union, ASTMS, took a decision by secret ballot at one of its branch meetings to send some money to the Conservative Party? Opposition Members are worried because under a secret ballot their party might not receive the funds that they do today.
  Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. In the trade union movement we decide whether we want to send our political levy to the Labour Party, whereas company money is voted by the directors.
  Most of the unions use ballots. In my union members ballot on industrial action before it takes place. In Committee we sought to extend balloting. We argued that ballots should not only be for employees of trade unions but for shop stewards. We said that in addition to pillar box democracy, or postal ballots, other ballots were equally valid and genuine. For example, the general election does not involve a postal ballot. The National Union of Mineworkers conducts pit-head ballots. My union uses ballot boxes. Members are given their ballot papers by scrutineers. The ballot boxes are taken to head office and scrutineers, elected by secret ballot, count the votes. In Committee we wanted to bring such forms of election into the ambit of the Bill.
  260
  We did not divide on clause 1. We did not vote against ballots. However, we argued that ballots should be voluntary, not compulsory. We said that it was wrong for the State to tell voluntary bodies how they should run their affairs and what constitutions they should have.
  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman made a comment about the contributions to political parties by companies. Is he aware that if 5 per cent. of the shareholders of a company desire they can, under the law, call for a special general meeting and resolve by a simple majority what they so desire? That is precisely the procedure which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) proposes should be applied to trade unions.
  Mr. Leighton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not grasp the argument. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) is not in favour of a meeting and a democratic show of hands, but a secret ballot. He does not want the procedure to be the same as it is at shareholders' meetings. Perhaps the penny has dropped. Conservative Members are so naive that they do not understand. They should listen to Members with industrial experience and we shall explain as we go along.
  Several Hon Members rose—
  Mr. Leighton: If I may be allowed another couple of sentences I shall give way later.
  In Committee we asked for an extension of balloting, provided that it was done on a voluntary basis. We were unequivocally and categorically assured by the Under-Secretary that:
  "There is nothing in the clause, however subsection (3) could be amended, which could empower the Government to require mandatory ballots. That is absolutely clear."
  The Secretary of State then said:
  "I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is no provision within the clause for mandatory power for ballots. I want to make it abundantly clear that that is not the purpose of this clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 1980; c. 95–100.]
  It was on that understanding that we wanted an extension of the provisions and we did not divide the Committee.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I recall that we spent 10 hours in Committee debating

  261
  the clause which deals specifically with ballots. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), who opened the debate today, was a member of that Committee. He uttered not a single syllable, during the whole proceedings about ballots. He could have debated in Committee the clause that he has placed before the House today.
  Mr. Leighton: It could well be that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), like some other hon. Members, being so unused to industrial affairs did not understand what we were talking about. The penny dropped only after we had completed our thirtieth session or our hundredth hour. Perhaps he was prevailed upon by some of his colleagues.
  British trade unions—I emphasise the word "British" because we invented them—will never succumb to compulsion.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: You did not invent them.
  Mr. Leighton: It will never be possible to coerce British trade unions to alter their constitutions by law. I point out to Conservative Members that the ballots they desire could never be a panacea. They are not a magic wand which will solve our industrial problems.
  Let me give an example from our experience of recent months. The miners voted to accept the offer of 20 per cent. made to them. That is why there was no dispute in the mining industry. The steel workers were offered nothing. Is it any wonder that there was a dispute? That dispute was nothing to do with ballots. It happened because one group of workers were provoked and set up. The steel strike was deliberately engineered by the offer of nothing to the steel workers.
  If hon. Members believe that the goodies will always win as a result of secret ballots let them look at the example of the miners yet again. The miners have a great propensity for electing militants by ballot. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will back me up when I say that. The miners have quite often voted for Communists.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, but I was a moderate.
  Mr. Leighton: With polls of over 70 per cent. they voted in Arthur Horner and Will Paynter. That great ogre Arthur
  262
  Scargill—on a transferable vote—secured over 70 per cent. of that vote in Yorkshire. The idea that secret ballots will automatically ensure that the goodies win and the baddies lose is nonsense.
  Mr. Ogden: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) gives the wrong impression about the organisation and composition of the National Union of Mineworkers—which might be what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover might like to happen—I must say that the NUM represents many opinions, both political and industrial. The membership of the union is evenly balanced. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends who belong to the union, as I do, can give a more accurate picture than the one being painted by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Leighton: In Committee the Under-Secretary wisely said that industrial relations were "delicate and difficult". In those circumstances, flexibility is of the utmost importance. Once ballot papers have been issued the whole procedure is frozen. It takes days for ballot papers to go out and if there is a vote in favour of a dispute it subsequently takes a long time to call it off. The whole procedure becomes immobile.
  Mr. Bob Dunn rose—
  Mr. Leighton: The issue cannot then be settled by negotiation. Most strikes are unofficial and most of them are short. If, every time there is a dispute, we must trundle out this procedure of the secret ballot I believe that we shall encounter great difficulty.
  Mr. Mikardo: We would get longer strikes.
  Mr. Leighton: We would be in for longer strikes.
  Because I have given way so often I shall cut out some of what I wished to say. But I mention two things. Firstly, in the ill-fated 1971 Act there was provision for compulsory ballots and one such ballot took place among the railway workers. Hon. Members in this House know exactly what happened on that occasion.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: After listening to the rather long and tortuous speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East

  263
  (Mr. Leighton) I have yet to hear whether he is in favour of shop floor workers being consulted about the possibility of a trade dispute.
  Mr. Leighton: The answer is that in my industrial experience—and in my union—that has always been done.
  I end by quoting from the Donovan report. The experts looked into this matter and they said of compulsory strike ballots:
  "This proposal is based on the belief that workers are likely to be less militant than their leaders and that, given the opportunity of such a ballot, they would often be likely to vote against strike action … A law forbidding strike action before the holding of a secret ballot could not be enforced in the case of small-scale unofficial stoppages, which make up the overwhelming majority of the total number of strikes. … There are other objections to such ballots. Once a vote has been taken and has gone in favour of strike action, the resulting stoppage may delay a settlement by restricting union leaders' freedom of action."
  The Donovan Commission also reported that experience in Canada and America showed that the holding of such ballots led to more and not fewer strikes. It stated:
  "We think it preferable that trade union leaders should bear and be seen to bear, the responsibility of deciding when to call a strike and when to call it off."
  They are elected, they have a job to do and they should get on with it.
  It is the same with the Government. When they doubled VAT they did not have a secret ballot, nor do they keep running to the voters to hold permanent, regular referendums in relation to their other policies. It is a big mistake to expect trade unions to do that on every occasion.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have listened with interest to the points raised on both sides of the House. It appears to me that the arguments on one side have been well thought out and the arguments on the other side have been extremely badly thought out and have entirely missed the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] The cries of "Hear, hear" from Opposition Members still miss the point because it is Opposition arguments I speak of when I say that some arguments were badly conceived.
  264
  The core of what we are discussing is not the right to strike. The right to strike is not under threat. The right to strike is enshrined in the belief of every hon. Member. As the law stands, what is under threat is the right to work. Those of us who tabled the new clause are concerned with the right of union members to work.
  Those who wish to work can be brought out on strike by their union leaders, against their wishes, even though they are in a majority. That is the key to this debate. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be led into a strike when he does not wish to strike by someone who claims to represent the union which is ignoring the wishes of the majority of its members.
  The right to work is far more important than any trade union leadership dispute about whether a strike should be called. The right to work is fundamental to the freedoms of our society. That is the key to this debate.
  5.30 pm
  The weakness of the legislation proposed by the Secretary of State—legislation which is in general supported by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that, if we continue with a voluntary ballot and there is no compulsion for a ballot to be held, those trade union leaders who act responsibly and genuinely represent the membership of their unions will hold ballots, as they do now. Therefore, we shall have achieved nothing. But there are trade union leaders who wish to bring out their membership, knowing or suspecting that the membership does not wish to come out on strike, often in the interests not of their membership, but of political dispute, in an attempt, as many of them have said, to bring down a particular Government. That is the kind of irresponsible trade union action that a compulsory ballot would prevent if our proposals were adopted.
  I do not believe that Labour Members would dispute that proposition. When they were in Government, they were as keen about the political motivation of disputes as we are. Many Opposition Members, particularly on the Front Bench, have frequently said, even when the action taken is against a Conservative Government, that that is not proper and responsible leadership of the trade union movement. None the less, it happens. It

  265
  is that that we wish to prevent. We do not want people in those circumstances particularly or in any circumstances in general to be brought out on strike when they do not wish to be brought out. That is the key to this argument.
  The advantages of having a compulsory ballot are clear. There have been many examples in the past 12 months of ballots having been used to demonstrate the wishes of trade union members in which, by following the results of those ballots, the trade union leadership has properly represented those whom it leads. But there are other examples where ballots have been taken and ignored or have not been taken at all, in which the leadership has gone ahead with its wishes irrespective of the true desires of those whom it claims to represent.
  It occurs to me that, unless there is a compulsory ballot, no great advance will have been made. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the points that have been made in general by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and Dartford (Mr. Dunn) who have forcefully and ably argued the case for compulsory ballots to be brought into this legislation.
  Mr. Greville Janner: We have endured a Conservative manifesto, often referred to. Its main terms and purport I understood to be the promise of less legislation and compulsion from Westminster and more freedom for people to express their own views and to carry out their own affairs in their own way. These proposals are exactly the opposite. They are, of course, designed only to affect the trade union movement, which presumably is excepted from the general Conservative rule that people are entitled to regulate their own affairs.
  In my view, as a lawyer, it is a great mistake to introduce too many laws to affect industrial relations because they do not work. Indeed, they cannot work. They are not and cannot properly be designed to enable people to regulate their own affairs on the shop floor. If we try to interfere too much from here, we almost invariably achieve exactly the opposite result to that intended.
  Mr. David Mellor: The hon. and learned Gentleman voted for two Bills, each running to over 100 clauses. Would he care to reflect on his observa-
  266
  tions about the usefulness of the law having some relevance to the two Acts introduced by the Labour Government?
  Mr. Janner: Certainly. The first of those Acts, in 1971, was designed to get rid of the Industrial Relations Act and to strengthen the unfair dismissal rules which are being weakened again by a Conservative Government.
  The second Act was designed to give trade unions the freedom to carry on their own affairs, to have disclosure of information in the course of collective bargaining—which the Conservative Government introduced in 1971 but never implemented—to be consulted about redundancies, alone among worker organisations to have the right to be consulted about health and safety, and not to be prosecuted or persecuted for carrying out their duties and functions. That freedom is now being restricted by this legislation. There is only one object in this legislation—to prevent trade unions from carrying out their functions freely and from regulating their own affairs.
  I submit that it is for the trade unions to decide whether a secret ballot is appropriate in a particular case. The miners, the AUEW and the electricians have secret ballots because they have decided to have them. We do not have secret ballots in this House. No one has ever suggested that we should.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Our union cards.
  Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman talks about "Our union". We represent people who are entitled to know how we voted. We are not ashamed of what we do. We are standing up and saying "This is what we believe", and our constituents are entitled to know the way that we voted. There is much in favour of secret ballots on appropriate occasions.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there are instances of trade union coercion and there are many instances in which people who stand up and act against their trade union leadership's advice are in danger of having reprisals taken against them?
  Mr. Janner: There are cases of coercion throughout. There is coercion in this House. If Conservative Members know what happened during the immigration debate, they will know why their

  267
  incipient revolution collapsed. There is coercion by managers. Look at what is happening in British Leyland. There is coercion everywhere. But what there is not is the lack of courage of individual trade unionists. We have recently witnessed people saying to their shop stewards "You have recommended us to strike. We do not agree with you." There has been no fear. There has been a whole series of decisions, much applauded by Conservative Members, where people have said "We do not agree with our shop stewards. We are not going to do what they say." There is no fear. It is for them to decide how to regulate their affairs.
  There are occasions when secret ballots are worthwhile. There are others when people should be able to say "This is my view. I shall express my view and my comrades, my colleagues or my constituents are entitled to know what that view is." It is for the individual organisation to decide.
  The ultimate question for decision by the House is: are trade unions to be forced into holding ballots in situations which will often make matters worse? The hon. Member for Bristol, Northwest (Mr. Colvin) referred to the railwaymen's dispute. He said "It went wrong". We know what he meant when he said that. He meant that there was a vote in favour of a strike. For Conservative Members a ballot goes wrong if the workers decide to exercise their right to withdraw their labour. They say "We are all in favour of the right to strike", but when anyone exercises that right there is always an outcry. Workers are entitled to exercise the right to strike and they are entitled to decide when they will and when they will not exercise that right.
  Interference from this place does not create fewer or shorter strikes. It creates more tand longer strikes. That is what happened between 1971 and 1974. That is why there was such a series of unhappy and disruptive strikes. That is why, alas, we are having the industrial relations atmosphere poisoned again. That is why the Opposition are begging the Government to withdraw this legislation. We see exactly the same happening again by the actions of those who learn nothing
  268
  from their mistakes, except how to repeat them rather more gently and leisurely in a series of Acts rather than in one, and with a certain amount of dissent amongst themselves because they are not going fast enough.
  The new clauses are being introduced by Government Back Benchers because they do not believe that the Government are going far or fast enough. Labour Members believe that the Government are going too far and too fast in a direction in which they should not be going at all. It is wrong to legislate in such a way as to trammel trade unions in the proper carrying out of their duties and affairs as we insist upon doing. It is wrong to compare them with the shareholders in a company. Trade unions have no share in the profits of companies. Anyway, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West was wrong in his law. The Companies Act does not require secret ballots even when companies are about to ruin themselves in almost any conditions. The oppression of minorities is a limited concept in law.
  Conservative Members are wrong to refer to the position in the United States, where I spent a year studying the matter. Secret ballots do not prevent strikes there. The United States has rather fewer strikes, but they tend to last longer. Secret ballots in the United States do not mean fewer unofficial strikes. Indeed, there are more; and we shall find that we have more unofficial strikes. If the workers do not like a certain position, they may say "I shall not work under these conditions. I shall walk out ". What does one do in such circumstances? Will the workers be arrested? That is a risk that we face. These are not criminal provisions, but they could lead to ordinary people achieving the crown of martyrdom. They may say "We are not interested in your laws". That could lead to precisely the breakdown of the rule of law which we on this side of the House seek to uphold.
  These are bad clauses which it is proposed to add to a bad Bill in a way that will not work. In these circumstances, we not only ask the proposers of the clauses not to press them but we ask the Government to think again before introducing legislation of which these clauses are intended to form part.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the detailed, immensely knowledgeable, and well balanced speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). However, I part company with him in his condemnation of the Bill. I wish to speak against the amendments. I say to my colleagues, and to Opposition Members, that that is not the pattern that I followed in Committee. Having suffered the frustrations of a Back Bencher in Committee, I am relieved to have the opportunity of saying something further at this stage.
  It is not the time to make a fundamental change in the Bill. The fact that the amendments were not aired in Committee makes it unsatisfactory that such a change should be made now. The opportunity existed in Committee for these points to be discussed. Many hours were spent on the relevant clauses. Whatever the constraints that exist in Committee—and all hon. Members who sit on the Government Benches know them—the amendments should have been started at that stage, when adequate discussion, especially with outside organisations, could have taken place.
  Another reason why I oppose the new clause is that the Bill is a piece of enabling legislation. It allows trade unions to make more use of secret ballots—if they believe that to be right and proper—within their organisations. I shall look to trade unions and to trade union leaders—and the country will look to them also—to utilise secret ballots more often if their members clearly wish that to happen. The evidence shows—and here I am in agreement with those who support the new clause—that there is a will and a wish among trade unionists for secret ballots to take place on more occasions than has happened in the past.
  Mr. Budgen: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. If anything was being done about the closed shop these clauses would be unnecessary. They provide a means by which trade unionists may express their disagreement with the way in which the union, into which they are locked, is being run.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend may have a point, which I shall not dispute. Certainly the power of a closed shop is
  270
  strong. Ultimately, I should wish to see it less strong. The steps being taken in the Bill are helpful in that they move in the right direction. The Bill leaves a great responsibility on trade union leaders to respond to the wishes of their members. I accept that they would be sensitive to those wishes.
  Surely a fundamental of the Government's policy at this time—and a fundamental for what Opposition Members would wish to see in Britain in the future, whatever the difference of approach—is that ultimately this country should achieve greater productivity, and that we should be more effective. Unless that happens the economic policies of neither Government—be it this Government, the previous Labour Government or any future Government—will have any relevance. I ask myself whether these new clauses in practice, and if introduced at this stage, would actually help or hinder the drive towards increased productivity? It is my view that they would not help.
  There is a need for unions to pay more attention to the views of individual members. The present clause on secret ballots allows them to do that. I suggest that they would be well advised to respond, and to follow the provisions in the clause. I am in no way satisfied or encouraged by the action of the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress in condemning the value of the original clause. He is totally misguided to do so. I look for a change of attitude on that issue.
  It is my hope that in the vote tonight, if it comes to that, Opposition Members will give due weight to the advantage of secret ballots to them, and to the trade unions which they so strongly support. I hope that they will reflect the view that has come from the Opposition Front Bench today that secret ballots do have a value, and that unions already use them, and will give credence and credibility to the fact that the Government's current proposals, as they stand in the Bill, will provide greater opportunity for secret ballots to take place if trade unions so wish.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I have held the opinion for some years that one of the basic matters wrong in British politics is that we tend to judge ideas on the basis of the source from which they eminate, rather than on the basis of the

  271
  idea itself. I shall not support all the new clauses. I shall not support those that compel a union to hold a secret ballot against the wishes of its members. However, new clause 3 does not seek to do that.
  I find myself in strange company when supporting the new clause. But, quite frankly, I do not believe that the new clause is any the worse for that. The fact that strange company moves a clause is not a reason why I should, or should not, support it. I should judge the clause on its merits, and that is what I tried to do in Committee.
  I have always been especially concerned about the rights of individuals arising from Government proposals. The new clause has some respect for the individual who is within a trade union, or who is involved in an industrial dispute. That is why I shall support new clause 3. I accept that the clause could have been moved in Committee, and that that is a good debating point. However, that in no way weakens the value of the new clause. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, there are often good reasons for not moving amendments in Committee. It may be that an hon. Member, when moving an amendment in Committee, knows that "You ain't going to get no support, even from your own side ".
  I listened with great interest to Conservative Members who have talked about a weakening of the closed shop. It may interest them to know that I tabled an amendment to make the closed shop illegal, and that only one Conservative Member had the courage to vote for it. There were many speeches in support of the amendment, but only one Conservative Member voted for it. That was the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
  All I am saying is that the fact that the new clause was not moved in Committee is no reason for saying that it is wrong. Therefore, we should first have a look at what the new clause suggests. If it suggested that a union shall hold a secret ballot of its members full stop, I would not be in favour of it. That it why I shall vote against new clause 2. But new clause 3 does not say that. It says that if a good proportion of the members—not the Government or the Secretary of State—want a ballot, a ballot shall be held. It is the
  272
  members of the union who will be able to force such a ballot.
  One can argue that 15 per cent, or 500 is not sufficiently high. I would not necessarily agree. Apparently that figure has been suggested because of some company law or other. However, I believe that the rights of minorities should be protected in law. That is the function of the House of Commons to protect the rights of minorities as well as to uphold the rule of the majority. Trade union minorities, like minorities in many other movements, do not always have a lot of rights. All that the new clause says is that if 500 members—not an entirely insignificant number—or 15 per cent., whichever is the lesser number, say "We want a ballot", there shall be one. I cannot understand what the objection can be to that type of law. Such a law seeks to enhance the rights of trade union members, not to reduce them.
  Mr. Ogden: I should like to raise a purely practical point. How will it be made known how many members have written to their national office asking for and requisitioning a ballot? Who will check on the mechanics of the matter? Who will check, discover and publish whether or not 15 per cent. of the membership has written to ask for such a ballot?
  Mr. Smith: The new clause makes clear what it is 15 per cent of. Therefore, there can be no argument about what constitutes 15 per cent. The new clause makes that quite clear. The only issue is whether those who requisition a ballot fall within the terms of the new clause. I am prepared to accept the word of the executive committee of a union as to whether the people requesting a ballot are members of a union and fall within the scope of the new clause. I would accept as being hon. ourable the word of the national executive of a union which said "We are sorry, but this does not constitute 15 per cent. There are signatures of some who are not members of the union". If someone seeks to challenge that, let him do so, but for my part I would certainly accept the decision of the national executive committee of a union in that respect.
  We have heard phrases such as "hawks" and "wets". I must make it clear that I am not a Government hawk, and I am certainly not a critic of the Secretary of State. On the contrary, I am

  273
  a strong supporter of the Secretary of State and the manner in which he is dealing with industrial relations in the Bill. I happen to believe that the new clause will strengthen his hand rather than weaken it. Frankly, what matters to me is not that it strengthens his hand, but rather that it strengthens the hands of union members and their right to say what their union shall do and when it shall do it. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.
  I have heard some hon. Members argue that decisions go wrong. By that I assume they mean that sometimes when a ballot is held, a strike will result. That does not worry me in the slightest. If it is the wish of the union members that there shall be a strike, and if that wish has been expressed through the ballot box, it is proper that the union should call a strike. I am not concerned about what the result of the ballot is. I am concerned about the right to hold a ballot, and I am concerned that that right should be available to members of a union themselves to decide. If a sufficient number of the members of a union require that a ballot should be held, in my view it is not improper that this House should protect their rights by inserting a clause of this kind into the Bill.
  It is for those reasons that I shall support new clause 3, but not new clause 2. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for this chance to say a few words in support of the broad approach which is being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I have long thought that his attitude to this delicate area of trade union legislation was the better course of valour and the wisest path to follow. I understand the reasons which led many of my hon. Friends to table the new clauses and to argue their case so forcefully. However, I remind them and the House that the principal aim of the Bill is to encourage more responsible trade union behaviour at all levels as well as to limit the potential for abuse of the law by trade unions.
  As it is at present drafted, I believe that the Bill will put the onus upon any unrepresentative trade union leaders to say why they oppose the use of public funds to finance secret ballots. That is a more effective and interesting way of en-
  274
  couraging the use of secret ballots and of encouraging them to grow slowly but surely. If we were to follow the line suggested by so many of my hon. Friends, I believe that it would undermine the vital voluntary element in the Government's approach towards legislation in this area, thereby reducing the chance of making that legislation last. Unless we can make legislation last in this crucial area, all sorts of other things in the economy cannot and will not go right.
  Furthermore, we must consider whether interference of the kind suggested by my hon. Friends in the new clauses would lead many trade union leaders to argue with some plausibility that a Government were seeking by means of legislation to interfere directly and unnecessarily in internal trade union affairs and practices. That is something on which the Industrial Relations Act 1971 largely came to grief, and I do not wish to see that mistake repeated.
  There is no doubt that the new clauses in respect of mandatory ballots could increase unofficial action. That is also a serious point. I am sure that all my hon. Friends know that unofficial action is the main bugbear in industrial relations in this country. About 95 per cent. of all strikes and stoppages are unofficial in some way or other, and they tend to be predominantly of short duration. The proposed sanction in new clause 3(5) would withdraw immunity from those taking official action, thereby perhaps unwittingly encouraging unofficial action.
  Mr. John Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. When opening the debate, I said that new clause 3 should be read in conjunction with new clause 6. It is proposed that they will deal with unofficial action with the same sanction of lifting immunities under section 13.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving clarification on that point. However, with great respect, I should like to seek legal advice as to whether the other new clause, as it is at present drafted, would have that effect.
  There is also the danger of validating the action of unofficial militants who take industrial action. There is always the tendency—I am sure that many of my hon. Friends recognise this—for trade union leaders to find out which way their rank and file are running and then to lead

  275
  them in that direction. There is a real danger that these new clauses will exacerbate that tendency. But, more important, tactically, they would prejudge and undermine the detailed consultations and preparations that are now being carried out in advance of the Government's Green Paper on trade union immunities—an area of law which must be studied carefully and at length and with full consultation. If immunity was withdrawn from all unofficial action, or even some categories of it, we would run the risk of prejudging that important Green Paper.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right on this occasion—as on most other occasions—to proceed cautiously, stage by stage. The slogan "Trust the People" may have a familiar ring to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it should also include trade union members.
  6 pm
  Mr. Ogden: The comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) introduced some common sense and courage which has been singularly lacking in the speeches of hon. Members—excluding that of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). His words must have been music to the ears of the Secretary of State who has maintained a most impassive expression throughout the proceedings. He has given no sign of his thoughts on any speech.
  I wish to take the precaution of declaring a possible interest in the debate. I am a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, and I am sponsored in the House by that union. If either the amendments or the Bill are passed, it may be of financial advantage to my union, so I take this precaution of declaring an interest.
  I wish to make three points—one to show that I am still an optimist. Whether I can persuade the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and his colleagues that what they want is what I want, is not the argument. If they want every union member to have a voice and a vote in the major decisions taken by his or her union in matters that affect their working life, place of work, wages and conditions of employment, I share that aim. I think that the whole House would share that aim and intention.
  276
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) seemed to miss one point. How can anyone know that 15 per cent. of union members have written to union headquarters, on presumably the prescribed form? How can they know where they will be printed and displayed and made available? Who will check whether they arrive? Without police activity and an outside body—presumably the Department of Employment—that cannot be done. Who will say when that can be implemented? The mechanics have not been followed through.
  Conservative Members above the Gangway—those hardy sons of toil, three of whom are awake, and those below the Gangway, one of whom is contemplating deeply—were elected on a manifesto based on three main points. I ask any Conservative Member to tell me whether I am wrong. They were elected on a commitment to less taxation, less Government expenditure and less Government interference. In broad terms, that was the Conservative Party's commitment to the country.
  Sir Ronald Bell: There was, of course, a fourth commitment that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention—the correction of the abuses of trade unionists.
  Mr. Ogden: Perhaps at some stage the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise the dilemma between that fourth commitment and two of the others. The Government cannot have it both ways. They are saying that they will reduce public expenditure, but this Bill will increase public expenditure. Is it not the purpose of the Bill to provide funds to enable union members to take actions that they are capable of doing without such funds? Is that not an increase in Government expenditure? Is it not Government intervention? Of course it is.
  Mr. Radice: Far be it from me to defend the official line in this debate, but, as I remember the Tory Party manifesto, it did not include anything on the lines of this clause.
  Mr. Ogden: I read part of the Tory Party manifesto. It is not widely circulated in West Derby—nor is The Times and other such publications. However, the Tory Party is committed to less Government intervention and less Government expenditure.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). Will the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) confirm that the Bill, as originally drafted, was almost precisely as it was outlined in the Conservative Party manifesto?
  Mr. Ogden: It was not as detailed in the manifesto, and this clause was not included.
  As I said, all Conservative Members are committed to less Government expenditure and less Government intervention. But there is a contradiction and a dilemma. I may not persuade Conservative Members to withdraw their amendments, but they should recognise the dilemma in what they are trying to do. Trade union members already have a voice and a vote in the conduct of the affairs of unions. I have that right in my union. Individual trade union members should take a little time and trouble, and not expect someone else to make it easy for them to exercise what some people call their democratic rights. The policies of my union and other unions are decided by those people who take the time and trouble to attend meetings—not just once a year when things get rough, but regularly. The structure for that is there. Once a year the members of my union have the opportunity of changing the rules—a process that is pursued at branch levels, local meetings, and so on.
  The Bill and these amendments try to do for other people what they are capable of doing for themselves, if they take a little time and trouble. The National Union of Mineworkers does not want the taxpayer to subsidise it in any way. It pays for its own ballots. Perhaps it is easier in that union than in other unions. But for many years the NUM has done by itself what Conservative Members say can only be done by legislation.
  This House is the worst place in the world to decide industrial relations legislation, as events over the last 15 years have shown. But, even if the aims of Conservative Members can be achieved in this way, they are not going about it in the right way. It is misleading to think that, by approving an amendment, the Government can do for other people
  278
  what they are capable of doing themselves. The only solution to the way in which union policies are decided is for more people to take the trouble to take part in decision-making.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). Until the hon. Gentleman spoke I was getting the feeling that comes over me frequently when we discuss these matters—namely, one of amazement. It is apparently assumed by many Labour Members that they have some exclusive knowledge of how trade unions work.
  Like the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), I joined a trade union after the first few weeks of my working life. I was not in a closed shop—I did not have to join the union—but subsequently I worked in one. No one asked me to join. I was a volunteer. I went out of my way to join my union and have been a member of it ever since. My membership includes serving on a branch committee.
  It is a rare and pleasant privilege to be able to welcome a speech made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I thing that the hon. Gentleman cogently presented the motives that inspired the new clause. He effectively disposed of any accusation that the clause is the product of hard-line Right-wing hawks within the Tory Party.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on the way in which he moved the Second Reading of the clause. The hon. Member for Rochdale spoke for the Liberal Party, and I do not think that there is any doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester spoke for the Conservative Party throughout the country. An early-day motion that he drew up and tabled a few weeks ago echoing the terms of the clause was signed by more than 100 Conservative Members. That must be a fair measure of opinion in the party throughout the country.
  My hon. Friend was also speaking for Conservative trade unionists. As we have heard, at three successive meetings the National Council of Conservative Trade Unionists has called for rank-and-file union members to be given a mandatory right to demand secret ballots. When the proposition was put to the CTU national

  279
  conference in Nottingham it was endorsed by 500 votes to 3. My hon. Friend was speaking for the mass of union members—there are many of them—who pinned their hopes on the Conservative Party at the general election.
  We know that there are Ministers who wish all power to our elbows. There are PPSs who would dearly love to support CTU policy. If we are driven to a vote on the clause, my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary knows that for every one Conservative Member in the Aye Lobby there will be at least two outside wishing that they were passing though it.
  I have a great respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that he cannot be happy with the prospect of voting tonight with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and his chums against the hopes of so many of his own trade unionist supporters.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale dealt well with the red herring of compulsory ballots. We are not talking about compulsory ballots such as the one ordered for the railways by a Minister in 1974 under the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I agree with those who say that that would be a road to disaster.
  We are not giving power to a Minister to demand a secret ballot. However, we are seeking to give rank-and-file trade union members the freedom to demand one. We are seeking to give a right not to Ministers but to the shop floor. We are not arguing the detail of any one scheme but the principle. We are seeking a trigger mechanism. I am sure that my right hon. Friend can find faults with the trigger mechanism proposed by my hon. Friend. I am equally sure that thought and consultation would easily produce another.
  Why is it necessary to give rank-and-file union members this right? I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends—I do not doubt that it is within the experience of many Labour Members—have been contacted by members of a union as a strike has been threatened and asked "What can we do to get a ballot on this? How can we establish that this is the majority feeling of the workers involved?" I have had such approaches. I am sure that in the bitter winter of 15 months ago many of us had such approaches from lorry drivers and Health
  280
  Service workers who did not like one little bit what they were being dragooned into doing under the sanction of the closed shop.
  It is necessary to give rank-and-file union members this right because we have seen the abuse that is frequently exhibited at factory gate meetings. We have witnessed the degree of intimidation that can be applied at such meetings. Strikes of the most damaging sort have been called, and it has been questionable whether they have had the support of a majority of the union members involved.
  6.15 pm
  The steelmen employed by the British Steel Corporation have been cited. I accept that if there had been a ballot before that strike started it may have been found that a majority was in favour of strike action. Of course, if the Bill incorporates provisions of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend, it will be incumbent upon employers, when they see the prospect of a ballot by union members, to ensure that those members have something reasonable to vote upon.
  Apart from the BSC strike, there was the related dispute in the private steel industry. I defy any Labour Member to show that if the workers in the private steel industry had been consulted by means of a secret ballot they would have voted to join the dispute. If a ballot had taken place, the clear answer would have been that they did not want to join the dispute.
  Only recently 18,000 members of the Transport and General Workers Union have been called out at British Leyland without any proper democratic consultation or regard for what they really wanted to do. We are told that on 14 May transport workers, railway men, local council workers and many more are to lose a day's pay without ever having been properly consulted on whether they want to engage in such a futile and abortive demonstration. The orders have come from on high; and under the sanctions which we know exist under the closed shop they will in many instances be obeyed.
  The Bill offers State funds for ballots. I hope and trust that some union leaders will take them up. Some leaders have set their faces against them, but they are out of touch with their rank and file.

  281
  They are determined never to suffer the pain of hearing what their members actually think. They are truly the Bourbons of Congress House. Despite the Bill, their members will continue to be denied any real say in crucial union decisions. The sanctions of the closed shop will continue to secure their compliance. This is the scandal which we seek to put right.
  When my right hon. Friend replies he will no doubt indicate that he has a great deal of sympathy for the demands that have come from trade union members in general, and especially from Conservative trade unionists. He may offer to include the proposal that is set out in the new clause in his promised consultative document. What is the status of that document? Is it to be followed by legislation. or is it not? The best guidance that we have had so far is that it might be. That is not good enough. Without a statement of a longer-term intention, such an offer would not add up to very much.
  In all honesty I put a straight question to my right hon. Friend. I know that he will give a straight answer to it when he replies. Is he willing to put proposals into the consultative document to give workers a right to ballot with the intention of legislating after that consultation is complete? If his answer is "Yes", the objective of the sponsors of the clause will largely have been met.
  Mr. Ogden: I think that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) said some kind things about me in his opening remarks. I do not want to cause any waves. However, what is the point of open, honest, free, frank and wide-ranging discussions and consultation on possibilities, if what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Secretary of State "Whatever the consultations that take place, you do what we are asking."?
  Mr. Gardiner: I am suggesting that the consultation should be on exactly the same basis as the consultation that my right hon. Friend offered before he introduced the Bill. That was an offer of consultation on the basis of a document. The Secretary of State listened to the representations that were made and in due course legislation was presented. I am simply asking that the consultation arising from the document that is promised later this year will be on that
  282
  same basis, on the assumption that legislation is to follow it according to the views presented in that consultation process.
  Mr. David Madel: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about consultation. If the consultation reveals that large sections of industry, having carefully considered the new clause do not want legislation on the lines he envisages, presumably he will accept that and not require my right hon. Friend to legislate.
  Mr. Gardiner: It is already evident from the verdicts that have come up through the Conservative trade union movement and from what has been stated by many leaders of industry in the press over the last few days that there is a strong demand on the factory floor and elsewhere for legislation that covers this point of principle. The point of consultation would be to work out the most appropriate way in which that could be put into legislative form.
  Mr. John Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what advice has come from the CBI on this issue, and what practical objections the CBI has made to any proposal for compulsory ballots?
  Mr. Gardiner: The CBI has not yet had an opportunity to discuss this matter formally because it has not yet been put into a consultative document. That is what we look forward to.
  The Conservative manifesto has been mentioned and tossed around. I know that there are limits to what can be understood by "manifesto", and I agree that not everyone reads the fine print. I will read one small part of the fine print:
  "Every trade unionist should be free to record his decisions as every voter has done for a hundred years in parliamentary elections, without others watching and taking note. "
  Every trade unionist should have this freedom, not just those whose national leaders consent to grant it to them. That is the policy on which we fought the last election. That is the policy endorsed by three successive meetings of the national council of Conservative trade unionists and carried almost unanimously at its national conference. That is the hope of thousands upon thousands of

  283
  rank and file trade unionist members who voted for us in the last election, and that is the principle on which I shall judge how to use my vote tonight.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: We do not need to look further than the sponsors of the clause and some of the speeches made by Tory Members to account for the woeful state of industrial relations. If ever there was a set of political "bovver" boys it surely is the people who have subscribed to the clause and those who support it. When I was listening to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) I was reminded of the march in Lewisham on Sunday afternoon. I do not want to be unjust and equate Tory Members with the National Front, but political "bovver" boys is a fair expression to describe the people who are pursuing this type of argument. The Secretary of State—for whom I have the utmost respect on the issue of industrial relations—must from time to time feel a bit like the Duke of Wellington. I do not need to finish the quotation.
  The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who is not in his seat, was the first indecently to expose himself this afternoon as being completely against trade unions per se when he said that, had the Secretary of State made the closed shop illegal, he would not be supporting the clause tonight. He was the first to blow the gaff on the personal detestation of certain Tory Members for organised labour. They do not mind labour because they need labour; labour is a profitable commodity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said. They do not mind labour except when labour is organised, and they like it even less when it is highly organised.
  When the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst)—"Radio Grunwick"—intervened to quote the editor of The Times on this issue, he was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Has he forgotten for how many months that august pillar of the Establishment was not published, and why? The editor of The Times is the last man I would want to quote as an authority on good industrial relations—indeed on any sort of industrial relations.
  284
  I do not know Mr. Frodsham of the Engineering Employers' Federation. He might be a perfectly nice man. He could not be as nasty as some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon. He must be a fairly honourable individual to have reached the position of director-general of the Engineering Employers' Federation.
  I sympathise with Clive Jenkins in having so many Tory members in his union. I know that some Tories have had experience in industry. I know also that when they talk about the shop floor they are talking about Debenhams or Fortnum and Mason and not about the factory floor. To be fair, some have had industrial experience, but I would not expect any of them to have had as much industrial experience as has Anthony Frodsham. He makes two extremely important points in his letter to The Times of 21 April. He refers to the letter of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) of 17 April and says that the amendment referred to in that letter:
  "may in practice worsen rather than improve industrial relations."
  He goes on to say,
  "It is surely utterly unwise for such a fundamental change to be introduced without effective consultation with the parties concerned. The Engineering Employers' Federation's initial investigations suggest that there are considerable dangers."
  I put it no higher than does the director-general of the Engineering Employers' Federation.
  If secret ballots are forced on an unwilling trade union movement, there will be serious repercussions. Conservative Members seem to be obsessed with ballots.
  Mr. John Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the events that occurred during the engineering strike last year add credibility to Mr. Frodsham's letter to The Times?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: I do not want to engage in a slanging match. If the hon. Gentleman wants to slang the Engineering Employers' Federation, he may do so, but he must recognise that the federation is to the employers what the trade union joint committees are to employees.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Frodsham wrote that letter from experience.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Perhaps my right hon. Friend is suggesting that the hon. Member for Winchester has no such experience.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Frodsham wrote his letter after having had experience of the engineering dispute last year and in the light of that.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that point.
  I joined my first trade union—what is now the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Trade Union—when I was a 16-year-old apprentice. At that time, the rule of the union was that apprentices had to be 18 years old before they could join the union. I wrote to the then general secretary, Mr. Kelly, saying that, if I was old enough to work, I was old enough to hold a union card. I was the first 16-year-old apprentice to be accepted in the union. The rule was subsequently altered, because the national executive committee saw the force of my argument.
  From the age of 16 I was used to postal ballots in that union. When I went into management I joined the General and Municipal Workers Union. I am sponsored by that union and am secretary of the sponsored Members' group. I have been balloted by that union as well.
  If a union freely decides to ballot its members, it is right and proper that it should pay for the privilege of holding the ballot. Perhaps I am the suspicious, introvert Northerner that I have been described as being more than once, but I bear in mind that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The fear of the trade union movement about accepting State money for the holding of ballots is that, once the provision becomes law, there is no knowing when the Act may be amended, particularly by the present Government. That is why I hope that we shall have nothing to do with such ballots.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) I have to declare an interest as a trade unionist. Indeed, I am the treasurer of my branch of the National Union of Journalists in the West of Scotland. Unfortunately, although I control the cash, I have not yet been able to
  286
  persuade the union to sponsor me in the House, as it sponsors the hon. Member.
  The case put against the new clause has been pretty weak. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) advanced what he regarded as the devastating argument that, if there is a ballot before a strike, there must be a ballot to get the men back. That is a load of rubbish, because there is no reason why, on the basis of a voluntary ballot, as opposed to a mandatory ballot, a return to work should not be carried out within the normal rules of a union.
  Mr. Mikardo: The theme of the argument of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was that it ought not to be possible, on the say-so of one man, to get people to stop work. Why is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should be possible, on the say-so of one man, to get people back to work, whether they want to return or not?
  Mr. Taylor: I am not saying anything of the sort. The Conservative Party does not believe that people should be forced to do anything in this category. As a trade unionist, the hon. Gentleman knows that if there is a demand for a secret ballot about whether a union should go on strike after an offer from the employers and the majority of members say that there should be a strike, there is nothing to stop the union, operating in the normal way, from negotiating with the employers thereafter and recommending a return to work on the basis of a revised offer.
  Although these matters are complex, unless we go for mandatory ballots it is rubbish for the hon. Gentleman to say that if there is a ballot before a strike there must be one before the men can go back.
  The second argument against the new clause is that there is no need for it because there has not been a great deal of coercion and because workers are not forced to go on strike against the wishes of the majority. I do not suggest that trade unions are more corrupt or guilty of more misunderstanding than the rest of society, but at mass meetings decisions are often taken by a minority, not simply because there is a minority seeking to impose its will but, because of the appalling problem of apathy.

  287
  As one who is taking part in trade union activities actively for the first time and has been attending meetings regularly, I find that apathy is caused, not by disinterest, but because trade union meetings are often long and tedious, take place at venues that are not convenient for the general membership and, because of the way that agendas are run, the meaty decisions are taken at about 10.30 p.m. when the last bus or train is about to leave.
  There is a great problem of trade union decisions not being majority decisions and trade union leaderships not necessarily being representative. Something must be done. The hon. Member for West Derby said that the answer was for trade unionists to take a more active interest, but he must recognise that there is a general problem of apathy to which an answer must be found.
  The third argument against the new clause is that things are going well, events at British Leyland show that there has been a great improvement, and that we should let well alone. It would be wrong to draw any general conclusions from British Leyland, which is hovering on the brink of collapse and has appeared to be on the verge of bankruptcy from time to time.
  I cannot see that any case has been made against the principle of the new clause. On the other hand, I must say to all those who, like myself, support the principle, that we should not make the mistake of thinking that it will be easy to resolve the problem. Since my return to the House, I have found many hon. Members supporting principles. For example, almost everyone supports the principle of a complete restructuring of the common agricultural policy. That is easy to say, but when one discusses the means of doing it, the apparent unity disappears in a flash. As someone who spent his working life in labour relations before coming to the House of Commons to represent a Glasgow seat, I say: please do not think that this is an easy problem.
  If we accept the principle of the right to have a voluntary ballot, the first—and very important—problem to be faced is: what is the unit? Is the unit to be the trade union membership as a whole, or is it to be the local branch, the district or the area? This problem is often ignored.
  288
  My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has chosen to give his answer in his new clause. He has said that it should be the bargaining unit, where there is an offer being made in writing. It may be in a shop, it may be in an area, or it may be a national offer. But if we accept that it should be more than the massive trade union membership, cannot hon. Members see the most apalling trade union problems arising? Are they easy to resolve?
  I give an example from my own working experience. Suppose that I am working on a newspaper and that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) is working on the same desk. Suppose that we are called out on strike because there is a dispute about a house agreement, concerning which negotiations are taking place. Suppose that we are out on the street for a week and then there is a national strike called by the trade union, as a result of which everyone has to go out on strike. But suppose that meanwhile someone has asked for a ballot on our house agreement and that the result of the ballot is that the boys say that they do not want to go on strike over the house agreement. What then happens? Do we say that we on our paper go back to work because of the ballot—obviously, if we did not, it would make a nonsense of the whole business—or do we say that we stay out, in which case the ballot does not take place? My hon. Friend will be aware that employers can be pretty ruthless at times. Often during a general strike in an industry an individual employer likes nothing better than to have his newspaper published or to have his work go ahead.
  The next question is: what is industrial action? It would be very easy if industrial action were just men walking out on strike after a union decision, but the one thing that has emerged in recent years in a very big way is the variation in what is involved in industrial action. It is not just the old variations of a work-to-rule or sit-down strike. There are all kinds of things, such as non-co-operation. The most exciting one that I saw was when everyone agreed that because of pressing personal reasons they were not able to work overtime.
  The third general point that I make to my hon Friend and others is: do remember that it is very difficult indeed

  289
  to draw a fine distinction—as the supporters of the new clause have—between a voluntary and a mandatory system of ballots. The feeling is that if there are mandatory ballots, somehow we have the involvement of the law, the courts and the policemen, whereas, if we have voluntary ballots, none of these people is involved. But it is not as easy as that.
  Under the new clause—and it is a very important and detailed proposal—what happens if a railway strike is called right across the country and, under the clause, 500 railwaymen say "We want a ballot"? The action would then have to be suspended. One might take the view that there is no need to suspend the action, but my hon. Friend has faced up to this and said that, if there is a request for a ballot, the action must be suspended.
  What do we say, then, if the national executive of the National Union of Railwaymen, taking the view that the great majority support the union's action, says "We shall ignore this and go on with the strike"? We then have the problem of the full range of the mandatory principle. We have the individual steelworks manager saying "My work is being held up because of this strike, which appears to be illegal." We have a whole series of actions for civil damages, common damages, and so on.
  Can we also leave out police involvement? If we are to have the principle of a ballot depending upon 15 per cent. of workers asking for a ballot, or 500 people, my hon. Friend will be aware—and this is a very important point—that people will say "I am signing this petition, I think 15 per cent. have decided, but how can I trust these union officials, who are all Communists? How do I know that they are not tearing up the ballot papers as they are going in, or throwing them out into the bucket?" Who is to check up on all this? Who is to decide whether 15 per cent. of the membership have sent in their names?
  6.45 pm
  It would be difficult to do it, in my view, unless one had some official, some policeman or some legal person whose job was to check up on all these things. Before we know where we are, we are very closely back to our old, unfortunate, 1971 Act. Those who think that
  290
  a very fine distinction can be drawn between the voluntary ballot, which does not involve any policemen, court officials or lawyers, and the mandatory ballot of the 1971 Act, should realise that it is not as easy as that.
  I make my final point as someone who supports the principle of the ballot—I should like my right hon. Friend to go ahead with negotiations and to sort it out—but have we honestly thought in the long term not just of the good consequences but of the other consequences which might arise if we have this instant referendum technique? Have we thought what would be the effect on the authority of trade union leadership in negotiation?
  I spent five years in the Clyde shipyards, where we had loads of strikes and appalling labour relations. The problem was not that the trade unions were too powerful. The problem was that the trade union leadership was too weak, did not have authority, and could not speak for the membership. That was the big problem. Are we to be able to resolve this automatically if we have the instant referendum?
  Would it strengthen the authority of the House of Commons if on any major issue coming before the House at any time we were to have instant referendums in our constituencies? When I was last in the House, I was almost stoned for suggesting that the question of capital punishment might be a suitable issue for a national referendum. I was told that it was an appalling suggestion and was upsetting all the principles of Burke, and so on, and that if we wanted to have strong, good, decent Members of Parliament, they should be given a five-year mandate and allowed to get on with the job.
  What about trade union leadership? What about negotiations? How are we to have strong, powerful and adequate trade union leadership if on issues where the strike threat is one of the bargaining weapons, there is the possibility, non-stop, of the instant referendum? This is something that should be thought through carefully.
  I am sorry to have spoken for 10 minutes instead of the five minutes that I promised someone who was trying to put very great pressure on me. I think that my right hon. Friend will find that most of us support the principle, but to those who have put it forward I say: please do

  291
  not think that it is an easy problem or that it will solve all our labour relations difficulties.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I, too, wish to be brief in my contribution. I rise to speak because I am deeply suspicious of any group or any party within this House which thinks it has the philosopher's stone, the cure-all or the panacea that will solve the problems of industrial relations in the 1980s. I have a deep suspicion of certain people in the Conservative Party who seem to think that ballots are an alternative to a serious and constructive industrial relations policy.
  From my experience of industrial life I believe that there is no substitute for good industrial relations. In the real world there are bad and good employers. In the real world there are bad and good trade unionists. There is good and bad on all sides. We know that the real job is to bring men of good will on either side of industry together to work constructively for the future of all our people.
  But in industry it is essential to treat people like human beings, whether they be on management side or the trade union side. The importance of this principle is often missed. We cannot legislate for that. Ballots, and the introduction of the instant ballot, will not do anything to change this basic fact. Most men of good will on each side of the House will realise—I am sure that the Secretary of State realises it—that the issues and the problems of industrial relations in Britain in 1980 are far more fundamental and are far more related to our history of social class and social division than any mucking around with ballots could put right.
  I draw the attention of the House to an industrial dispute in which a ballot is being used at this very moment in trying to resolve a problem. I refer to Hopkinsons Limited, an engineering company of great renown in Huddersfield, just outside my constituency. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). I see that he is one of the sponsors of the new clause. He is not in the Chamber at the minute. There has been a dispute at Hopkinsons for nine long weeks. The dispute arose—Conservative Members might be surprised at this—because the management unilaterally abrogated an agreement between manage-
  292
  ment and trade unions that was worked out over a long period of time and signed by each side 18 months ago.
  The agreement was effective and increased productivity by 20 per cent. It was a good agreement. It secured pension rights and the closed shop that both management and trade unions wanted. The Secretary of State for Employment visited Hopkinsons Ltd. and said that it was a fine example of management and trade unions working together. Then a senior manager was replaced and overnight that agreement was abrogated by management. This led to a strike that is now in its ninth week. It includes everyone from the office girls to the security police. Every union worker in that establishment is on strike.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Sheerman: The management refused to negotiate about a pension scheme—the central issue—and refused to take part in a civilised discourse between civilised human beings on the management and trade union side. Rather than resolving the dispute, the management suddenly decided last Friday to hold a ballot. Instead of holding consultations and cementing good union and management relationships, the old Gaullist frame-word of "civilised life" was imposed. The management said, in effect, in its ballot: "We have three questions for you to answer chaps. They are simple, and all are loaded against your trade union and your negotiating position". The first proposition was that employees should have the opportunity to express their views at a mass meeting to be arranged. The workers had to answer either "Yes" or "No". The second proposition was that the company's proposals provided a basis for negotiation. Again the workers could only answer "Yes" or "No". The third proposition was that trade union officials should re-open negotiations. What a loaded ballot. Conservative Members have not come clean about this, including those who have tabled the new clause. Who will design these ballots?
  We have seen the problems that referendums involve in other countries, especially France. We have seen that referendums can be easily loaded towards one point of view. Anyone considering

  293
  the Hopkinsons ballot will see that ballots are not a substitute for industrial relations. They will destroy the good relationships that so many good companies have built up.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Sheerman: I shall give way shortly. The legislation, and this clause, will destroy industrial relations, not improve them. Opposition Members have consistently put forward that argument both in the House and in Committee. If one introduces a "panacea" that does not solve the profound problems of British industry and if one goes for fools' gold, one ends up undermining the good that exists. This is a pernicious clause in a poor piece of legislation. The Opposition have consistently opposed it. Such cure-alls will do nothing to help our position.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Some time ago the hon. Gentleman uttered remarks that referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). Did he have the courtesy to tell my hon. Friend beforehand that he would make such remarks?
  Mr. Sheerman: I apologise. I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman. As he is a sponsor of the Bill, one would expect him to be here. I did not intend any discourtesy.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of his constituents work in the factory that he has mentioned?
  Mr. Sheerman: That is certainly the case. I took it for granted that hon. Members would be aware that my constituency contains about half the work force of that firm. As I thought that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was a sponsor of the Bill, I thought that he would be here.
  Finally, the 1,700 men who are on strike in my constituency are good, sensible and productive workers. They do not like strikes or bad industrial relations. However, for some years they have been treated as something less than human beings. That is the crux of the problem, and it cannot be solved by ballots.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I wish to interject a note of caution about
  294
  these new clauses. My remarks will be very much along the lines of the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). In principle, we are probably all in favour of secret ballots, just as in principle we are all, no doubt, against sin. Will these new clauses, and the ringing declarations of principle that follow them, improve industrial relations? I fear that they will not. I fear that they will lead to an epidemic of ballotitis, which could infect and poison industrial relations in many way and for many years.
  The precedents for the uses and abuses of the mandatory right to ballot are by no means universally encouraging. Several hon. Members have referred to the National Union of Journalists. I am a member of that union of some 13 years standing. It is a very democratic union. It is a broad church. It has members to the Right of General Franco and to the Left of Chairman Mao.
  However, few issues in recent years have caused more heat and passion than that of the closed shop in journalism. There were endless ballots on that issue. The policy of the national executive was reversed by ballot. It was then taken to conference by ballot and reversed by conference. I shall relate only half the saga. However, the net result was total confusion. When we had great debates on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act in 1974 and 1976, virtually nobody could confirm the policy of the NUJ towards the closed shop in journalism. When the dust settled, this burning issue was properly settled at branch, or as we call it, chapel level by individual trade unionists who argued in the traditional face-to-face way.
  The same point could be made about another union. I refer to Equity. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) read out part of a letter from Mr. Roger Gale of the Conservative Trades Unionists' Communications Group. He seemed to think that it was wholly in support of these clauses. He stopped reading the letter just before an interesting paragraph, which refers to Equity. It states:
  "It is the mandatory right to demand a ballot—the 'referendum' that the moderates in British Equity have so successfully used to keep their union out of the hands of the broad left".

  295
  The shop steward of the moderates in Equity is my brother-in-law, the actor Mr. Nigel Davenport. Naturally, I have heard a great deal from him about his battles. At times I have felt about those battles as Lady Eden was supposed to have felt about the Suez Canal: that it flowed through her drawing room. When one hears the stories about ballots for and again Vanessa's loonies, for and against Davenport's dare-devils and for and against Marius Goring's go-getters—issues that have been well publicised—one wonders, as a fellow trade unionist in the communications industry, if the issues might not have been better settled by traditional shop floor discussion.
  The points raised so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East are valid. The issue is much more complex than some of the speeches in favour of the new clause have implied. The mandatory right to ballot is a two-edged sword. The situation is not perfect without a right to ballot, or with a right to ballot. More consultation is needed before taking any dramatic legislative step. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary are right to talk of a brick by brick approach. My right hon. Friend resembles the beleagured figure of Horatius on the bridge. As Lord Macaulay said:
  "But those behind cried 'Forward!'
  And those before cried 'Back!'"
  I believe that my right hon. Friend is more or less guarding the bridge in the right place and in the right way. I shall support him in the Lobby tonight.
  7 pm
  Mr. Golding: I declare an interest as a national officer of the Post Office Engineering Union for 20 years. I am curious about the objective of the new clauses. Is it thought that they will increase democracy in the unions? If that is their objective, they will fail. Is it thought that they will reduce the number of strikes? If that is their objective, they will also fail.
  I make it perfectly clear that I agree with those who believe that Britain's strike record is nowhere near as bad as it has been painted by Conservative Front Bench spokesmen in the past and by the media. In a recent Department of Employment press notice I read:
  296
  "In the international 'league table' Britain's strike record remains a respectable one. Some people might be surprised to know that strike losses of working days for every 1,000 employees were worse in the United States, Canada, Australia and Italy in the last five years for which we have figures."
  Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend is making a valid point. Is he aware that the first two countries that he mentioned—those with the worst strike records—have legislation for ballots?
  Mr. Golding: That is so.
  The press notice continues:
  "Virtually all the 70 manufacturing companies in a German survey said that productivity in the period 1977 to 1979 was 'satisfactory' to 'excellent'. Some even claimed to have higher productivity than in Germany. And eight out of 10 had had no official stoppages in the previous two years.
  Other surveys have come up with similar findings. A recent study of a group of nearly 200 foreign owned subsidiaries of overseas companies in the North-West of England revealed that only one had experienced a strike."
  This is not a press notice issued a year ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). It was issued on 11 April this year by the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the Earl of Gowrie. That was the Government's official view on strikes in this country—a different point of view from some that we have heard expressed from the Conservative Benches.
  To listen to Conservatives today one would think that the generality of experience is that national trade union officers and their executives go round the country constantly looking for trouble and for incidents to exploit. One would think that they constantly tried to bring men and women out on strike. Those of us who have been involved in industrial relations know that that is a travesty of the truth. The reality is that the vast majority of trade union officials are constantly trying to maintain peace and discipline and to put pressure on union members to keep agreements. The reality of industrial life is that full-time union officials are often pressed by activists to go much further. It has not been my experience that active trade unionists tell their executive that it is going too far or that it is fighting too hard. In fact, the active rank and file often tell full-time officials that they are not fighting hard enough, that they are

  297
  making too many compromises and that they are too moderate. That is the reality of the national leadership. Often it takes up a position that is far more moderate then the rank and file want it to be.
  The picture from the Conservatives is one of a full-time official being rather like a general or a managing director of a firm—someone with the authority to order people out and to keep them away from work. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it is often difficult for activists to get people out on strike, it is sometimes difficult to persuade them to go back to work. Those of us who are trade union officials must work within a democratic framework. We are not working within the Army or within the hierarchy of industrial management. We do not have public school traditions of discipline and fagging behind us. We have to work within the established democratic framework. Our constant problem is to reflect the points of view of different sections within our unions. It is often difficult and complex to determine precisely what the rank and file want. The point of view which comes across from the Tory Benches is most unrealistic.
  Would the holding of ballots reduce industrial conflict? I do not believe that it would. The new clauses are an unofficial strikers' charter. The Chief Whip is frowning at me and looking at the clock, so I shall finish my remarks shortly. All these clauses do is to forbid the official union machinery to call a dispute or create industrial action without a ballot. In no way would they stop unofficial action. At a time of tension all that these clauses would do would be to pass the leadership from the elected, accountable, official leaders to the unofficial leaders and it would be far more likely that Communists would take over the leadership of unions in industry.
  Would the new clauses make the present system more democratic? I do not think so. I do not believe that referendums are necessarily democratic. After a vote had been taken and people had voted to go on strike, it would be very much more difficult to get them back again; that is certain. I believe that the argument has been put that there would have to be another ballot to get the workers back to work. That would be true in practice. If
  298
  people had balloted to come out in support of a claim and that claim was not met in full, the trade union would need to have another ballot to persuade its members to return to work unless the employers had conceded everything that was being balloted upon in the first place.
  I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that the position in relation to referendums is the same in the unions as in our own political constitution. One of the great objections to referendums is that people will often vote without considering in detail the issues involved. In the absence of enough information, they are just as likely to vote for a strike as against one.
  I very much hope that, in the interests of sound industrial relations, the Government hold the line tonight. I could speak longer, but the Chief Whip does not believe in ballots. He believes in intimidation. I shall therefore resume my seat.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I am also aware that there is a clock on each side of the Chamber and that both Chief Whips can see them. I shall be as brief as possible. I signed the early-day motion orginally concerned with this Clause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have raised the matter. This is not only a constitutional issue but a highly complex one. The principle is whether the average individual member of trade unions is given a secret ballot and, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, we provide for the protection of the rights of individuals in our society.
  My right hon. Friend, when he replies, will no doubt say that there is need for further time for consultation and for Green Papers and White Papers and all other colours of papers. More important, I suggest, is that if he accepts the principle of the secret ballot, he must examine and consult about the actual machinery for such a process. It is the principle and the machinery that needs to be established.
  It is argued that secret ballots were not adumbrated in the Conservative manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) disposed of that. I believe that there is a feeling throughout the country and amongst the majority of trade unionists that the possibilities of the secret ballot should be explored and

  299
  if possible implemented. My right hon. Friend has some ammunition. It may not be possible for the clauses, as drafted, to be included in the Bill. That may give an excuse for the House not proceeding to a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend will direct his attention to those matters. The fact should not escape him that a large number of my hon. Friends, a large number of trade unionists and a considerable body of opinion in the country do not want the matter to be swept under the carpet in a Green Paper. They want to see the matter properly explored and to ensure that the machinery that is imposed and used is right and just.
  I have listened to all the arguments made in the debate. I have been present the whole day. I understand the complexity and the difficulties of the machinery. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give the House sufficient assurance so that these amendments will not need to be put to a vote. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance on the legality of the new clauses, that he will reiterate that the principle is accepted and that, if there is to be consultation, the views of his hon. Friends will be considered. I hope he will make sure that there is agreement amongst all parties about the machinery to be used in this difficult operation of the secret ballot. If he can give those assurances, we may be able to avoid a Division.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: I hesitate to intervene in this debate. It is very much a debate that is taking place on the Government side of the House in the sense that all the disagreements come from that side. This shows the difficult task of the Secretary of State in trying to convince his hon. Friends that this is a complex matter and that ballots will not necessarily result in better industrial relations. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, they could result in more difficult industrial relations. In any event, the Opposition are anxious to debate the wider and more fundamental issues associated with the Bill. We have put down amendments that have been selected by Mr. Speaker. I would not like the debate to pass, however, without giving the Opposition's view on this issue.
  300
  7.15 pm
  I am always amazed by the naivety of some Conservative Members. Some of them—certainly a substantial number of those who have addressed the House—give the impression that if only ballots were held industrial disputes would not arise. Every experience shows this to be wholly fallacious. There are hundreds of practical problems associated with balloting. Those hon. Members do not take into account the experience, the rules and the traditions of some of our trade unions. To adopt a legislative formula, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and some of his hon. Friends propose, would be the worst of all worlds.
  It has amazed some of my hon. Friends and me that the House should be debating this new clause, the principal sponsor of which is the hon. Member for Winchester. The hon. Member was a member of the Standing Committee. We spent 10 hours in Committee debating clause 1 and the general principle of ballots. The hon. Gentleman did not seek to introduce the new clause at that time. There is no reason why he should have done so. It is sometimes better to wait until the Bill reaches the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman made no mention of his proposal in Committee.
  Listening to the speeches of some hon. Members, I am at a loss to understand their practical experience of trade union affairs. I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that hon. Members do not have the right to take part in debates on industrial relations. I might wish to comment from time to time about such matters as banking. I understand, however, that the hon. Member for Winchester is a banker and a soldier of some distinction. I am not aware that he has worked on the shop floor. I do not think that he is a member of any trade union or that he understands the principles of trade unions.
  The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), according to The Times Guide to the House of Commons, is a senior buyer of foodstuffs. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had experience of individual trade unions. If so, he will no doubt intervene and say so. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) does not represent Dartford, but I give way to him.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Gentleman is introducing a novel principle in the conduct of the affairs of the House that only direct personal experience qualifies hon. Members to speak on subjects. That is a very revolutionary principle.
  Mr. Varley: I would not suggest anythink like that. I recognise that members of the legal profession sometimes look a bit sideways when some of my hon. Friends speak about that profession and suggest that they should not intervene, but the House always listens more seriously to individuals if they have practical experience.
  The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), again according to The Times Guide to the House of Commons, listing the background of Members of Parliament, is a wine merchant and a chartered accountant. I do not know what is his practical experience of trade unions. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), who I see in his place, is a farmer, a landowner, a company director and a public house licensee.
  Mr. Colvin: Would the right hon. Gentleman deny me the right to state an opinion on an Abortion Bill?
  Mr. Varley: Of course not. I say, I think for the sixth time, that I do not seek to suggest that hon. Members should be denied an opportunity to speak. I merely wish to assess the value of the contributions they make.
  I need not go through the list of speeches made on the Government side, but hon. Members supporting the Secretary of State have some practical experience of industrial relations. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who made a forceful speech, has some experience of industrial relations as a personnel officer. The hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) has practical experience of industrial relations. Both are totally opposed to what the hon. Member for Winchester and his hon. Friends wish to do.
  People with practical experience on both sides of the House counsel caution about moving down the road which leads to mandatory ballots. If the numbers are set as low as 15 per cent. or 500, that means mandatory ballots, with all their difficulties.
  Mr. John Browne: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of practical experience. He is talking about practical experience of one of the most chaotic countries in the world in terms of industrial relations.
  Mr. Varley: That emphasises what I was saying.
  The Minister of State, Lord Gowrie, gave evidence to a Committee in which he admitted, under close questioning, that the strike record in Britain is not that bad compared with other industrial countries. Industrial relations always deteriorate under Conservative Governments. One can trace the figures back to 1945. Twice as many days are always lost through industrial disputes under Conservative Governments as under Labour Governments.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the reasons why industrial relations deteriorate under Conservative Governments is the political use of power by trade union leadership?
  Mr. Varley: It is not a question of that. There is always a steady deterioration under Conservative Governments.
  The House is anxious to listen to the Secretary of State and to come to a decision, so I shall issue one final word of warning. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) threatened the Secretary of State. He said that if the Secretary of State did not indicate that the proposition will be included in the Green Paper there would be mass hostility and a mass vote against the Government in favour of the new clause. That is no way to behave towards the Secretary of State for Employment. The hon. Member said that the Secretary of State could go through the consultative process provided that he gave a guarantee that such a proposal would be included.
  The new clause is nonsense. I suspect that the Secretary of State and his colleagues also regard it as nonsense. Those with experience in industrial relations on the. Government side say that it is nonsense. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will state that the new clause cannot be accepted. If necessary, we shall vote with him in the Lobby this evening.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): We have had a long, interesting and good humoured debate. A number of important issues have been raised. I shall try to put some of the serious problems in perspective in relation to what we seek to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) quoted an Ancient and Modern hymn at me. I shall quote another—
  "Lead, kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom".
  I am not sure that the gloom has been lifted entirely from my presence by some of the speeches from behind me. However, I shall do my best to shed as much light as possible.
  I begin by shedding a little light on the famous resolution supposedly passed by Conservative trade unions at their annual conference. I was there. The resolution stated:
  "This conference, recognising that the 40 per cent. of trade unionists who voted Conservative at the last election did so in earnest support for the manifesto's commitment to trade union reforms, urges Her Majesty's Government to implement those reforms at the earliest possible time. This conference further urges Her Majesty's Government to pay particular attention to the law relating to the use of secret ballots and not to be intimidated by the bluster of largely unrepresentative trade union leaders."
  That gives a slightly different impression from that given in the letter by Mr. Gale.
  It is always useful to reread a manifesto and remind oneself of what was said a year ago. The manifesto states:
  "Wider use of secret ballots for decisionmaking throughout the trade union movement should be given every encouragement. We will therefore provide public funds for postal ballots for union elections and other important issues. Every trade unionist should be free to record his decisions as every voter has done for a hundred years in parliamentary elections without others watching and taking note."
  That is reasonable.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend explain how every trade unionist can be free to record his decision if the process by which every trade unionist is so free is decided according to the customs of individual trade unions?
  Mr. Prior: I have always hoped, after much consideration, that by the use of voluntary means and the Government pro-
  304
  viding cash for postal ballots, and as a result of the pressure for the holding of secret ballots, that will happen for all trade unionists. Great improvements have been made in the last year or so and we should not believe from the fact that it has not happened yet that the aim in the manifesto will not be achieved by the end of this Parliament. I believe that it can be achieved.
  We attach great importance to secret ballots for a variety of purposes, but undoubtedly for the election of union officers at national level. As in other countries, in Britain strong moderate leaders, elected by, and therefore supported by, the broad base of their members, are the surest means of achieving both national and trade union success.
  After long and anxious consideration, we decided some time ago—and we have been examining the issue for a number of years—that the most likely means of achieving our aims, which are so widely shared, is by encouragement and the provision of funds rather than by compulsion. The importance of that—and it is amply borne out by the TUC's attitude—is that no one can reasonably accuse us of meddling in union affairs. It provided a basis for those who wanted to use the money for secret ballots to take it without feeling that they were letting down their colleagues.
  Considerable pressure is being exerted within the TUC to dissuade unions from taking the cash. Some unions are resisting that; and where some lead others will follow. I do not believe that that would have happened if we had moved to compulsion.
  I stress, therefore, that our primary purpose is to get unions to elect their national leaders by means of secret ballot—probably postal. That in itself will do more to reform industrial relations than anything else that we are likely to do in this Parliament. That is where our main thought and effort should be directed. We hear much in modern times about appealing to the shop floor—the rank and file or average trade unionist—over the heads of union leaders. We all know the reasons why and I think that we should all recognise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), that it is not a satisfactory state of affairs to deliberately undermine the authority of leaders.

  305
  7.30 pm
  That can lead to greater extremism, to more thrashing about and, at the end of the day, to anarchy. The movement towards secret ballots is growing. In the pragmatic and conservative way of approaching problems of industrial relations I urge my hon. Friends to allow it to proceed.
  I believe that there is an important—perhaps fundamental—change taking place. It is not easy to fathom when one is in the middle of it and one cannot predict the outcome. Change in trade union structure is a topic of great conversation. The shop floor is no longer to be relied upon meekly to follow the lead, on which they have had no say, from leaders to whom they do not feel committed.
  Hon. Friends have told me and the House that they believe that the tide is flowing strongly in our direction and strongly in the direction of need for change. I accept that. My task is to advise the House and the country on how best to aid change, and to interpret what is going on. My instinctive reaction is to say that when things are starting to move on their own we should let the process continue.
  The British are jealous of their past. They are great guardians of what they see as hard gained rights. As many of us learned in the Services—including my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)—volunteers for a job are generally better than those pressed. Sometimes, therefore, I find myself in the middle of the argument between those who say that nothing can be done—which is, I think, what many Opposition Members have been saying—and some of my hon. Friends who urge me to do more.
  However, the argument is raging and it is a healthy one. The argument is much less sterile than those of the last few years. It is possible for the great majority of responsible men and women—many of them trade unionists—to see that we are, painstakingly and with great effort, seeking policies which are balanced and fair. Even those who disagree with us politically are able to support our general approach. Those on the shop floor who agree with us, and who in some cases are anxious for us to go further and do more, have no difficulty in defending our approach against their critics.
  306
  People in industry whose opinion I respect tell me that the attitude among management and workers to allow and make this Bill work is far greater than in 1971. This is important and it is against that background that I come to discuss the detailed clauses put forward by my hon. Friends.
  Let me say again, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the underlying principle of these clauses will give the power of referendum to people on the shop floor. That is what it is all about. In many ways in a democracy it is a reasonable thing to do. That power would be given and at the same time as those on the shop took that power they would be taking power away from trade union leaders.
  I must say that it is partly because the country—this is a widely held view—does not believe that the trade union leaders often represent the true views of the shop floor that this kind of movement has grown over the last few years. I think that that makes out the case and that is why we came to this conclusion after much consideration.
  The use of the secret ballot for election to trade union office is important. It is important at national level and much more important, perhaps, in secret ballots on the premises and in employers' time.
  I do not propose to seek to shoot down these clauses on technical grounds. Very often as a frustrated Back Bencher I have listened to Ministers shooting down badly drafted amendments. It is not easy to draft amendments and generally it is even harder to understand them when they are put into proper form. But it is easy to understand the principle which underlies the views of my hon. Friends in these new clauses.
  It is very important, however, for me to indicate some of the very profound difficulties which would arise from the new clauses in practice, and I emphasise "in practice".
  The House will not expect me to give a detailed analysis of each of the clauses, and the numerous technical and practical difficulties to which each gives rise. I will, however, mention three general problems which in my view none of the new clauses manages successfully to overcome.

  307
  First, none of the clauses deals satisfactorily with the problem of unofficial action—regrettably the most prevalent form of industrial action in Britain. New clauses 2, 3 and 5, in the names, respectively, of my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford, Winchester and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) ignore the question altogether. The result is that unofficial action would continue to be lawful without a ballot being required and enjoy the protection of the immunities in TULRA. In fact, the effect of these clauses might well be to increase unofficial industrial action.
  At present unions seek in some cases to gain control of unofficial strikes by making them official but this would not be at all an attractive course if the effect were to make it fall foul of the requirements of this clause. The same objection applies in respect of new clause 4.
  New clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester clearly recognises this difficulty and makes a valiant attempt to deal with it. It does so, however, by seeking to provide that even unofficial groups are to be regarded for the purposes of the clause as though they were trade unions. The effect of this is again perverse.
  So my hon. Friend is getting away from unofficial action and is saying that if they are unofficial groups—not supported by the union but unofficial groups within the works or within the union—they would be treated as though they were trade unions.
  The effect of this is again perverse. It would give a respectability and status to unofficial groups which can win immunity for unofficial strike action by conducting a successful ballot which we should be straining in other respects to deny them. They are, indeed, put into a valid negotiating relationship with the employer because the clause requires the question to be asked in their ballot to be agreed with him.
  In other words, the employer in those circumstances could find himself in the impossible position—which happened to British Leyland a few years ago—of being unable to negotiate with the unofficial group which has the power and of negotiating with the official group which has no power. What could happen on
  308
  such occasions is that the employers could either be faced with negotiating with an unofficial group because that group had the requisite 15 per cent. and was in a position to demand that the employers help them with the ballot or negotiating with an unofficial group.
  The second general problem which arises on all the clauses is the weapon they would place—unintentionally, I am sure—in the hands of militants to use in order to embarrass a responsible union leadership. New clauses 4 and 5 would enable a minority to trigger a ballot even where the union had no intention of taking strike action.
  Thus, the union leadership may be doing everything my hon. Friends would desire; negotiating a realistic settlement in difficult circumstances. Yet under these clauses the militants have only to get a small minority of dissatisfied members to ask for a ballot, and one is then foisted on the leadership. Can one imagine a better way of undermining responsible leadership than that?
  New clauses 2, 3 and 6 seek to avoid this problem but, in my view, unsuccessfully. New clauses 2 and 3 would provide militants with an argument to persuading members not to follow official union procedures. After all, why do so if the union may be hamstrung by the need to organise and conduct a ballot and perhaps even be deprived of its immunity?
  New clause 6 will, as I have said, provide groups of militant workers with a number of ways in which to elevate their status and secure ballots which a moderate leadership would not want at a sensitive point in negotiations. For example, an unofficial group of members in a union may call upon the membership of the union in a major firm to strike knowing that it could then muster 15 per cent. of such members to pull the trigger for a ballot. This would give it a locus to hold a ballot and/or put pressure on the union officially to conduct one. The flexibility which recent experience tells us it is often important to leave in the hands of the negotiators would be seriously jeopardised. I draw attention to the way that a recent ballot was conducted by the craft unions at British Leyland and how that was dealt with.
  Thirdly, none of the clauses, despite the brave effort of my hon. Friend the

  309
  Member for Bristol, North-West, avoids the difficult problems inherent in the question of trade union immunities. Four of them—new clauses 2, 3, 4 and 6—specifically remove the section 13 and/or section 14 immunities from industrial action taken before a ballot or in defiance of the result of the ballot.
  The fifth—new clause 5—does not mention immunities and clearly provides that, once the ballot is taken, the union is not bound by the outcome, even if the majority is against industrial action.
  My hon Friend today, in effect, seems to be proposing that the clause is not requiring or putting any obligation on the union to hold a ballot. If that is his reading of it, it is a thoroughly bad principle, by statute, to impose obligations on people without providing for their enforcement. If that is what he wants, the place for it is in a code of practice, not in statute law. If he is not to put any sanction on the demanding of the 5 per cent., that will be the effect of the new clause. Therefore, I believe that would be better dealt with by a code of practice than by any other way.
  Mr. Colvin: Not putting penalties or obligations on the union would still enable the ballot to take place. Once the ballot has taken place, the union is under no obligation to carry out the instructions of the ballot. But, if the ballot does not take place, the requisitionists or those requiring the ballot to take place, could engineer the ballot and apply to the certification officer for the funds and the names from the register so that they could conduct the ballot. The ballot would still take place, but there would be no obligation on the union to carry out the instructions of the ballot.
  Mr. Prior: I now see what my hon. Friend is getting at, and I think that it has some merit. He is trying to create, as it were, the atmosphere for more secret ballots in which more secret ballots can take place. If there is no sanction as a result of a union refusing to take part in a ballot or having to take any action as a result of a ballot—if the members vote one way and the union goes the other way—there will be some difficulty. I think that what my hon. Friend has now said
  310
  requires further consideration, as I am sure he will agree.
  7.45 pm
  I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that these objections to their new clauses are not merely drafting points; they go to the whole problem of the difficulties of trying to move for compulsion in this area. They represent practical effects with far-reaching consequences. It is not something that good will between now and the Bill going to the other place can put right. It is inherent in the character of the problem.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and Bristol, North-West put considerable pressure behind the fact that what they were seeking to do was very much along the lines of what was in company law—that Parliament has intervened in the running of companies by giving rights to shareholders in one way or another to give effect to their wishes—and that is what we should be seeking to do in these measures. The problem is that that has been going on in company law for many years. The provision to which my hon. Friends have referred dates back to the Companies Clauses (Consolidation) Act 1845, so a tradition has been built up. I do not think it wise to regard that analogy as an assurance that in one step an equivalent provision either should or could be brought into trade union law. We ignore historical differences at our peril—something of which Tories are always well aware. Therefore, I do not believe that is a route down which we should go.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, in a radio interview yesterday, said:
  "the more, of course, one looks into the question of secret ballots, the more complex it appears."
  I hope that I have been able to give some indication that those are the real problems that we see. The fact that we have had five new clauses with important differences of principle, emphasis and effect between them illustrates the complexity of the subject.
  Some of the clauses show that my hon. Friends recognised the difficulties in the earlier clauses and sought to cater for them in their own drafting. But, as each attempt was made to plug the hole in the one before, still more appeared. The truth

  311
  is that the difficulties inherent in the whole concept of legally-imposed ballots are much more fundamental than mere draftsmanship can resolve.
  If genuine union democracy could readily be imposed by legislation in this way I should be the first to propose it, because I believe that is the stage that we must reach. But these new clauses show that there is a great deal more to it than that. We need not only effective union democracy, but responsible union leadership. We need to curb, not to increase, unofficial action. We need to weaken destructive elements in the union movement, not to give them further means by which to create trouble. It is not easy to reconcile these objectives with mechanisms imposed through legal requirements.
  After all, this approach is by no means at odds with our approach to other questions of industry. Just as it is greatly preferable for firms to develop their own forms of employee involvement than to have one structure imposed on them by law, so it is a mistake to believe that union democracy and accountability can readily be secured by imposing rigid procedures on unions by law. In both cases it is better to encourage voluntary development than to attempt to impose it.
  At the start of my speech I set out the general position of the Government towards secret balloting. I have tried to show my hon. Friends some of the pitfalls in the way that they seek to legislate and the need to approach this extension of shop floor power and democracy with caution. I cannot stress too strongly that, having lived with this problem for a number of years, we have over those years earnestly sought to overcome these difficulties and to find a principle which would be acceptable and would work.
  I sense that there is a deeply felt instinct in the country that what I propose may not be enough. I do not think that we, in this House, do ourselves any good if we do not accept that. I am fully aware that many of my hon. Friends feel deeply and sincerely that more, somehow, has to be done. There have been too many examples in recent years of people who have lost their jobs, or who have felt in some way or another that
  312
  they were forced to strike, much against their will, and without having any chance to express their wishes. The House has to accept that view. There may be sharp differences between the ways in which we may seek to solve the problems, but we must not underestimate the very strong feeling in the country about that subject.
  Much of the discussion has been centred around the need for some sanction if the trigger is not pulled. That has taken us into the whole area of withdrawal of immunity. I know that this is not a Government-imposed ballot. Of course I understand the principle behind my hon. Friends' actions. However, I still feel and fear that going down that compulsory route in that way, and using the withdrawal of immunities as a means to create the sanction that will be necessary, would land us in a great deal of difficulty.
  We are to have a Green Paper later this year. Its main purpose is to discuss the thorny problem of trade union immunities. But it cannot do so in isolation from the problems of secret balloting. For instance, there is the question whether, as these new clauses suggest, there should be no immunity for industrial action unless a secret ballot has been held by the work force concerned, and it supports the action. I assure my hon. Friends, and I give them this undertaking, that all these matters will be relevant. From an open and informed debate we can decide how then to proceed. I believe that that is the correct approach—it gives us a chance to see how the present proposals are accepted. It is, as I have outlined, in keeping with our general philosophy, and what we have preached for a number of years.
  The industrial relations scene is not a static one—it has changing moods as it ebbs and flows. It is dangerous to predict what will be the general mood in a few months' time. The step by step approach—and I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) who asked me a specific question—does not rule out further legislation. It is implicit in any approach which seeks to build on solid progress. We have to show that our legislation, far from seeking to clobber effective and necessary trade unionism, is designed to improve the standard of living, the

  313
  wealth, and the productivity of all our people. That is why we are here. That is why we are debating the subject today.
  If we advance in that way, we shall continue to carry the consent of people with us, and the bitterness, sterility, and bankruptcy of the debate of the last few years, which has dragged down this country, will be put behind us. I urge my hon. Friends to have steadiness, and to have understanding of what we are seeking to do. I share their anxieties and their hopes. I ask them, in return, to share mine.
  Mr. Gorst: There are answers to all the difficulties that my right hon. Friend has put forward. May I remind him that we were elected on Tory votes to achieve trade union reform, not to resist it on Labour votes?
  Mr. Prior: I believe that more trade unionists voted for our party at the last election than at any time since the war. Those trade unionists want to see changes made. That is what is incorporated in the Employment Bill. I know that some people are saying that my approach is "softly, softly"—I know all the other expressions that they use—but I believe that this is a matter that is now very important, not only for the future of industrial relations, but for the whole future of our democracy and our Parliament.
  There are many hon. Members who have been in the House over the past few years and have seen the struggles between one side or the other on industrial relations matters. None of us has got it right. Yet the country continues to suffer and the standard of living of our people declines. We have to do better than that. We can do better than that, but we must do it in a reasonable and steady manner—
  Mr. George Gardiner rose—
  Mr. Prior: I must continue. I believe that the approach that we are adopting, although it does not go as far as some of my hon. Friends would wish me to go—the consultations that we have had, the incorporation in the Bill of the main proposals that were in the manifesto, the further feeling now that there should be a Green Paper for further consultation on these matters—is the right approach for the Government and for the country.
  314
  I believe that all those trade unionists who voted Conservative—or most of them—actually want to see us somewhere in the middle, in a balanced position. That is what they want.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Prior: I shall give way to my non. Friend the Member for Reigate, but he is the last.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he appreciates that this matter is at the core of the problem. Will he clarify a little further the status of the proposed Green Paper to which he referred? The last two consultative documents that he issued were issued with the intention of legislating. Is it fair to assume that the Green Paper that he intends to issue later this year is issued also with the intention of working out some appropriate legislation?
  Mr. Prior: I must make the matter perfectly clear to my hon. Friend. I wish desperately to carry him and the party with me, but I cannot do it at the expense of misleading him in any way on the subject. I would never dream of doing that. I wish to make it absolutely plain that the consultative documents that we have published over a period of months during the preparation of the Bill arose out of direct commitments in the manifesto. Since that time there has been the whole question of immunities, for example, Express Newspapers v. Mac-Shane. Because there was an implied commitment in the manifesto that we would review immunities, and that we would take whatever action we thought was necessary, there was consultation which led to the new clause that we debated last week.
  The Green Paper is a paper for consultation. It does not commit the party or the Government to any particular form of legislation. I must make that point clear. I believe that there will have to be further legislation at some time. I do not think that we should shrink from legislation. However, I would not wish to mislead my hon. Friend in any way in what I have told him tonight.
  It has been a long afternoon for someone who has sat through every speech. But I believe that we are on the right lines. I urge my colleagues to give me

  315
  the majority and the support which the Government need to carry through their policies. These matters have never been easy. I believe that the tide is flowing in our direction, and I want it to continue that way. I hope that, in the spirit of what I have said, my hon. Friends will not seek to press their new clauses.
  Mr. John Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for a generous, honourable and extremely persuasive speech, in which he correctly stressed the complexities of the subject of the secret ballot. They are complexities which I have never hesitated to stress. That is why I believe that new clause 3 is so essential. As I said, it is a mouse of a clause compared with a mandatory secret ballot. By enacting
  it, we would see the problems in practice instead of just being cautious about theory. We would be able to be more certain in our substantive legislation later as a result of having seen ballots in practice.
  I heard with gladness my right hon. Friend's sense of direction with regard to secret ballots, and I thank him for that. But I am afraid that I listened in vain for the commitment in principle which we are seeking, and it is, therefore, with regret that we shall force a Division on the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 491.

  Division No. 259]

  AYES

  [8 pm

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Fry, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Rost, Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hawksley, Warren

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Howells, Geraint

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Budgen, Nick

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Loveridge, John

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Marland, Paul

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Churchill, W. S.

  Marlow, Tony

  Ward, John

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Cockeram, Eric

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Colvin, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Murphy, Christopher

  Mr. George Gardiner and

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Myles, David

  Mr. John Gorst.

  Dover, Denshore

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Adams, Allen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Alison, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Allaun, Frank

  Bradford, Rev R.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bradley, Tom

  Cohen, Stanley

  Anderson, Donald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Coleman, Donald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Bright, Graham

  Cook, Robin F.

  Arnold, Tom

  Brittan, Leon

  Cope, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ashton, Joe

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Corrie, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Costain, A. P.

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cowans, Horry

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

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Crouch, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Buchan, Norman

  Crowther, J. S.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Buck, Antony

  Cryer, Bob

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Best, Keith

  Campbell, Ian

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Blackburn, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Blaker, Peter

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Body, Richard

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dempsey, James

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cartwright, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Dixon, Donald

  Dobson, Frank

  Haynes, Frank

  Marshall, David (Gsgow, Shettles'n)

  Dormand, Jack

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Douglas, Dick

  Henderson, Barry

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hicks, Robert

  Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dunlop, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Mates, Michael

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Mather, Carol

  Dunnett, Jack

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Home Robertson, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Durant, Tony

  Homewood, William

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hooley, Frank

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Eadie, Alex

  Hooson, Tom

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Eastham, Ken

  Horam, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Mellor, David

  Eggar, Timothy

  Huckfield, Les

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ewing, Harry

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

  Molyneaux, James

  Faulds, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Monro, Hector

  Fell, Anthony

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Moore, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Field, Frank

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Fitt, Gerard

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Morton, George

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kerr, Russell

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Needham, Richard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Ford, Ben

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Neubert, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Kinnock, Nell

  Newens, Stanley

  Forrester, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Newton, Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Lamborn, Harry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lamond, James

  Normanton, Tom

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lamont, Norman

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Lang, Ian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ogden, Eric

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Lee, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Freud, Clement

  Leighton, Ronald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  George, Bruce

  Litherland, Robert

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Palmer, Arthur

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Luce, Richard

  Park, George

  Golding, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Parker, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Parris, Matthew

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson

  Parry, Robert

  Gow, Ian

  McCartney, Hugh

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McCusker, H.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Graham, Ted

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McElhone, Frank

  Pawsey, James

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Pendry, Tom

  Gray, Hamish

  MacGregor, John

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Greenway, Harry

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Grist, Ian

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Grylls, Michael

  McKelvey, William

  Pollock, Alexander

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Porter, George

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Prescott, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  McNally, Thomas

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  McNamara, Kevin

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hastings, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Madel, David

  Race, Reg

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Major, John

  Radice, Giles

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Marks, Kenneth

  Raison, Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Renton, Tim

  Snape, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Waddington, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Richardson, Jo

  Speed, Keith

  Wakeham, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Speller Tony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Spence, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Waller, Gary

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Watkins, David

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Sproat, lain

  Watson, John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Squire, Robin

  Wellbeloved, James

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Stanley, John

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Steen, Anthony

  Welsh, Michael

  Robertson, George

  Stevens, Martin

  Wheeler, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Stoddart, David

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Stokes, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Roper, John

  Stott, Roger

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitlock, William

  Ross, Stephen (isle of Wight)

  Strang, Gavin

  Whitney, Raymond

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Straw, Jack

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rossi, Hugh

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ryman, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Sever, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Winnick, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Woodall. Alec

  Sheerman, Barry

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

  Thompson, Donald

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Wright, Sheila

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Shersby, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Tilley, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Tinn, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Torney, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Silverman, Julius

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Silvester, Fred

  Trippier, David

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Sims, Roger

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

  SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AS TO RECOGNISED TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  '(1) Where a claim is duly reported to the Secretary of State under this section—

  (a) that terms or conditions of employment are established in any trade or industry, or section of a trade or industry, either generally or in any district, which have been settled by an agreement or award, and

  (b) that the parties to the agreement, or to the proceedings in which the award was made, are or represent organisations of employers and organisations of workers or associations of such organisations, and represent (generally or in the district in question, as the case may be) a substantial proportion of the employers and of the workers in the trade, industry or section, being workers of the description (hereinafter referred to as "the relevant description") to which the agreement or award relates, and

  (c) that as respects any worker of the relevant description an employer engaged in the trade, industry or section (or, where the operation of the agreement or award is limited to a district, an employer so engaged in that district), whether represented as afore-
  320
  saud or not, is not observing the terms or conditions (hereinafter referred to as "the recognised terms or conditions "),

  the Secretary of State may take any steps which seem to him expedient to settle, or to secure the use of appropriate machinery to settle, the claim and shall, if the claim is not otherwise settled, refer it to the Central Arbitration Committee.
  Provided that:

  (i) no claim shall be reported under this section as respects workers whose remuneration or minimum remuneration is fixed (otherwise than by the employer, with or without the approval of any other person) in pursuance of any enactment other than this section or in the case of whom provision is made by or under any enactment other than this section for the settlement of questions as to remuneration or minimum remuneration;

  (ii) no claim shall be reported under this section as respects terms or conditions fixed as aforesaid.

  (2) For the purposes of this section a claim, to be duly reported, must be reported to the Minister in writing by an independent trade union.
  (3) If on a reference under this section the Committee is satisfied that the claim is well founded, then unless the Court is satisfied that the terms or conditions which the employer

  321
  is observing are not less favourable than the recognised terms or conditions the Court shall make an award requiring the employer to observe the recognised terms or conditions as respects all workers of the relevant description from time to time employed by him.
  (4) An award under this section shall have effect as an implied term of the contract of employment, and shall have effect from such date as the Committee Court may determine, being a date not earlier than the date on which, in the opinion of the Committee the employer was first informed of the claim giving rise to the award by the organisation or association which reported the claim to the Minister; and an award under this section shall cease to have effect on the coming into operation of an agreement or award varying or abrogating the recognised terms or conditions.'.—[Mr. John Grant.]
  Brought up, and read the First time
  Mr. John Grant: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this we may take new clause 12—Amendment of Schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975:
  'At the end of paragraph 9 of Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 there shall be inserted the words: "but regard shall not be had to the size and administration resources of the employer's undertaking."
  and amendment No. 106, in clause 17, page 18, leave out lines 35 to 38.
  Mr. Grant: We have just concluded a prolonged, and, in many ways, somewhat irrelevant debate which has been far less concerned with industrial relations than with the internal dissensions on the Conservative Benches. It was almost an intrusion into private grief for my right hon. and hon. Friends to intervene in that debate. If it had any relevance to the serious matter of industrial relations, it was to demonstrate the naivety and mischievousness of Conservative Members, who are less concerned with industrial peace and harmony than with the grasping of any stick with which to beat the trade unions—or, as it seems currently, with which to beat the Secretary of State. Their abortive mini-rebellion will doubtless attract the headlines tomorrow. That is a pity, because it will be at the expense of the real issue.
  8.15 pm
  These new clauses and the amendment bear directly on the life, pay and conditions of hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers, whose position will be
  322
  markedly worsened unless the Government make concessions, rather than on the basis of an abstract theory.
  I shall argue my case not on the basis of the two new clauses but primarily on amendment No. 106. The new clauses provide a fall-back position. New clause 9 takes us back to the position that existed under the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, but there are some drafting errors in the new clause. New clause 12 is an attempt to clarify a problem that caused a clash of view and certainly a difference of interpretation in Committee.
  I shall concentrate on amendment No. 106 which gives the status quo that Labour Members desire. The Bill hits severely at the statutory rights of individual workers, especially at the lower paid and at the most vulnerable, particularly in respect of unfair dismissals, maternity benefits, and in respect of schedule 11. The repeal of schedule 11 appears to be a rather spiteful, if inexplicable, attempt by the Government to hammer away at individual workers' rights. I said "inexplicable", but, as we progress, I shall try to explain why I believe the Government are travelling this particular road.
  The Secretary of State is clearly unhappy about the total repeal of the schedule. He was not happy on Second Reading or at the end of the Committee proceedings. After much pressure, and after the total demolition of the flimsy brief that was presented by his hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary—I suspect that there is some difference between their presentations of the case—he admitted that the decision regarding the recognised terms and conditions provisions was one of the most difficult in the Bill. The Opposition were not alone in urging reconsideration. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham)—he is not in the Chamber now but I hope that he will join us later to make another contribution—urged reconsideration. I know that other Conservative Members have similar doubts and anxieties about this aspect of the Bill.
  The Secretary of State said that he had been impressed by the arguments advanced. He mentioned the building trades' employers, who had urged him to retain the first leg of the schedule. He

  323
  said that he would consider further representations. He gave no undertaking. Indeed, he said that he would give consideration to further representations while maintaining the position that the Government still wanted total abolition. We recognise that in this respect his hands are tied. Undoubtedly a collective decision was taken.
  It was not easy for the right hon. Gentleman to publicise his decision to invite further representations. I know that he wrote to the TUC, the CBI and other interested organisations. It will be helpful if he tells us about the further representations that he has received. I am aware that he limited further representations until Tuesday of next week, so time has not yet run out. I am sure that by now he has a fair impression of the way in which the situation is developing.
  A number of unions have submitted new pleas in asking for the retention of the schedule. I shall not quote them at length, but I shall refer to two or three of the new pleas that have been entered. I have one from the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers. It is a copy of the document that was sent to the right hon. Gentleman. That union states:
  "On behalf of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, may I urge you most strongly not to alter the recognition terms … as this would have disruptive effects on NJICs and other negotiating bodies, but to maintain the recognition levels at the present figures.
  I am sure this would find the support of the employers' organisations concerned and I cannot stress too strongly that any alteration upwards would in our opinion be disruptive in industrial terms."
  There is a similar letter from the general secretary of the National Union of Footwear, Leather and Allied Trades. There is a letter in a similar vein from the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union. The general secretary of that organisation states:
  "the abolition … will do nothing to improve the economy of the country or industrial relations. On the contrary the proposed change will lead to conflict and confrontation in our industry."
  The employment and policy committee of the TUC has approved a further letter, which I think the Secretary of State will have received today. It makes it clear that it wishes to maintain the representations that it made previously. It seeks, in par-
  324
  ticular the retention of the schedule. It is especially concerned about the potential repeal of the first leg. It will be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary of State gives the House rather more detail about the further representations that they have received. Employer organisations may well have been making similar noises in the past week or two.
  The new clauses give the House an opportunity to examine in detail the case for and against abolition. I shall not seek to go over all the ground that I covered in Committee in a long speech. We have already discussed consultation and consultative documents.
  The so-called consultative document on the issue that is now before us was phoney. The Government gave three options in that document. They suggested total repeal, repeal of the general level provisions and the amendment of the schedule. There was also reference to the fair wages resolution. The plain fact is that the decision had, in effect, been taken. It must have been, because there has been virtually no subsequent support for total abolition. However, following the consultation, that is precisely what is being suggested. It seems that there is a wish to scrap the lot.
  Whatever may have been said about its past usage, the schedule is aimed primarily at protecting the low paid. It has been used primarily for that purpose. The Government's decision to get rid of it is nothing short of a declaration that they do not give a damn for the lowest paid, the poorest workers who are often the most poorly organised and the most vulnerable. The change is being proposed after a mere three years' experience of the schedule. That is not a long period in which to take such a fundamental decision.
  In Committee we went into a great deal of detail about the various researches that have been conducted, especially by the University of Warwick industrial relations research unit, including an up-to-date analysis of the effect of schedule 11 for the three years from 1977 to 1979. The broad conclusion of that piece of research by those independent analysts was that schedule 11 had been helping to remove pockets of low pay. They pointed out that the abolition of the schedule

  325
  could exclude significant numbers of employees from the only statutory protection that they have.
  The Under-Secretary of State has chosen to quote selectively the findings of the Low Pay Unit when it has suited his case to do so. The unit takes the same view as the University of Warwick unit. It believes that abolition will show a lack of commitment by the Goverment towards the low paid. How right it is. The Government argue that schedule 11 has been used to circumvent pay policy. That is rather odd because they do not have one now. In the past the right hon. Gentleman has expressed considerable interest in that concept. He has now ratted on it. He talks, for example, of self-restaint being enough. We cannot expect him to fight on every front. We have already seen his difficulties this evening. No doubt his time on that issue will come again.
  As there is now no overt pay policy for the schedule to circumvent, the question is "Why not give it a run? Why not test it to ascertain the full extent to which it can help tackle the problem of low pay?" It is a problem that is accentuated by cowboy employers undercutting recognised rates. It is a problem that is accentuated still further by a range of Government economic and social policies, especially those flowing from the Treasury.
  8.30 pm
  The Government claim that the schedule has damaged industrial relations by undermining pay structures and upsetting relativities. They also complain that it has not allowed the Central Arbitration Committee to consider market prospects, profitability and so on. In Committee we had a considerable different of opinion about this. The Warwick university unit carried out an extensive survey and found no evidence for any of these claims. Its independent evidence completely destroys the Government's case.
  The evidence is that the schedule has helped industrial relations. Moreover, on the question of profitability, the unit says that the Central Arbitration Committee looks at issues of profitability in reaching its decisions. New Clause 12 seeks to some extent to clarify that position.
  326
  The Government probably will not like new clause 12 and perhaps will want to make an alteration of their own to the Bill in that respect. There is no doubt about the position of the Central Arbitration Committee on this. If there were any doubt, the TUC in its latest submission to the Secretary of State, in response to his letter which particularly refers to ability to pay and productivity, makes clear that the CAC looks at these matters when making its decisions. The TUC and many individual unions take the view that without this resort to unilateral arbitration much more use will be made of industrial action, and that there will be many more strikes. Many employers share that view.
  There is a strong feeling, too, that, even where it is not used, schedule 11 has helped to develop collective bargaining because the prospect of its use has brought employers to the bargaining table, and that that has been a helpful development. Many of the employers organisations—certainly the Engineering Employers' Federation—deplore the abolition of the recognised terms and conditions provisions. The British Institute of Management would like to see the general provision go, but not the rest. The CBI is divided, but does not favour full-scale repeal. Unless they have a belated change of heart, which I do not think is possible, the building employers, the furniture trade employers and the motor agents have all been against full repeal, as have the TUC and many affiliated unions, the Low Pay Unit and Warwick university. There is a great weight of evidence in that direction.
  Only last week Camden community relations council lobbied on the Bill, in particular on the point about schedule 11. It was worried about the position of many London workers in ethnic minority groups working in low pay industries such as hotels, catering and the garment trades, if this protection is removed. The council wants discussions to improve the schedule's scope and does not want to get rid of it. That view is shared by the Low Pay Unit which believes that the schedule could be improved.
  If we go up this road we shall be turning the clock back 40 years or more, to the 1930s and beyond. Those who

  327
  are not working on Government contracts will be unable to claim fair wages with minimum standards. Bad employers will be able to undercut with impunity and good employers will suffer competitive disadvantage. It is a "back to the sweat shop" approach.
  I mentioned Government contracts. The consultative document implies that the fair wages resolution may go, too, in due course as a follow-up to this legislation, so that the Government would cease to set even that limited example. I ask for a reply tonight. What is intended? Shall we see the end of the fair wages resolution as well? That question was asked in Committee but no response was received.
  It would be idle to pretend that some higher-paid groups did not benefit from the schedule during a pay policy period when the schedule was a useful safety valve. Claims under the schedule were deliberately exempted from the pay policy. It may well be argued that that should not be allowed to happen; that it should not be a benefit, especially to high-paid workers. If that is so, it is a case at the most for amendment, not for abolition, just like the argument about whether the CAC considers that profitability could also be dealt with without striking out the schedule. The argument about profitability needs to be treated with considerable caution. I would not want to encourage the CAC to adopt widely differing standards in dealing with cases. The answer here again is that discussion, and perhaps some form of amendment to the schedule, would be the best way out.
  I want to mention briefly the repeal of the Road Haulage Wages Act. That change looks to me like a piece of spite against the Transport and General Workers Union. The consultative document gave no reasons for that abolition, and the Secretary of State gave an unsatisfactory explanation in Committee. When he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) with a first-class example of where there is need to retain the Act, he said he would take up the point later. He has not yet done so and perhaps he will feel able to do so tonight. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham will wish to say something further
  328
  about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he catches your eye.
  If the Bill reaches the statute book with no change of heart by the Government on schedule 11, it will be a black day for low-paid workers. In fairness, I believe that that greatly worries the Secretary of State. He cannot pretend that he is bothered about the inflationary effects of the schedule, which is primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at helping the low paid, when settlements for organised workers with industrial muscle are conceded at well over 20 per cent. and the Government virtually pretend that they have not happened.
  In those circumstances, it is hypocritical to make the schedule and low-paid workers the scapegoats. I do not believe that the Secretary of State relishes the prospect of being tagged as the man who boosted the new sweat shops and back-street cowboys of the 1980s.
  If the right hon. Gentleman insists that the schedule has been unduly inflationary, he should produce some properly researched evidence to that effect. We have evidence to show that the low-paid had gained—that was supplied in the Warwick university study—but all that we know about the overall inflationary consequences, particularly in relation to higher-paid workers, relates to a limited number of carefully selected cases which were referred to in Committee with no statistical, across-the-board back-up.
  If the Government believe that the schedule was seriously inflationary and merits the fundamental decision to sweep it away, why has there been no detailed research done or commissioned by the Department of Employment into that aspect? We have had nothing.
  We do not want any of the schedule to go. I should welcome genuine discussions between the Government, unions and employers to see whether the schedule's scope to assist the low paid could be improved. If necessary, perhaps there could be discussions on inhibition of its use by higher-paid groups. I do not say that that would be easy, but it would be possible and would be the best way to deal with the matter. If there is a fair case for retaining the general level provisions, as I believe, the case for retaining the recognised terms and conditions provisions is overwhelming.

  329
  It is hard to see why the Government have chosen to sweep away the schedule. We have to conclude that it is another battle that the Secretary of State fought, and lost decisively, in the Cabinet. He is stuck with a decision which he knows makes no sense in industrial relations terms and which strikes a damaging blow at low-paid workers.
  Presumably the Cabinet majority, obsessed with its laissez-faire approach to such matters, wants to sweep the schedule away with its well-known doctrinaire zeal. The Secretary of State has been told by many trade unions and employers' organisations that abolition would be damaging to industrial relations, would help cowboy employers and might lead to a greater use of the strike weapon. Of course, that is looking into the future. It must be a matter of opinion, but those are well-based opinions of people with a wealth of experience in industrial relations. I know of no significant opinions to the contrary from either the industries expressing particular concern or elsewhere. It has been virtually one-way traffic against the Government position.
  It will be scandalous if the Government ignore the weight of evidence and steamroller the change through. It may also be a measure of the Secretary of State's strength or weakness in the Cabinet. He should be opening up an exhaustive review of the whole low-paid area, which daily becomes more urgent as the Government's overall economic and social policies either plunge more people and more families into poverty or leave them on the brink of it.
  I hope that we can avoid a vote on the new clause as a consequence of firm assurances that, if not today, at a later stage in the Bill's progress the Secretary of State will make the necessary change. He must have a fair idea by now of the content of the further representations that he will receive, even though the final date for the submission of representations has not yet been reached.
  It will certainly not be good enough for the Secretary of State to say that he is still considering the matter.
  We all know about his constraints. I have a vision of the Secretary of State leading his gallant band of Wets up to the top of the hill. There they are, quiv-
  330
  ering with excitement at the prospect of victory when they see this figure coming into their sights—with its Fried-maniacal grin—the Secretary of State for Industry, waving a banner with a picture of the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister, in that characteristic hectoring, finger-wagging pose, and carrying a slogan saying "You will be very, very sorry."
  That prospect, I am sure, would send the Secretary of State and his band into headlong retreat down the hill again, and that would be the end of schedule 11. That is what worries me. Therefore, we want a firm response tonight. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give it, he cannot expect us simply to take him on trust—not with the back-stabbers that we have already seen tonight lurking behind him.
  This clause of the Bill is a disgrace to any society which pretends to care for its worst-off people. The Secretary of State should be big enough tonight to tell the House quite clearly that he will drop it. If he cannot command that much backing from his colleagues—and we know that he really wants that backing—on an issue of great importance to so many low-wage earners and their families, it is highly questionable whether he should be carrying on in the job. Perhaps he should be telling the Prime Minister "I shall do this job in my way or I shall not do it at all."
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this evening on this clause. Before I speak to it, I should first say that I was rather saddened by the introduction given by the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), because I am never terribly sure whether I am a Wet or what I am. Not everyone who voted against the Government tonight was necessarily a Wet—or whatever other term one might care to use—and I may well be asked to explain my position to someone else at a later stage.
  I am not speaking from abstract theory. I happen to be a fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management. I have been involved in personnel work for most of my adult life, and I have been a director of personnel.
  New clause 9, as I read it, deals with recognised terms and conditions. If I

  331
  understand it correctly, it is based on the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959. Because the present Bill, in clause 17(c), seeks to repeal schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975, this obviously creates a number of problems within industries which have grown accustomed to living with this kind of legislation.
  We ought to look at the history of how we have arrived at this position today. This kind of legislation began during the war. It was wartime legislation which led to the setting up of joint industrial councils and wages councils and produced many voluntary procedures. Voluntary procedures call for a majority of employees and employers to agree on pay and conditions. The new clause, as I read it, seeks to provide a framework within which recognised terms and conditions in an industry will be created. It provides a starting point for local conditions of employment and wages and other factors to be negotiated.
  If we repeal schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 and put nothing much in its place, we put at risk the national labour agreements which have been painfully won, and which, in the furniture manufacturing industry, of which I have some experience, have produced considerable industrial stability. I thought that on each side of the House we were all trying to find industrial stability. Unfortunately, hon. Members are often more interested in publicity seeking than in stability.
  If I understand the position correctly, the Department of Employment has consulted many interested parties on this matter. I also understand that the CBI's industrial relations and wages conditions committee was divided equally on whether schedule 11 should be repealed in its entirety. I further understand that many large firms have indicated that they wish to see schedule 11 repealed in its entirety. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will take note of the quality of the views that have been expressed, as well as of the quantity. The quality is important. No one who knows how the industry works, would claim that schedule 11 has been a success in every sense, or that all parts of it have been successful. Indeed, parts of schedule 11 are suspect.
  332
  8.45 pm
  Under the existing provisions, British furniture manufacturers and trade unions can negotiate national labour agreements. Individual furniture manufacturing firms are fully able to negotiate pay and conditions that take account of their circumstances, as long as they are not below the nationally agreed minimum. That is very important. Before the war the industry had a sad history of poor wages. The national labour agreement in the furniture manufacturing industry is not only influential in determining pay and conditions, but is the cornerstone of industrial relations in that industry.
  Removal of the type of legislative backing provided in schedule 11 for recognised terms and conditions will undermine the whole painstaking edifice. If schedule 11 is totally repealed, that edifice will be put at risk. It may provide a breeding ground for discontent if some employers take advantage of this, at the expense of the long-term stability of the industry which the establishment of the British furniture trade joint industrial council in 1945 was designed to promote. I suggest that it has succeeded in achieving stability, and that that is important.
  My reservations about the clause have been answered. I realise that it is a problem of drafting. I had reservations about the clause as it appeared on the Amendment Paper. New clause 9 does not contain a provision to bring employers as well as unions into the category that may report in writing to the Minister. That is a vital omission. Arrangements in the furniture industry have been successful as a result of co-operation between trade unions and employers.
  Subsection (2) might have been better if it had included a provision for independent trade unions and an employers' association to act together and to report in writing to the Minister. That would provide a considerable improvement in drafting and I hope that it will be noted. I hope also that my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that he will consider the issue seriously. We may then look at the possibility of introducing an amendment in another place to take advantage of the benefits contained in former legislation. I do not wish to change the main aims of the present Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. They are needed and required.

  333
  When both sides of industry read the Bill they will realise that it is a genuine attempt to improve and assist industrial relations. It is not designed to bash the unions. I say that as a former active trade unionist. An active trade unionist often faces the problem that the parameters in which the individual must work are not clearly defined. Certainly that was the weakness in those trade unions of which I was a member. It is not the job of this House, or of the House of Lords, to tell the unions how to behave. It is our job, and that of the other place, to prepare the conditions so that both sides of industry can work together and reach solutions to Britain's problems.
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I wish to speak in support of new clause 9 and amendment No. 106. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) referred to schedule 11 and its history, which he said went back to 1940. In fact, its lineage can be traced back even further, to the first fair wages resolution of 1891. That makes the Government's decision to abolish schedule 11 even more extraordinary. They are not just putting the clock back to the 1930s—that would be bad enough—but they are going back to the dark recesses of the nineteenth century in order to dispose of the schedule, which they have wrongly decided is damaging to industrial relations and does not help the low paid. There is no evidence to support that belief.
  If that were the case, one would expect the Government to bring forward their own proposals to help low-paid workers, but that has not happened. They have rejected a schedule which finds its roots in the late nineteenth century. It was introduced then as people became aware slowly that if the Government were to place contracts with private employers they should at least be assured that they were not employing sweated labour, either directly or indirectly. In 1946 people came to realise that not only should the Government be seen to be a good and fair employer insisting on fair wages but that that concept should be extended to the private sector as well. Later this was incorporated in schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975.
  It is extraordinary to find that the Government are now trying to overthrow
  334
  a long tradition by which people have come to terms with the fact that there is a relevant concept of fair wages and that it should be applied to all workers—in public or private industries, protected or unprotected by trade union membership. It is extraordinary that in the late twentieth century the Government are rejecting that hard-won and long thought out moral view. It would be interesting to hear the Secretary of State's justification for taking such a step and taking us back a century in terms of industrial relations and the wages that people should be paid for work done.
  It is even more extraordinary that the Government should propose to abolish this schedule in view of their concern about incentives to work. We hear a great deal about the supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit levels being higher than the wages that some people can earn for a full week's work. The Government have sought to encourage people to take work and for that reason they believe that supplementary benefits and unemployment benefits should be restricted. But they have never looked at the other side of the argument, namely, that we should regard supplementary benefit or family income supplement levels as levels below which wages for a full week's work should not fall. That should be the direction from which the Government should argue if they are really concerned about incentives to work.
  The whole notion of FIS and supplementary benefit depends on what a family can be expected to live on and to have their basic needs fulfilled. If that is what is implied by FIS and supplementary benefit levels, surely we should look at wages and ensure that they are sufficiently high to take the wage earner above the relevant benefit. Yet the Government are pursuing that kind of argument and talking about the essential incentives to keep a worker at work rather than encouraging him to turn away from work and to rely on unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. A Government committed to that sort of view are, at one and the same time, removing a schedule that helped to ensure that some workers at least were taken above supplementary benefit level in terms of their wages for a full week's work.

  335
  It is extraordinary that the Government should pursue these two different lines of attack. Their action can be seen only as an attack on low-paid workers. We have here an attempt to remove the only protection possessed by many low-paid workers as they seek to improve their pay and conditions of work. It is a protection that could be improved and extended. At least, in its form in the 1975 Act, it was a useful provision for many workers over the three years since it came into effect in 1977. Even as it stands, however, it is not an adequate provision. I would prefer to see some sort of proper minimum wage legislation, although that is another thorny and difficult issue. I do not propose to pursue it now.
  I am anxious to argue for the preservation of schedule 11 and for the Government, through the Secretary of State, to give a commitment that he is prepared to reconsider all that has been said and that he is prepared to retain the schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) rightly emphasised the benefits of schedule 11 for industrial relations. He has rightly drawn attention to employers' associations of many kinds, including the Engineering Employers' Federation, that have argued for its retention. He has referred to a number of trade unions which would find themselves in difficulties without the ability to use schedule 11 to improve the pay and conditions of their workers. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise those aspects.
  The fact that companies and unions want to retain the schedule is shown in harder evidence than mere statements made on behalf of those organisations—the hard evidence in terms of its use. Incomes Data Services Ltd., in its analysis of the fair wages resolution awards made in 1978, foundn that of 233 such awards, 42 were made by the company without the union being involved and there were indications of a measure of collusion in some claims. It is clear that companies were as anxious as trade unions to utilise schedule 11 and fair wagese resolutions to avoid the worst effects of pay policy.
  It is clear, not merely from the statements of various employers' associations and of unions, that both companies and unions alike not only favoured schedule
  336
  11 but were prepared to use it. Their use of it meant that they had two possibilities. One was to avoid unnecessary industrial strife during a period of voluntary pay restraint. It further gave them an opportunity to deal with the anomalies that always arise in a period of incomes policy and to do so without resort to industrial action and all the costs that this imposes on companies. That is an important benefit of schedule 11. It is clear that the schedule was used in this way not only, as I have shown, by the analysis covering 1978, but during the other years when it was in operation.
  9 pm
  That is not the aspect of schedule 11 on which I wish to concentrate. I want to concentrate our attention on the way in which schedule 11 has helped the low paid. The effectiveness of the schedule should be examined in detail. In their original consultative document the Government claimed that many higher-paid groups benefited from the awards made under schedule 11 and that it was not used to abolish pockets of low pay. The Government also claimed that the majority of claims were made in respect of employees who could not be regarded as low paid on any absolute test. The way in which one defines low pay creates a problem. The problem is particularly serious if one introduces the notion of absolute low pay, as opposed to relative low pay.
  There are two possibilities. First, one can examine the supplementary benefit level and regard that as the minimum income below which no individual or family should be allowed to fall. One can examine the effects of schedule 11 on low pay in those terms. In 1979–80 that criterion of low pay would involve a wage of about £60 a week. A wage below that could be regarded as a level below which no individual or family should be allowed to fall.
  A second possibility is to examine the problem in terms of the average wage or earnings at the lowest decile. If one defines low pay as two-thirds of the average wage, £60 a week is arrived at again. About 3·3 million full-time adult workers earned less than that a week in 1979–80.
  Some people argue that many such full-time workers are women. I am not sure of the point of that argument, but I suspect that some people believe that it does not

  337
  matter if women workers earn less than £60 a week. In the days of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts no one should make such remarks or think in those terms. To think in such terms is to fail to realise that a full-time worker might be a woman but she might also be single, the head of a single-parent family or the major breadwinner. Many full-time workers might be women but that is irrelevant. We should concentrate on the principle that a wage of less than £60 a week is totally inadequate for a full week's work, however unskilled or menial the task involved.
  Let us examine the way in which schedule 11 was used and refer to research by the Warwick university industrial relations unit. That shows that schedule 11 benefited many manual and non-manual earning less than that. For example, their analysis suggests that in 1979 the median earnings of manual claimants under the recognised terms were £58·80 per week. For those claiming under the general terms—those using that particular provision of schedule 11—wages were £56·90 per week and that was in a year in which the new earnings survey showed a median wage of £64·70 per week. That was a more correct figure than the average figure for earnings for full-time work. In other words, as far as manual claimants were concerned, both groups using schedule 11 earned, in some cases, considerably below the median wage of £64·70 for that year.
  In the case of non-manual claimants the situation was different. The median earnings for those who claimed under the recognised terms were £103·90 per week and for those who claimed under general terms earnings were £80·50 per week compared with the median for all non-manual employees of £96·40 per week. In that case it appeared that many of the claimants earned more than the median wage, but this was due to the figures being distorted by a special factor, namely, claims by higher grade local authority staff.
  The results from 1977 and 1979 confirm a similar analysis carried out for 1978 in which it appeared that schedule 11 was fulfilling one of its objectives which was to help remove pockets of low pay. The 1979 survey confirmed the results of 1978. The figures for 1979 showed that only 8 per cent. of claims from manual workers were on behalf of groups with pre-award earnings that were above the average.
  338
  The remaining 92 per cent. were below the overall median.
  Even among non-manual groups almost three-quarters had average pre-award earnings below the national average. Therefore, if one looks at the survey carried out by the University of Warwick unit it appears that in pretty well every case those who put in the claims under schedule 11 were earning below the average, or median, wages in their respective groups of manual or non-manual earnings. Therefore, it shows that schedule 11 benefited the lower paid. Those results show that many were helped and that pockets of low pay were removed. To my mind, that is the most important feature and purpose of schedule 11.
  I want to see not only something that will benefit industrial relations, important though that is, and not only something that will encourage the development of trade unionism—often engaging in claims of this kind encourages the growth of trade unionism and I consider that that is important—but an effective means of dealing with the problem of low pay.
  Schedule 11 may not be everything that one could wish in this respect, but it has had an important effect. Many groups of workers have benefited from it. If those workers remain in full-time work and if their earnings are raised above the supplementary benefit level they are given just the kind of incentive to remain in work that the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues want.
  If the Secretary of State is anxious that workers should have that incentive, it must be asked over and over again why the Government are doing away with schedule 11. If the Government are serious in their efforts to encourage people to remain in work and not fall back on supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit, this is exactly the kind of legislation that the Government should not only retain but actively try to improve and extend.
  Instead of apologising, as undoubtedly the Secretary of State will, for the fact that he cannot, after all, because the Cabinet does not wish it, allow the retention of schedule 11, the right hon. Gentleman should be bringing forward well thought out amendments to improve and make schedule 11 more effective.

  339
  I am sick and tired of the kind of arguments that pour forth from Conservative politicians condemning people who have to rely on supplementary or unemployment benefit because, in the vast majority of cases, they have been thrown out of work through redundancy, sickness or disability of one kind or another, their age or the fact that their skills are no longer valuable. I am sick to death of hearing such people castigated as though they were work-shy and were doing everything possible to avoid work. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that, if they could get a few more pence knocked off income tax, that would draw them off unemployment or supplementary benefit in their hordes and back to the labour market.
  The startling fact is that more than 3 million people are prepared to do a full week's work for less than £60 a week. That is what politicians ought to be commenting on, especially politicians with large private incomes or assets of their own. The startling fact is that more than 3 million people are prepared to do boring, humdrum, dirty, menial jobs. That is what we should be commenting on, and not just with surprise. Those are the people to whom we should say "You ought not to be doing a full week's work for wages of that kind." Of course, I am mentioning gross pay. I have said nothing about deductions for national insurance or income tax. We should look to those people and say "You should not be working for that kind of wage. Your wage should be above the level that we consider necessary to fulfil the basic needs of an individual or family."
  We have hard, concrete evidence of the kind provided by the University of Warwick, to which my hon. Friends referred in Committee. With the kind of commitment to incentives to work, which the Government have repeatedly asserted both within the Chamber and in the media, I am astonished that they are seeking to abolish this schedule. Their commitment should be not to repeal it but to improve and extend it.
  What we should hear from a shamefaced Secretary of State is that he is sorry that he ever thought of abolishing schedule 11 and that, before the Bill completes its stages in this House, he will put his civil servants to work on ways
  340
  of improving and extending the schedule. We should not hear him mouthing words about the need for incentives to work and then taking away from low-paid workers the minimal protection that many of them have.
  Mr. Radice: I support new clause 9 because I was not impressed by the arguments advanced in Committee by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. They did not seem able to answer the wide evidence in favour of keeping schedule 11 in some form. I refer to the evidence which has been quoted this evening and which was quoted in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), who is rapidly becoming a notable expert in this area.
  In Committee, I was impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needam) in favour of retaining schedule 11. We have heard another similar speech tonight. Indeed, many employers' organisations, as well as the trade union movement, community organisations, the Low Pay Unit and academic organisations of one kind or another, are in favour of keeping schedule 11 in some form.
  9.15 pm
  The major argument is that about low pay. I am a General and Municipal Workers Union sponsored Member of Parliament, and I am an author on the subject of low pay, but I shall not weary the House tonight on that subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) quoted some of the evidence about low pay. It is true that there are considerable numbers of low-paid workers in all industries, as well as a number of low-paid industries. My hon. Friend quoted evidence, mostly emanating from Warwick university, about how schedule 11 has helped the low-paid workers.
  If the Secretary of State had said that he had invented a new policy to help the low paid—perhaps through social security, taxation, minimum wages legislation, or even incomes policy—there might have been a case for saying that, in those circumstances, schedule 11 was redundant. However, that is not what he said. He has not put anything else in its place. He is leaving the low paid without any protection other than that

  341
  of free collective bargaining, which has not always been the best protection in the past.
  On the subject of pay policy, there is something in the argument about the inflationary aspects of schedule 11. However, the Government do not believe in pay policy. The Secretary of State, in the middle of the night, might think "Perhaps I shall have to press for a pay policy or a pay freeze to be introduced in the Autumn". But the fact is that there is not a pay policy. Therefore, the Government can hardly use the argument that schedule 11 is inflationary if they do not believe that pay affects inflation, or if they believe the sort of stuff that is being put out by the Treasury.
  We have heard very good speeches from Conservative Members about industrial relations, to which I do not wish to add. They fear that the abolition of schedule 11 could be used to undercut or undermine some of the achievements made by firms. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) mentioned the furniture industry, but there are other industries such as road haulage and construction. The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned also the organisation of which he is a member, namely, the Institute of Personnel Management. I hope that for all these reasons the Government will say that they will reconsider the case, as they said they would when they heard all the evidence, and that they will now change their minds.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: I wish to support the case that has been put forward for new clause 9. The matter was debated at great length in Committee. The Secretary of State has had an opportunity since then to consider the points that we put forward.
  It is difficult to understand the motivation of the Government in deciding to abolish schedule 11. I can only conclude that it is another spoke in the wheel. The Government intend to use it as part of their policy to curb inflation. I recall that during the Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was necessary to widen the gap between people in receipt of social security—the unemployed—and the low-paid worker. As a consequence of that,
  342
  it was proposed that unemployment pay should increase only by 11 per cent. instead of 16 per cent.
  It appears that this is being taken a stage further, so that low-paid workers will lose the protection that they have had hitherto under the clause. For the first time in almost 90 years there will be no statutory provision for the extension of recognised terms and conditions of employment in civil industries. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, that has been of great benefit to low-paid workers.
  One must reinforce the point that it is in the employers' interests to keep the provision in the 1975 Act intact. As we know, the CBI is equally divided in regard to this proposition. Many employers, particularly reputable ones, want to safeguard their own terms and conditions of employment against attack from unscrupulous rivals who may employ similar labour at lower rates. For example, one can understand an employer in the road haulage industry, who pays good wages to his workers, resenting the appearance of another operator who uses substandard equipment and low-paid workers to undercut the market.
  In a sense, the schedule is a protection for employers as well as a protection for lower-paid workers. We have been told that consultation took place before the Government arrived at this decision. One is entitled to ask "Who has been consulted?" My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) read a number of letters from various trade unions indicating that they were against this proposition and asking the Government to reconsider their attitude. We know that the Secretary of State has had no communication from the CBI, but I am sure that representations have been made to him by many employers urging him not to interfere with the schedule in the 1975 Act.
  This fair wages measure has a long history. It was first put in resolution form to the House in 1891. It reappeared during the war years as order 1305, together with other legislation. It appeared once again in the 1959 Act, when the Conservatives were in power, and then in the 1975 Act. Therefore, there is a long tradition attached to the creation of machinery and administration

  343
  which, to some extent, would safeguard the position of low-paid workers.
  All that is to be abolished in the name of theory and ideology, not in the name of practical politics, and certainly not at the request of either trade unionists or reputable employers. The proposal has already met with some opposition from Conservative Members. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again. I hope that he will consider what was said in Committee and in this debate and will decide that the best interests, not only of the Government but also of lower-paid workers, will be met by continuing the provisions enshrined in the 1975 Act.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: The only organisation, if they can be called that, who take the view that schedule 11 ought to be abolished are the Government. Every other group which has given evidence takes a contrary view. The CBI was apparently split. The TUC is against abolition. The Low Pay Unit takes the view that schedule 11, with all its imperfections, has been of benefit to the low paid. The Institute of Personnel Management also takes the same view, as do many of the Secretary of State's colleagues, as evidenced by the expert speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). Yet the right hon. Gentleman appears to be persistent in his view that schedule 11 has not fulfilled its purpose, despite the fact that it has only been in operation for three years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) referred in Committee to a letter from the Camden committee for community relations. I received a similar letter, and I should have thought that its evidence was overwhelming. It demonstrated that in industries which are not unionised and which are fragmented—such as the small hotel industry, the catering industry and the garment workers industry, many of which employ ethnic minorities—there is no doubt that schedule 11 is not simply beneficial, but that it is possibly their only protection. They are among the most vulnerable, least protected sections of the community, and they are almost universally low paid. Yet the Government are suggesting, and indeed legislating to
  344
  secure, that schedule 11 should be abolished. On what evidence are they doing so? They are legislating purely on evidence that was put forward in their discussion documents—that schedule 11 has not fulfilled its purpose. They give no supporting evidence for that claim except that it may have helped people who are not so poorly paid in the course of helping those who are low paid. Those are spurious reasons for ceasing to give protection to people who are in need of protection, particularly at a time of high unemployment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) made a speech analysing the problems of the low paid. I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend say—I am sure that other hon. Members must have been equally astonished—that 3 million people, many of them women, in Britain earn less than £60 per week. My hon. Friend is right in saying that they should be praised for remaining in work.
  Conservative Members—I do not include the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire—have made great play over and over again about abuses of social security, and they have said that it is more profitable not to work than to work. If that is their belief, they should be doing everything possible to encourage people to work. One of the ways of doing that is by ensuring that low-paid workers are given sufficient financial incentive to seek work and to remain in work, rather than to claim social security benefits. But the Government are doing nothing to encourage people to remain in work by removing this protection and benefit from low-paid workers.
  I could understand it if the Secretary of State were to produce a master plan for helping low-paid workers. I could understand it if he said that he intended to abolish schedule 11 because a more efficient means of helping low-paid workers had been found which would not be as inflationary as schedule 11, which would not benefit those that it was not intended to benefit, and which may not make such a dent in the non-existent pay policy. But the Government have simply abolished schedule 11, which all expert opinion suggests has been of some benefit—if not of sufficient benefit—to the low paid. Of all the measures in the Bill, this is the pettiest and meanest.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Crowther: I was extremely impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). He spoke on the basis of his considerable experience in the furniture industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay serious attention to his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman appears not to have paid much attention to what was said in Committee.
  At the end of a long debate in Committee I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to think again. I thought that he had been impressed by some of the Opposition's arguments that he would give the matter further thought and that he would talk to the TUC. I seem to remember him giving an undertaking that he would have discussions with the TUC and possibly return on Report with something to repair some of the damage that would be done by repealing schedule 11 and the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938. I hope that when he replies we shall receive some assurance that the enormous vacuum which is being created will be filled to some extent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) spoke of the rather lengthy period over which we have had legislation on this subject. The concept of fair wages goes back a long way. It is a centuries-old tradition. It goes back to the days of the Plantagenet kings. There were ordinances to prevent people being forced to work for wages which were lower than those which had been established as the norm for the job. It is a principle that has been enshrined in legislation.
  The Government now propose at a stroke to remove the principle. Schedule 11 and the Road Haulage Wages Act are the only two remaining examples. It seems that both items are to disappear from the statute book. Subject to what the right hon. Gentleman said, it seems that nothing will replace them. It is extremely sad to see the Government destroying centuries of tradition and many years of legislation.
  In a civilised community it is important that people should not be expected to work in conditions of sweated labour. Are we not a civilised country? Is it not reasonable that we should have some legislation to prevent people from falling into such a trap? I am sure that my hon.
  346
  Friend the Member for Thurrock has totally convinced the House, even though Conservative Members may not be able to support the Opposition when we divide. I am sure that the case that she presented must have convinced them that schedule 11, or something similar to it, is vital for the protection of low-paid workers.
  I am also concerned about those who do not necessarily come into the low-paid category. Surely order in industrial relations is a good thing. Surely some provision of the type that was in schedule 11 is helpful both to the high-paid and the low-paid. If the Bill is enacted in its present form and there is nothing to replace the schedule there is a greater likelihood of industrial disputes developing into strike action when, under the old system, it could possibly have been settled without a strike. The value of schedule 11 has been proved.
  Again, we are losing the Road Haulage Wages Act. That is the only other piece of legislation on this subject. Schedule 11 would have taken over the functions of the Road Haulage Wages Act, but schedule 11 is going as well. I mention one recent example of the great value of the Road Haulage Wages Act. In the milk industry, just over a year ago, it was possible for a wages dispute to be settled amicably under the terms of that legislation by the Central Arbitration Committee. That settlement followed a bitter dispute in the road haulage industry when there had been strikes throughout the country. Strikes could have occurred in the milk industry but for the rights of the parties to go to the committee to get the dispute settled.
  It takes only a moment's imagination to visualise the terrible consequences of a strike of road haulage workers in the milk industry, with no milk being moved from the farms to the depots or from the depots to the customers. Few dairy farmers have the capacity to keep milk in storage for more than a couple of days. A strike of that nature would be a disaster, but it was averted because of that useful piece of legislation. Now it is about to disappear, together with schedule 11, and it is a tragedy.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that he has given this matter a little more thought and that he will come forward with a proposal to fill this glaring gap in the

  347
  legislation which will undoubtedly lead to more strikes, not only by low wage-earners. People who are working for companies which have negotiated a good settlement will not stand idly by while someone down the road undercuts their conditions. Of course, they will take action. So from both points of view it is desirable that the fair wages concept should operate.
  Mr. Bill Homewood: Will my hon. Friend stress an important point which the Government have overlooked? I have had 13 years' experience as a trade union officer and in the past few years schedule 11 has been used on innumerable occasions in the West Midlands to avert disputes and stoppages that would have occurred if it had not been in operation. Much of the Bill is devoted to getting rid of strikes, but getting rid of schedule 11 will increase the likelihood of strikes.
  Mr. Crowther: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that expression of support. In view of his long experience as an officer in the trade union movement he is well qualified to speak on that matter.
  The whole of the Bill will damage industrial relations. If there is any doubt about that, speaking from the point of view of people who have experience in trade unions, there is no doubt that it will cause vast damage to the general picture of industrial relations. We are trying to repair some of that damage, or at least mitigate it by putting something useful into the gap which has been created by the repeal of schedule 11 and the Road Haulage Wages Act. I hope that we shall hear of some more constructive attitude from the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: The Under-Secretary of State for Employment made the following remark in Committee:
  "Those who support the continuance of the arrangements in schedule 11 have those honourable motives. They want to help those whose pay is lower than that of most other people in the same class of work. I am quite certain of that. … The difference between us is whether we consider that we should rely upon mechanistic solutions, and put our faith in procedures".
  348
  What was the hon. Gentleman saying? Should we rely on the operation of the fair wages resolution of schedule 11 and endeavour to solve the problems of workers' wages and conditions on the principles already laid down by agreements within industry, or should we rely on their taking action on the basis of their organised strength?
  It is being said that workers should not be entitled to wages and conditions generally obtaining unless they are prepared to organise, to go into conflict with employers and to fight for and win those wages and conditions in the traditional way that trade unionists have won them. That will lead to anarchy, conflict, strikes, lock-outs, picketing and all the other developments that the Government say that they want to reduce.
  Some workers are badly organised in some industries and in some sections of industries that have some good organisation, but pockets of bad organisation. Those workers need the "mechanistic" support of fair wages and the conditions that generally obtain in the industry in which they work.
  In the clothing industry in my constituency there are many home workers who are badly organised and need protection from the rabid exploitation which creates unfair competition for those who are better organised and work for companies that operate proper wages and conditions. Are we to withdraw the protection of schedule 11 from those workers and so undermine the wages and conditions of workers generally in that industry?
  Collective bargaining by trade unions has already laid the basis for fair wages and the norm that exists within industry. Having been a national trade union officer in the engineering industry for 20 years, I know that, both nationally and locally, the basis is laid by negotiations that take place at national or district level. But that is the minimum, below which workers are not expected to fall. On that is built the productivity, piecework and other wage bases in the agreements that are expected to be operated as the wages and conditions that should generally obtain within the industry.
  Schedule 11 stops the unprincipled employer from undercutting other employers who are paying proper wages

  349
  and giving proper conditions to their workers. That point was taken up in Committee by the Under-Secretary who said:
  "I can understand why an employers' federation or association would want to ensure that the members of the federation did not face competition from those who did not subscribe to terms and conditions which the federation had negotiated. It is perfectly right that there should be associations, and I am in favour of their being strong. But I am not so much in favour of their being strong as to lead me to support statutory provisions which enable people to have their wages hoisted as a result of negotiations entered into by different people who do not represent them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 1980; c. 1663, 1675.]
  To what theory is the Minister subscribing? Is he subscribing to a theory—which I have long held, incidentally, in the engineering industry—that only those who belong to a trade union and who are organised should receive the increases negotiated by the union? Is he advocating that kind of principle? He obviously is, for he is saying that unless the workers in a particular industry on a particular job have been organised and are party to negotiations, they shall not have the benefits which have been achieved by the organised workers in that industry. If that principle were to be operated in a factory in relation to non-trade unionists who were not party to trade union agreements, so that they did not get the better wages and conditions, it would result in a considerable number of unorganised workers being recruited into unions in this country.
  Schedule 11 must be maintained, above all, because it provides a safety net for the poorly paid, for the low paid and for those who are unfortunate enough at this stage to be unorganised.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Martin: I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government's decision on this matter. Before I was elected to the House, I was a full-time union officer with the National Union of Public Employees. We recruited mainly in the hospital services and in education, but a small minority of our workers worked for charitable institutions up and down the country. The only way in which I could help the members working in private nursing homes and in private medicine was through schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975.
  350
  There were cases in which highly-skilled people were employed, say, in a nursing home. Sometimes it would be a married couple. The wife would be a skilled nurse and the husband would be the superintendent. No one would blame that couple for saying that they could not go on strike because, if they did so, they would jeopardise the lives of the people in their care.
  A great many difficulties arose when I approached the employers. In their way they were good employers, but they had absolutely no idea of what negotiations or industrial relations were about. When it was pointed out to them that a skilled nurse should get more than £20 for a 45-hour week and for working weekends, they would say "Ah, but we give them a flat, we give them free electricity, we allow them to have the produce from the garden", and so on. The only way in which I could make a comparison was to point to a local authority nursing home where the matron had a flat and free electricity, or had some payment made to her in that respect.
  Ministers often tell us that they want to look after the workers who do not have the militant power of the large unions. They rightly tell us that those who are loyal to their employers should have their just rewards. They now have a chance to keep schedule 11 in the Act. A large membership benefits from the Whitley Council agreements and from the national joint negotiation agreements.
  This type of clause would allow the employer to reach some form of agreement. Employers would welcome legislation that gave guidance and assistance. They do not wish to become bogged down in long, drawn-out negotiations. They are usually small employers, and have other things to do.
  I beg the Government to retain schedule 11 because it gives a great deal of help and protection to the weaker sections of our society.
  Mr. John Evans: As every hon. Member knows—none more than you, Mr. Speaker—the House of Commons is a strange place. We have had a remarkable debate. Tomorrow the media will describe the first part of our proceedings as "high drama". I refer to those on the Back Benches behind the Secretary of State and the hostility with which

  351
  parts of his speech were met. Such a description cannot be used for the second part of the debate. With one or two honourable exceptions, the Government Back Benches are empty. That is traditional.
  Once again we find ourselves discussing the problems of workers who are at the bottom of the pay scale. The Conservative Party always shows a lack of interest about such groups. I hope that when the Division bell rings, Conservative Back Benchers will not troop into the Lobby and ask the Whips which way to vote. I hope that they will have some compassion and thought for the workers for whom they earlier professed great concern.
  Opposition Members will recall that we were regaled by the speeches of Conservative Members. One would have thought that they had nothing closer to their hearts than the welfare and well-being of workers in British industry. When we discuss a major issue, the Government Benches are empty. The first part of the debate was a non-starter. The result of that debate was a foregone conclusion. The only event of note was the so-called rebellion of 45 Conservative Members. However, if they had not got wind of the fact that the Opposition planned to vote against those new clauses, I suspect that the rebellion would have been half that size. That is the one thing that came out of that farcical debate.
  No doubt the Secretary of State is aware that we are now discussing more important issues. I cannot but return to the words used by the Under-Secretary in Committee. He referred to schedule 11 and said:
  "As the hon. Member for Rotherham has rightly said, provisions of this nature have a long history in this country, but that factor alone is not decisive of the issues before the Committee.
  In Plantaganet times, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and in more recent times, if one belonged to, or tried to set up, something of the nature of a trade union one went inside and probably did not come out because it was criminal conspiracy."
  In view of the attitudes of some of the Secretary of State's colleagues, one would suspect that they might welcome a criminal conspiracy clause for trade union activities being written into the Bill.
  352
  The Under-Secretary went on:
  "It remained so until the enlightened Conservative Government of 1875 passed an Act which took it out of the criminal law. Consequently, the Minister responsible received a telegram of congratulations from the newly-formed TUC. It was the last telegram of congratulations from the TUC, but we live in hope!"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 1980; c. 1662.]
  If the Secretary of State wants another telegram from the TUC, I suggest that he accepts our proposal. We guarantee that he will then receive a telegram of congratulations. Whether the Conservative Government of 1875 were enlightened we do not know, but I do not think that anyone would try to suggest that the Conservative Government of 1980 are in any way enlightened.
  When one reads this Bill or refers to the reports of the Standing Committee debates, one sees that we tried desperately to suggest that the Government should accept our amendments in order to keep a framework of compassion by retaining schedule 11 in our legislation. However, we got nowhere. The Secretary of State was rather careful in his phraseology, and I hope that he will tell us tonight whether he has had any consultations or views on the retention of the schedule. It is important that the House should appreciate that schedule 11 is an extremely important safety valve in the employment legislation of this country. It is important to recognise that there are various spin-off factors which flow from establishing a rate of pay for a district, for a job or for an organisation.
  We make no apologies for making it clear that we seek to help the low paid. The only answer that we had in Standing Committee about the removal of schedule 11 was a passing reference to the restoration of free collective bargaining. We received no other reasonable argument for dispensing with schedule 11. The Under-Secretary admitted that it had a long and honourable history in trade union and labour relations in this country, yet we were simply told that it would fall because it was not necessary in the context of free collective bargaining.
  We seek to persuade the Secretary of State that we are talking of pockets of workers—in many cases there are large numbers of them—in a variety of areas where there is very weak trade union organisation. Those workers would have

  353
  difficulty in establishing a reasonable wage. It helps those people if we have compassionate, far-sighted legislation such as schedule 11 to which the trade unions can refer.
  I accept the argument that the Under-Secretary put to the Standing Committee that schedule 11 does not only help the low paid. That is correct. However, the Government should not lose sight of the fact that it is a valuable aid and safety valve for the low paid. I urge hon. Members to recognise that socially this is an extremely useful piece of legislation and even if the Secretary of State sought to amend it so that it would affect only the low paid we would agree with that. But he has not sought to amend it in that way; he is merely sweeping it from the statute book. Will he tell us how its removal will be of any benefit whatever to the low paid?
  At Question Time today my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) asked the Secretary of State for Employment to introduce legislation to establish a statutory national minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman refused. When my hon. Friend attempted to elucidate the arguments in favour of a national minimum wage, particularly with reference to workers in many parts of the public sector, the Secretary of State indicated that he thought that the public sector had done very well in the past four or five years. I do not think that anyone would argue against the Secretary of State about certain elements in the public sector if one is referring to Cabinet Ministers, chief executives of local authorities or principal secretaries—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Evans: There are elements within the public sector that have done well. That was not the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. My hon. Friend was talking about the problem of low pay. If there were any suggestion by the Gov-
  354
  ernment that they had plans to help the low paid, we would be fascinated by their arguments and support the Secretary of State if he brought forward legislation. The legislation that the Government have produced since, unfortunately, they were elected in May last year constitutes a constant attack on the low paid.
  I suggest to the Secretary of State that free collective bargaining by itself will not help the low paid. There are many arguments both for and against free collective bargaining, but no one can seriously argue that free collective bargaining has proved to be of any benefit to the low paid. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude.
  I should like to turn briefly to the impact of schedule 11 on higher grades of workers. The schedule proved, during the lifetime of the Labour Government, to be an extremely useful piece of legislation. The Under-Secretary of State inferred on 27 March that schedule 11 was only of any use when there was incomes policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "I leave out of account the pay policy argument. We all agree that schedule 11 was used as a means of getting round a statutory pay policy. We do not have a statutory pay policy and I trust that we will not have one again.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 1980; c. 1664.]
  There is a growing feeling in this country that we are not far removed from the reintroduction of pay policy. It will be interesting to see how long before it comes about. I again pose the question that, if a statutory pay policy is imposed on the country, will the Government return schedule 11 to the statute book? In those circumstances, it would prove to be an extremely valuable safety valve. It is not only useful in the context of an incomes policy that is statutorily, voluntarily or rigidly applied. It is an extremely useful form of settling disputes that occur in various parts of the country that could be bitter, prolonged and finish up creating a great deal of anger. It is a useful piece of arbitration.
  I should like to give the House a brief example of an occasion when schedule 11 was used to resolve what could have been a long dispute. Many hon. Members will recall the dispute in the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside at the time of the Polish orders. The finishing trades

  355
  in the shipyard demanded pay comparability with the boilermakers. Many hon. Members had difficulty in understanding the dispute, but the seeds had been sown many years previously. The argument about comparability between the finishing trades and the boilermaking trades had lasted for a long time. In the early 1970s there was a long dispute of some six weeks in which the finishing trades, with which I was concerned, established that they were entitled to wages comparability with the boilermakers. However, as a result of pay policies and the nationalisation which overtook the shipbuilding industry following the Labour Government's Act, the finishing trades on Tyne-side were badly out of step with the boilermakers on Tyneside and with finishing trades in other parts of British Shipbuilders.
  Once the dispute began, British Shipbuilders took a hard line, backed by the Labour Government. British Shipbuilders threatened to remove ships from Tyneside. However, the AUEW and other unions used schedule 11. They brought into focus the argument not only that the finishing trades on Tyneside were entitled to parity with the boilermakers but, more importantly, that they were entitled to comparability with the other finishing trades in British Shipbuilders. An awkward and bitter dispute was avoided because of the imposition of schedule 11. Such legislation is useful.
  When Governments take office there is always a tendency to sweep away everything that previous Governments of a different colour have enacted. That ap-
  356
  parently proves their virility to their Back Benchers and shows that they are honouring their manifesto It takes about two and a half years for Governments to recognise that some of their actions in the first flush of office were foolish and stupid. The removal of schedule 11 would be one such foolishness.
  It is important to acknowledge that the Government intend to retain ACAS. I was pleased that the Secretary of State was not persuaded by his more reactionary colleagues to get rid of ACAS. It would be of great benefit to many workers, not only to the lower paid, to retain schedule 11. Are the Government proposing to remove schedule 11 and to return to the law of the jungle? The evidence is that those with the most muscle win the day and obtain what they want, often at the expense of those that lack muscle.
  We suspect that the Government are still using the paper written by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in which he outlines where the Government must give way because of the muscle of workers in certain industries, where they might be able to hold the line, and where they might take on workers without fear of defeat. If that is the Government aim, the U-turn will come sooner rather than later.
  In Committee the Secretary of State said that he would consider further representations for the retention of schedule 11. I hope that he will give the matter further consideration. We have not been remiss in coming to his assistance. This is one occasion on which he could come to our assistance by retaining schedule 11.
  Mr. Prior: We have had another interesting debate of importance. I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in it.
  New clause 9 will restore the provisions of section 8 of the Term and Conditions of Employment Act 1959 and it would allow claims to be made only by independent trade unions. Section 8 allowed claims by employers and unions who were party to the agreement. That Act was repealed by section 98 of the 1975 Act and the provisions of section 8 were replaced by that part of the schedule relating to recognised terms and conditions. Schedule 11 greatly extends the scope of the provisions by the addition of general level provisions.
  New clause 12 seems to apply not solely to cases in which the CAC is directing its mind to the offsetting provisions of paragraph 9 but to any schedule 11 case before the CAC. That seems to be in slight contradiction to what the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) was saying in Committee about the CAC's discretion in determining whether terms and conditions are unfavourable by excluding the specific matters referred to from being taken into account.
  Amendment No. 106 has the effect of restoring in their entirely schedule 11 and the remaining parts of the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938. Amendment 110 was not selected but was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). Because it has not been selected, I must not deal with it in detail. What my hon. Friend said was that he felt that the first leg of schedule 11—the recognised terms and conditions leg—should remain part of the schedule. Those are the issues we are discussing.
  The Government wish to repeal schedule 11 in its entirety. Our reasons, briefly summarised, are these. First, we believe that the schedule is objectionable in principle since it inhibits individual employers and unions from concluding their own agreements on pay and conditions to suit their particular circumstances, including market forces and a firm's ability to pay. We believe that the schedule weakens the essential link between pay and productivity.
  Secondly, the schedule has not, as was intended, acted as a mechanism to eliminate pockets of low pay. When schedule 11 in the Employment Protection Act 1975 was going through Committee the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who was Minister of State at the time, said that it was a measure to help the low paid and to extend collective bargaining. The measure has not done that and the TUC is, I believe, the first to admit that that has not been the effect of the recognised terms and conditions part of schedule 11.
  I have recently received a letter from the TUC in reply to the further inquiries we have been making. One of the points made in the letter—I should point out that the TUC is in favour of retaining schedule 11—is contained in paragraph 4:
  "The Government's main criticisms of the operation of Schedule 11 were set out in its working paper of September 1979. One Government argument was that while Schedule 11 was aimed at 'pockets of low pay' many higher paid groups have benefited."
  The letter goes on:
  "However, low pay as such cannot be remedied by use of the Schedule. Schedule 11 operates to eliminate comparative low pay within industries and not between them, and district rates in specific industries have been the criteria adopted."
  We are not going to deal—
  Mr. John Grant: Will the right hon. Gentleman read on?
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Prior: Perhaps I should read the whole letter. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has a copy. I have only just received one. The letter continues:
  "None the less, research carried out by the SSRC Industrial Relations Research Unit indicates that Schedule 11 has been used to benefit below-average wage earners. The repeal of Schedule 11, wholly or in part, will do nothing to help the low paid: for many employees it is the only form of statutory protection available concerning wages".
  I think that I have read the appropriate part.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), in her interesting speech, and the hon. Member for Islington, Central referred to the research unit at Warwick and its statistics which sought to

  359
  compare what low paid workers were getting as a result of schedule II based on awards from 1977 to 1979.
  We have done more work on that matter since the debate in Committee. The IRRU's results suggest that the pay of schedule 11 claimants was in general below average, but that is not the same as establishing that they were low paid. Indeed, there is no agreement about what low pay is. The research unit's sample did not include awards for which sufficient and reliable data were not available. That means that, for example, in 1978 less than half of all employees involved in schedule 11 awards were covered by the analysis. It is likely that awards relating to groups with complicated pay structures, such as the 26,000 BBC employees, will have been excluded. Many higher paid groups have undoubtedly benefited from schedule 11. Indeed, many of the groups in British Shipbuilders, to whom the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) referred, which benefited from schedule 11 were by no stretch of the imagination low-paid workers. We ought to bear that point in mind, because the criterion of the abolition of schedule 11 has been that it dealt chiefly with lower-paid workers and low pay. However, I do not believe that it has had that effect.
  Dr. McDonald: The Secretary of State said that his Department has carried out further work on the impact of schedule 11 on low pay. He then went on to say that he had no notion of the definition of "low pay". How was his Department able to carry out further analysis and to discover whether schedule 11 affected low pay without a working definition of "low pay"?
  Mr. Prior: I hope that I did not mislead the hon. Lady. I said that in Committee we were asked about the research unit's work and we were not able to give a reply. I have since asked for more details of what the research unit has done. It is clear from that information that the sample taken by the IRRU was comparatively small and left out many of those who would have been at the top end of the range.
  The third point that has led us to believe that we should repeal the schedule is that some awards have disrupted agreed
  360
  pay structures and undermined established collective bargaining arrangements giving rise to claims by other groups of employees in the same negotiating structure for the preservation of differentials or for comparable treatment. The TUC also acknowledges this point, while arguing that schedule 11 has equally been used by employers and trade unions to help in resolving anomalies.
  The last point is that the main use of the schedule in practice—and it has been admitted by Opposition Members—has been as a means of circumventing incomes policy, which is certainly not a use envisaged when the schedule was brought into operation. I do not know the latest number of cases, but they have fallen off considerably since the incomes policy was discontinued. For those reasons, we believe that it is right to abolish the whole of schedule 11.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire and to other hon. Members who raised the point with me, may I say that we said in Committee that because of the representations made to us at that time, and because of the debate that we had, we would consult further, without any commitment whatsoever, to see whether more employers or employers' organisations wished to make representations for the continuation of at least the recognised terms and conditions leg of the schedule. Those consultations are continuing.
  I wrote to the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, I answered a question in the House, and there has been some publicity. As a result, we are still receiving a number of views. So far we have received views from the TUC and the CBI. Three or four organisations have written to us in favour of the return of the whole of the schedule, sometimes with amendment. Four or five organisations have written to us in favour of the retention of recognised terms and conditions, and they are mostly employers' associations. About 10 organisations, mostly individual firms, have written to us in favour of total repeal. That is the progress that has been made on the question of further consultation.
  I must say to the House that, unless there are very strong reasons which result from the further consultation, the Government will continue with their plan,

  361
  under the Bill, to abolish schedule 11. Therefore, I should not mislead the Opposition Members tonight as to our intentions. I simply do not believe that the best way to help the low paid, or to help the country out of its difficulties, is simply by having legislation of that nature. The legislation under section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, which is the purpose of new clause 9—although it does not follow it exactly—was used by only 18,000 workers on the subject of claims, and only about 8,000 benefited in the years in which it was in operation. During the period 1959 to 1974 the failure rate for claims appears to have averaged about 50 per cent.
  A study by Jeff Latta in the "Industrial Law Journal" in March 1975, entitled "The legal extension of collective bargaining; a study of section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959" concluded:
  "The economic effect of section 8 was very small … section 8's effect was minimal and it did not even score as an efficient means of bringing 'undercutting' rogue employers into line."
  I do not think that new clause 9 would have much effect.
  Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State say what the Government intend to do about low pay?
  Mr. Prior: I shall try to end on that note.
  New clause 9 would broadly restore section 8 with its original limitations. It would appear further to restrict the way in which the provision could be used by limiting access under paragraph 2 to an independent trade union. I do not know whether that is a mistake. It may be an oversight, but it is certainly one that we could not possibly accept if we were thinking of going down that route.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I drew attention to that omission in my speech and suggested that it was a drafting error. I received the impression from Opposition Members that it was a drafting error.
  Mr. Prior: I was not certain whether that was the impression. In any event, I thought that I ought to draw attention to it.
  I do not understand what the hon. Member for Islington, Central is trying to get at in regard to new clause 12. In
  362
  Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State had a considerable argument with him about the famous case of Courtaulds at Carrickfergus. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that, in being made to accept a schedule 11 award, Courtaulds felt that it had a considerable effect on one of its factories and on the ability of that factory to compete. At that stage, my hon. and learned Friend talked in terms of giving weight to ability to pay only by setting aside to some extent the CAC's obligations to award in line with recognised terms or general level. There is no profitability criterion or any reference to profit in the schedule. That is amply borne out by work which we have done since.
  The issues of profitability and employers' ability to pay have been raised only infrequently at schedule 11 hearings, which suggests that in practice they have not had much influence on awards. As I understand it, the new clause would limit the CAC's discretion in determining whether terms and conditions are unfavourable by excluding the specific matters referred to from being taken into account. In other words, it would make it even more difficult than it is at present for matters such as profitability and ability to pay to be given any recognition at all. Therefore, we think that there is a contradiction between what the hon. Gentleman was feeling towards in Committee and what he says in the new clause.
  I was asked what we intended to do about the low paid. I do not believe that we can protect the low paid simply by legislation. What will help the low paid more than anything else is a higher level of prosperity and a higher standard of living from the whole of society. That is the only way in which we shall raise the standard of living of the low paid. Like schedule 11, these measures so often tend to act as a wage-push inflator, which has precisely the opposite effect to that of trying to keep down inflation which is the one thing from which the low paid suffer more than any other group.
  Both I and the Government believe that unless there is forthcoming evidence, which we have not yet had, from the further consultation which is taking place, we should carry through the abolition of schedule 11 in its entirety. Other countries have been a good deal more successful in

  363
  raising their standard of living than we have in recent years. I believe that we shall do better if we concentrate on improving productivity rather than on passing legislation which has impeded collective bargaining and has in many ways brought more problems upon the low paid and collective bargaining machinery generally than it has solved.
  Mr. John Grant: This has been an extremely useful debate. In my opening remarks, I said that I did not intend to dwell unduly on the terms of the two new clauses and that it was the amendment which carried the weight of our arguments. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that with regard to new clause 9 there are a couple of drafting deficiencies. However, we were concerned about amendment No. 106, which preserves the status quo so that the recognised terms and conditions provisions and the general provisions of the schedule are maintained intact. All Labour Members who have spoken supported the retention of the schedule in its entirety. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) was thoughtful and constructive and obviously well researched. She spoke about incentives to low-paid workers and the effect on them of the repeal of the schedule.
  10.30 pm
  My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and Kettering (Mr. Homewood) are former trade union officers, and they both drew on their respective experiences to show that this schedule has been of considerable benefit, not only to low-paid workers, but in resolving and avoiding disputes. The Government constantly say that they wish to achieve that, but it will be thrown away as a consequence of their action.
  It would not be sensible for Labour Members to expect much response from the Government to what they say, any more than the trade union movement can expect much response from the Government. Relations and consultation with the trade union must be almost at their lowest ebb. In so far as the Secretary of State occasionally tries to build bridges, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister constantly blows them up. But if the Secretary of State will not listen to Labour Members or the trade move-
  364
  ment he should listen hard to what the employers' organisations have been telling him. In respect of this clause, and particularly in respect of the recognised terms and conditions, the employers' organisations have made it clear that they want that part of the schedule retained.
  When the Secretary of State gave a breakdown of the responses to his suggestion that further representations should be received, he said that 10 organisations were against total abolition. Apparently those 10 organisations were individual companies. Ten individual companies hardly represent a substantial body of opinion. If the Secretary of State will not listen to the employers' organisations, perhaps he will listen to the fairly few—there are a few—voices from his Back Benches.
  In my opening remarks I referred to the speech by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), who expressed his anxieties in Committee. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made a thoughtful and helpful contribution and drew on first-hand industrial relations experience. He was particularly concerned about the furniture industry.
  When the Secretary of State replied to the debate, his response was even less convincing than that of the Under-Secretary of State in Committee. He suggested that the schedule had not eliminated pockets of low pay. That contradicts the independent research which I and my hon. Friends quoted earlier. He then quoted a letter from the TUC which he received today, as I did. The quote was intended to be selective, but I then shot his fox because, having received the same letter, I persuaded him to read on. He could have read even further. He could have read the concluding paragraph, which is relevant and which shows the TUC's position. It states:
  "In conclusion, schedule 11 has proved very valuable in providing a measure of minimum protection for the low-paid relative to other comparable employees in the same industry and district. It has supported the operation of establishing negotiating machinery and has been a means of enabling the peaceful resolution of potential disputes over many undoubted pay anomalies. In view of these factors the Government should not proceed with the repeal of schedule 11. Such a move would be difficult to justify and the joint opposition from unions and employers demonstrate their deep concern at the prospect of certain employers undercutting their competitors, and the potential

  365
  for the exploitation of many employees that the repeal of the schedule will have."
  That puts the TUC's view clearly and concisely. I do not think that the Secretary of State will find much comfort in quoting anything that the TUC has to say on the issue.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Warwick university industrial relations research unit's work. He said that the Department of Employment had carried out some further study of its own. He said that it was likely that there were certain exclusions from the unit's analysis and that it was based on a small sample. It is so vague to talk of something being "likely". We do not know the basis of the Department's research. There is no published document. We have been given no details. However, the work of an independent unit has been published and it has been widely quoted. All that the right hon. Gentleman can offer is the vague suggestion that a further effort has been made to produce the evidence that we asked for in Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the disruption of pay structures. I have already given the TUC's view and the various items of independent evidence that suggest that schedule 11 has been helpful to pay structures and to industrial relations generally.
  The right hon. Gentleman argued that pay policy had been circumvented. He seemed to suggest that we accepted that the main use of the schedule had been on behalf of higher-paid workers. That has not been suggested by the Opposi-
  tion. I said that it would be idle to pretend that it had not been beneficial to some groups of higher-paid workers. I stressed that the primary aim and use of the schedule had been to seek to eliminate—it has eliminated—pockets of low pay.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that claims under schedule 11 had fallen away since pay policy ended. He should have presented us with the figures. He should not make such vague assertions. We have heard about the further consultations that are taking place and the further representations that are being received. However, it is pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to move from his stance. He has sold out on this issue to the hawks in the Cabinet. We know that his own view is that this measure will not be helpful to good industrial relations and that it will strike a blow against low-paid workers, the vulnerable and often poorly organised workers. He has not been able to carry with him his Cabinet colleagues.
  Earlier this evening there was a phoney vote. It was preceded by a debate that centred on the Government Benches. We shall divide the House on this issue and it will not be a phoney vote. We shall be voting on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers who will be disadvantaged by the change that the Government propose to make by repealing the schedule.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 309.

  Division No. 260]

  AYES

  [10.38 pm

  Abse, Leo

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

  Adams, Allen

  Campbell, lan

  Deakins, Eric

  Allaun, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Anderson, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dempsey, James

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cant, R. B.

  Dewar, Donald

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dixon, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cartwright, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Dormand, Jack

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

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Douglas, Dick

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Coleman, Donald

  Dubs, Alfred

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Conlan, Bernard

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cowans, Harry

  Eadie, Alex

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Eastham, Ken

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Crowther, J. S.

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Cryer, Bob

  English, Michael

  Bradley, Tom

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ewing, Harry

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Faulds, Andrew

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Field, Frank

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Fitt, Gerard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sever, John

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Forrester, John

  McMahon, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

  Foster, Derek

  McNally, Thomas

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  McWilliam, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Silverman, Julius

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Snape, Peter

  Golding, John

  Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

  Soley, Clive

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Graham, Ted

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stoddart, David

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mitchell, R. C, (Soton, Itchen)

  Straw, Jack

  Haynes, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Morton, George

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Home Robertson, John

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Homewood, William

  Newens, Stanley

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hooley, Frank

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tilley, John

  Horam, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Torney, Tom

  Huckfield, Les

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Watkins, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wellbeloved, James

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Park, George

  Welsh, Michael

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parker, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

  Parry, Robert

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Whitlock, William

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prescott, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Race, Reg

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Lamond, James

  Richardson, Jo

  Winnick, David

  Leighton, Ronald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Woodall, Alec

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wright, Sheila

  Litherland, Robert

  Robertson, George

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. James Tinn and

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Roper, John

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  McElhone, Frank

  Ryman, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bright, Graham

  Cockeram, Eric

  Alexander, Richard

  Brinton, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Michael

  Brittan, Leon

  Cope, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Corrie, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Brotherton, Michael

  Costain, A. P.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Critchley, Julian

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Crouch, David

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Budgen, Nick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Dover, Denshore

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Burden, F. A.

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Butcher, John

  Dunlop, John

  Best, Keith

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Durant, Tony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blaker, Peter

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Body, Richard

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Eggar, Timothy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Channon, Paul

  Elliott, Sir William

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Boyson, Dr Rhoo

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bradford, Rev

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fell, Anthony

  368

  369

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  MacGregor, John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rost, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Major, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Marland, Paul

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Marlow, Tony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mates, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Mather, Carol

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Shersby, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Silvester, Fred

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sims, Roger

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gorst, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Gow, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Speed, Keith

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speller Tony

  Gray, Hamish

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Spence, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sproat, lain

  Grist, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Squire, Robin

  Grylls, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Stanley, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Monro, Hector

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moore, John

  Stevens, Martin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Hannam, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Stokes, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Murphy, Christopher

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Myles, David

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Henderson, Barry

  Needham, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, Donald

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Newton, Tony

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Normanton, Tom

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Hooson, Tom

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Trippier, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Howells, Geraint

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Parris, Matthew

  Viggers, Peter

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Waddington, David

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wakeham, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Waller, Gary

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Walters, Dennis

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Ward, John

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Pollock, Alexander

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kimball, Marcus

  Porter, George

  Watson, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Lamont, Norman

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wheeler, John

  Lang, Ian

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Whitney, Raymond

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wickenden, Keith

  Lawson, Nigel

  Raison, Timothy

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lee, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Renton, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Loveridge, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Luce, Richard

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  McCusker, H.

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Anthony Berry

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

  AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS
  '( ) (1) This Clause applies to any agreement other than a union membership agreement within the meaning of section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.
  (2) In this Clause—
  "contractor" means a person by whom goods are to be supplied or services provided under an agreement to which this Clause applies, and
  "relevant employee" means an employee of a contractor or of any other person to whom any part of the performance of an agreement is sub-contracted or delegated or of any person who supplies goods or services for the performance of the agreement.
  (3) In so far as any provision in an agreement purports to impose an obligation on a contractor to require that any relevant employee shall belong to a trade union that provision shall be unlawful.
  (4) In so far as any provision in an agreement purports, on the ground that any relevant employee does not belong to a trade union:

  (a) to modify or revoke any provision in that agreement which would, but for that ground, confer a benefit on the contractor;

  (b) to impose any obligation or liability on the contractor which would not but for that ground have been imposed; or

  (c) to make any obligation or liability on the part of the contractor more onerous than that which would but for that ground have been applicable,

  that provision shall be unlawful.'.—[Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we are to take new clause 11—Discrimination against contracting parties
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not want to delay the House for too long, although the new clauses raise matters of very considerable importance and principle. They relate to the possibility of what I would call the institution of the closed shop by the back door.
  I am profoundly antipathetic to closed shops, wherever they may appear, whether they are closed shops of company secretaries, of surveyors, of accountants, or even, dare I say it, of lawyers. I find it profoundly undesirable that one should be obliged to belong to a particular institution as the price of prac-
  372
  tising one's trade or profession. As far as I am aware, we do not have a professional organisation for Members of Parliament. I would fight to the death against the institution of any such organisation and be the last to join it.
  But, having said that, I accept—although I recognise that a number of my hon. Friends do not—the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is not a matter of practical politics today to outlaw the closed shop. I hope that the day will come when it will be possible, but I certainly accept that that is not a practicality at the present time.
  The Bill introduces certain important safeguards to the operation of the closed shop. I cite essentially two. First, it seeks to put an end to what one might broadly call the SLADE-type blackmail operation—the technique developed by SLADE in particular to frogmarch employees of particular businesses into SLADE against their wishes, via pressure, and, indeed, blackmail, on their employers. The Bill seeks—and I am delighted to see it—to put an end to that sort of gross impropriety, for that is what it is. The Bill also seeks to ensure that new closed shops cannot be imposed without prior consultation of, and a decisive vote in favour from, all those concerned by their introduction. That too is a major step forward, and I welcome it.
  There is a substantial hole in the significantly improved provisions which govern the closed shop. My new clauses are designed to deal with the oversight, that monopoly, or near-monopoly, customers can oblige employers in other businesses to bully their employees into a union against their employees' wishes. In defiance of the Bill's provisions, they can make it a condition of a contract that is offered to tender that companies bidding for that contract may employ only those who are members of specified trade unions. That is quite indefensible. It is surprising that the Bill does not deal with that. However, these two new clauses are designed to cover that hole.
  New clause 10 makes it unlawful for a customer to write an obligation into his contract with the supplier that employees working at the customer's place of work should belong to a specified or variety of specified trade unions.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: One of a variety.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I accept that correction. New clause 11 is essentially supplementary. It is designed to prevent a customer from getting round the terms of clause 10 by limiting invitations to tender to those firms that have given an undertaking in advance to employ exclusively unionised labour.
  How widespread is the problem? We have no certain knowledge. However, it is too widespread for comfort. I understand that among Labour-controlled authorities such activity is common practice. Unfortunately, it is, on occasion, practised in Conservative-controlled local authorities. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is also common practice among nationalised industries. In addition, I am led to understand that this practice is indulged in by at least one organ of government.
  I should like to quote briefly the types of clause that may be written into a contract. The contractor is expected to sign such a contract as a condition of undertaking work for Labour-controlled and, alas, occasionally Tory-controlled local authorities. The following clauses are included:
  "All contractors or sub-contractors' employees must be fully paid up members of an appropriate trade union and in the case of craftsmen to a trade union which is representative of the craft work they are performing under the contract.
  The contractor shall ensure that all labour whether of the contractor or of any subcontractor of the contractor used on the site shall be members of an appropriate trade union approved in writing by the engineer."
  I should like to stress the phrase "The contractor shall ensure." The employer is obliged to frogmarch employees into a union, regardless of whether they wish to be members. It goes on:
  "All manual grade employees employed by the contractor and assigned to work on sites within the group must comply with the following at all times:

  (a) Be fully paid-up members of the trade union appropriate to the trade they practise (being out of benefit automatically precludes access to the site).

  (b) Carry personal union cards showing proof of the above."

  That is typical of the sort of clauses that are written into contracts by local authorities.
  374
  11 pm
  I should like to cite a couple of instances from the nationalised industries. British Airways, August 1979:
  "The Contractor and Sub-contractors shall employ only Trade Union labour under this contract."
  British Leyland, September 1979:
  "All labour employed by the contractor on site must belong to an appropriate trade union and a similar condition will be imposed on all nominated or domestic sub-contractors."
  The third category which, in some ways, I find the most horrific of the lot is the Scottish Development Agency—an agency of the Government which has got into the habit of adding a clause to building work tenders stating that the main contractors will agree with all unions on site to collect union dues. What in God's name is a Government organ doing getting into this sort of malarky?
  If ever there was evidence of a need for new clauses of the type that I have submitted, the fact that an agency of government is getting into the business of frogmarching people into a trade union without a moment's consultation is sufficient proof thereof. I find this technique of creeping extension of the closed shop profoundly offensive in itself.
  But that is not all. I wish to draw the attention of the House to another implication of the Bill if we pass it without my new clauses. Under the Bill as it stands, the supplier can still be bullied into ordering the employees into a union as the price of obtaining a contract from one of these customers in the public or semi-public sector.
  Also under the Bill as it stands the employer in question will not have been able to ballot his employees to ascertain their willingness to join one of the appropriate trade unions. The contract says that he must ensure that they belong; the question of ballot does not arise. Therefore, the employer will not have a defence against a claim for unfair dismissal if any of those employees refuses to join the union. Indeed, he will not even be able to require the customer, who has imposed this obligation upon him, to take his part in bearing the burden of paying the bill for a claim which would be bound to be found against him for unfair dismissal as a result of his falling in with the customer's wishes and orders in that respect. That is not only utterly paradoxical it is

  375
  almost absurd. I do not think that we can allow the Bill to pass in this form.
  I am led to understand—my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that it has been suggested that contractors who are concerned about the matter might make it a condition of membership of their respective trade associations that no one belonging to the association would agree to sign a contract that included these clauses. Apart from the fact that this would be in breach of the restrictive trade practices legislation, it is a most inappropriate and improper suggestion for a Government Department to make to contractors that they should get together to require the members of their trade or profession to stand aside from any contracts that include these clauses because the Government find it embarassing to outlaw the clauses, as they should be outlawed, under the Bill.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the extreme interest shown in his proposals not only by the Labour Party but also by the Liberal Party when only the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour Party is present?
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Those hon. Friends who have watched the activities of Opposition parties during the lifetime of this Parliament regard such attendances as par for the course when matters of great importance to our constituents are under discussion. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the naked emptiness of the Opposition Benches.
  I hope that I have demonstrated to my hon. and learned Friend that the Bill, as it stands, is profoundly unsatisfactory in this respect. According to my advice, although my hon. and learned Friend may be able to assure me that this is not the case, there is a flagrant breach between the provisions in this Bill for ascertaining the will and approval of those concerned before a closed shop is extended and the manner in which the customer—a near-monopoly customer—can successfully impose the extension of the closed shop, under the Bill as it stands, in precisely the same way as SLADE did. It is a practice that the Government have rightly sought to eliminate from trade union proceedings.
  376
  It is time that this matter was put right. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept the new clauses.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has said but it seems to me that the Government can take action in the area to which he refers without the need for these new clauses. They can do so in two ways. Government Departments and nationalised industries can do so by circular, or possibly by direction, inviting those concerned not to use the clauses to which my hon. Friend has adverted. Similar action can be taken in respect of local authorities by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment also sending a circular.
  This habit obviously grew up during the time of the Labour Government when they were seeking a round-about manner by which they could utilise the closed shop and give it further powers. A great deal, it seems to me, can be done without the need for legislation. I am not derogating in any way from the remarks of my hon. Friend in moving his new clauses that seem to have a great deal to commend them, but a great deal can be done by the practical type of assistance to which I have referred.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting, but does my hon. and learned Friend seriously suggest that the republic of South Yorkshire would respond to the type of billet-doux which my hon. and learned Friend suggests should be sent out by the Secretary of State for the Environment? I do not have quite the same confidence in the republic of South Yorkshire as he seems to have.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not suggest that there will be success in every instance, but there will be in many instances. The right climate might be created, although it might be better carried to effect by what my hon. Friend has in mind.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I shall not detain the House for long. My shortest speech lasted four minutes and my aim is to beat that record. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I am fortunate—or unfortunate—to have in my constituency a nationalised industry, the British Steel

  377
  Corporation which operates a closed shop on its 16,000 employees. Scunthorpe has a Labour-controlled local authority.
  Last summer I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State following a representation from a sub-contractor. He and his employees were morally opposed to a closed shop, but, according to the circular letter from the BSC, no employee of the subcontractor would go on to the BSC site unless he joined a union.
  The Scunthorpe borough council has sought to impose a similar closed shop restriction on the employees of its subcontractors. That is clearly an imposition of the closed shop by the back door. We may oppose the closed shop—and I am totally opposed to it and any extension of it—but we must recognise that it is part of industrial relations for the time being. However, we must all agree that a closed shop cannot be imposed without the support of a majority of the work force.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said, there is no opportunity for obtaining sufficient support from the work force of a sub-contractor. As my hon. and learned Friend was unable to meet the point when I wrote to him last year, the new clause provides an opportunity to put right a grave injustice. I hope that the House will consider it seriously.
  Mr. Marlow: I had misgivings about the Bill at its conception, but I am pleased that it is now a much better Bill. It performs almost 90 per cent. of what anybody could wish it to perform. That is more than most Bills achieve, and I congratulate the Secretary of State.
  However, I am a little sad that people have said that when they apply for contracts they have been told that they must use union labour. Search though they may through the Government's White Paper and Bill, they can see nothing that will stop that. It would be an even better Bill if the new clause were accepted. I hope that the Government, bearing in mind the strong advocacy which we have recently heard and the cogent case that has been put forward, will accept it.
  11.15 pm
  It is fundamental to liberty that we should not force somebody to take on workers only where a closed shop agreement is in operation. It is unacceptable that contractors must agree to closed shops
  378
  before they can take on work. My hon. and learned Friend will probably sympathise with that view.
  I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford as a result of an intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). Circulars may go round in circles, but I believe that if a concept is enshrined in law it is far more effective. For that reason, I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
  Mr. Den Dover: I speak in support of the new clauses because I feel that unless we give a lead to employers we will find them agreeing with the unions—as is often the case—that, even though such clauses as these are not in contracts, informal agreements will be made between managements and unions that there will be 100 per cent. closed shops on sites.
  We must give a lead to the employers' organisations and make sure that a clause such as this is put into effect. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give an assurance that we will turn back the tide and make sure that there is freedom to join a union, or not to join one, on the construction sites of this country. Workers employed by contractors and sub-contractors do not enjoy that freedom at the moment. It is important that we work towards its establishment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Maybew): This has been an interesting—if a trifle one-sided—debate and some important points have been made by my hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) described what his new clauses seek to prevent as the practice of advancing the closed shop by means of creeping extension and by means of the back door. I subscribe to that view, though I am glad that he believes that the Bill is realistic in recognising that to outlaw the closed shop at present would be unlawful. On the most obvious libertarian grounds, I share his distaste for the closed shop and I believe that virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends think likewise.
  I am grateful that my hon. Friend believes that there are, nevertheless, important safeguards in the Bill to protect

  379
  the interests of those who are affected by closed shop agreements. He rightly points to the important provisions regarding the activities of SLADE and also to the provisions for an 80 per cent. "Yes" vote in a ballot before a closed shop agreement can be made. I believe that those are important safeguards for those who are affected by closed shops.
  My hon. Friend describes as an oversight in the Bill the omission of any prohibition to deal with what I think are different circumstances, namely, the inclusion of terms and conditions for subcontractors that require sub-contractors to employ union members only. The distinction, I believe, is one of scale.
  If a closed shop agreement is made with a trade union it means that all who work for the employer thereafter must belong to a specified union. The difference of scale in what we are discussing is that a sub-contractor who accedes to these conditions undertakes that at that site, or for the purpose of that contract alone, he will employ nobody who is not a member of a union. The scale, therefore, is limited to the ambit of the contract. To that extent, it is substantially different.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford suggested that there was a conflict between our policy on safeguards for closed shop agreements in the Bill and the implicit acceptance of the present law which permits the practice about which he complains. We see difficulties, particularly in the sphere of immunities, in acceding to the new clauses. We believe that there is considerable scope for voluntary action in restraint of these practices, but we cannot at the moment accept the argument that there is a case for amending the law, and I shall say why later.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) indicated that the Government can do a great deal to discourage what we are talking about by their influence in the public sector. I believe that to be right. I hope that the Government, through their various Departments, will act upon that advice. I see no reason why a Government who take the view that I have described about the closed shop as an institution should encourage it through these contractual provisions.
  380
  I recall the outline of the constituency case raised last summer by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). That was a case where no employee of a sub-contractor could go on to a site at all.
  I acknowledge that this is an offensive practice. The difficulty that we face is that we have on the stocks the Green Paper that is intended towards the end of the year to open up the whole question of immunities.
  If these new clauses were to be incorporated in the Bill, we should immediately come to the question of what sanction could be applied. These clauses are incorporated in contracts principally because trade unions have pressed the main employers to put them in, not always for reasons of recruitment, but sometimes for proper reasons connected with ensuring that their members work on construction sites only with others who are trained to do the job properly and who observe proper safety standards and so on. It is pressure by trade unions, for whatever reason, that has led to the clauses being incorporated.
  If, as the new clauses propose, we were to make them unlawful, we should have to consider the practical consequences. Would the legislation by itself be enough to cause trade unions to desist from the pressure that they have hitherto exerted? It is plain that the answer to that question must be "No". They would seek, by covert or perhaps by overt means, to ensure that the position remained unchanged.
  Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if this proposal were brought into law contractors would abide by that law? As there have not been any cases where the contracting industry as a whole has refused to accept the law, would that not deal with the problem?
  Mr. Mayhew: The clause says that the provisions shall be void. The effect is that they will not be enforceable. Let us suppose that contractors in the public sector will comply with the clause—I think that they will—but I believe that trade unions would seek to enforce the closed shop in this context. If we were to make the provisions effective, we would have to say that a union which took industrial action in support of that policy would be

  381
  deprived of its immunities. I can see the logic of that, but we should not take that decision until we have opened up the whole question of trade union immunities. We should not do it in advance of the Green Paper.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I cannot help feeling that my hon. and learned Friend is making a meal of this. The new clause is designed to outlaw the inclusion of particular statements in a contract put out to tender. The obligation is entirely on the employer—it has nothing to do with the trade unions—not to include these clauses. I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend addresses himself to the question whether it is seriously to be argued that employers, whether they are Labour-controlled local authorities or nationalised industries, would ignore or defy such a provision.
  Will my hon. and learned Friend clarify one point that he made earlier? He said that the Government would exert their influence to discourage that practice along the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). Are we to assume—and this has an important bearing on the conclusion that we shall draw from the clause—that the Government, as the sole shareholder in, for example, British Leyland or British Aerospace, will take action to ensure that such conditions as I have quoted no longer appear in the contracts put out by those corporations?
  Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend knows that that is not a question that I, with responsibilities in a junior capacity for the Department of Employment, can answer. It is a matter for the Departments concerned. I hope that Government Departments would seek to discourage the use of that practice for the reasons that my hon. Friend has indicated.
  I am not persuaded that legislation on the lines of new clauses 10 and 11 would be either effective or desirable. We should look first to voluntary action because the experience of making closed shop agreements void in the 1971 Act does not lead us to go headlong into making new legislation providing that a certain approach should be unlawful. Making an undesirable condition void does not necessarily get rid of the undesirable influence that it is intended to exert. I do not think that it would do so in this instance.
  382
  Proscribing discrimination in tendering arrangements, as in new clause 11, would not necessarily prevent the contractor concerned from being discriminated against later. It is often extremely difficult for a disappointed tenderer to prove, perhaps when confronted with a dissembling main employer with the real reason for his action, that the rejection of his tender was in breach of the new clauses. Conversely, someone whose tender had been properly rejected on commercial grounds might suppose, or more damagingly might contend, that discrimination was the true reason. One thing that we are earnestly called upon not to do by businesses throughout the country is to land them in unnecessary, time-consuming and expensive litigation, which the new clause might do.
  The new clause could increase pressure upon employers not to use contractors at all, and that would help no one, least of all the contractors and those who work for them. There is great scope in the first instance for voluntary action by the employers and their associations, perhaps with the Confederation of British Industry taking a lead. For our part, we intend that the code of practice on the institution and operation of closed shop agreements, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to issue pursuant to clause 2 of the Bill when it takes effect, shall give guidance in that area.
  There are great difficulties involved when we examine the sanction by which the policy of these new clauses could be implemented. As I indicated, the reason why they are proposed is largely because of trade union practice. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford is right in saying that in the public sector legislation making these conditions unlawful would be heeded by employers. But the clauses impose no sanction upon the employer for continuing to incorporate those conditions. Unless we remove the immunities of section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 there can be no sanction upon a trade union which insists that sub-contractors should send only its union members onto a site and takes industrial action to enforce that. There is no reference in either of the clauses to trades union immunities. The wider question of immunities must be

  383
  dealt with in the round and not piecemeal at this stage.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. John Townend: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that what he suggests will happen in many cases will not? When I was leader of the Humberside county council, we took over a situation where the Labour group had inserted these conditions in all contracts. We insisted on taking them out, because they were against our policy. We never had any future policy on those contracts. We just took the conditions out of the contract documents with no further trouble.
  Mr. Mayhew: That is satisfactory and devoutly to be desired. But what my hon. Friend has just said is encouraging in that it leads one to suppose that there is hope for the voluntary approach. What I am saying is that we understand why the new clauses have been tabled. We share the dislike for closed shop agreements being extended by these back door means, but we do not believe that it is likely to be effective, or that it would be desirable at present, to seek to achieve that end by means of changing the law. What will be the position following publication of the Green Paper remains to be seen.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting my hon. and learned Friend again, but I detect that he may be coming to the conclusion of his arguments. Before he concludes, I hope that he will deal with the question of what happens if the Bill remains as it is and the employer is obliged to frogmarch his employees into a union against their wishes, without the provision for a ballot, when one or more refuses to join and sues for unfair dismissal. What sort of defence has the employer in those circumstances?
  Mr. Mayhew: I intend to deal with that question. I understand the point which my hon. Friend makes. He says that there will not have been time to have gone through the 80 per cent. ballot procedures and, therefore, an employer will have no defence to a claim for unfair dismissal. But the position is not as simple as that. Unhappily, it is more complicated, like most things connected with this type of legislation.
  Before determining whether and how the Bill changes the legal position of con-
  384
  tractors and their employees, it is necessary to know the full facts of the situation. For example, when deciding which relevant sections of the 1978 Act, as amended by this Bill, apply, it will be important to know whether a contractor is party to a closed shop agreement himself or whether he applies another employer's closed shop agreement to his own employees.
  The new clauses do not directly affect the unfair dismissal provisions one way or the other, and some different amendment would be needed to meet the point. I have well in mind the anxieties of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, which has seen my right hon. Friend and has helpfully set out its own anxieties.
  I recognise that this is a practice which has increased, and that it is indulged in by public authorities, nationalised authorities and large private companies. The issues raised are complicated, and we believe that at present it is not right to change the law. I hope that I have indicated the sympathy with which the Government view these new clauses, and I hope that I have indicated why at present we believe that it would not meet the ends which I and my hon. Friends wish to serve by acceding to them.
  It is not a satisfactory situation that these practices continue on the present scale. There is scope for their restriction by voluntary means. I hope that I have been able to say enough to persuade my hon. Friend that at present it would be untimely to press the new clauses. If, unhappily, he decides that he must do so, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not see fit to support them.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I have been provoked by the Under-Secretary. I did not want to exacerbate his difficulties with his rebellious Back Benchers; the Government have had sufficient agony for one day. However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman challenges me, goads me and provokes me, I shall certainly speak. I had thought that hon. Members would have been anxious to get under the eiderdown.
  The hon. and learned Member talks about this being a one-sided debate. He could have fooled me. I thought that we had been listening to a very two-sided debate the whole day, with the two sides

  385
  or the argument being on the Tory side of the House. That is where the debate has been.
  There can be few spectacles more nauseating and absurd than to have lawyers condemning the closed shop. That is the limit. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) threw in a cheap sneer about the Labour Government deliberately encouraging the practices that have been referred to in the debate. That was absolute nonsense. He cannot produce a scrap of evidence to support his remark. I am astonished that an hon. and learned Member who earns a lucrative living outside this House by practising in the courts should be capable of making wild allegations without any supporting argument or evidence.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I think I am right in saying that none of the Conservative-controlled local authorities has a contract of this kind. It is only Labour-controlled authorities and nationalised industries, at least as to 90 per cent. of the cases. Incidentally, while I am on my feet, may I correct the record? I am in this House now and the Bar is almost a thing of the past.
  Mr. Walker: I accept what the hon. and learned Member says and hope that I have not unfairly misrepresented him.
  On the more substantial point, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the challenge I threw out, because he said that the practices to which he referred, and which have been complained about, were encouraged by the Labour Government. It is no answer to say that it is nationalised industries and Labour-controlled local authorities which impose these obligations on outside contractors. That does not answer the point. The hon. and learned Member has not produced a scrap of evidence to support his point that the Labour Government deliberately encouraged the practices complained of.
  I must point out to Tory Members that it is not only Labour-controlled authorities which are involved here. It is local authorities, public sector employers, nationalised industries and many private sectors employers. They have recognised lists of tenderers and for a whole variety of reasons they exclude from that list people who would wish to be on it. The reasons include the fact that such people do not satisfy one or other of the many
  386
  conditions and qualifications laid down. We have not heard criticism of any of those practices.
  Government Back Benchers have selected one qualification that is imposed by some authorities and decided to attack that. This is not a new practice at all. It has gone on for many years. It has gone on, with public sector employers very often because, probably, they want to be satisfied that the people to whom they are giving work are proper employers, offering decent terms and conditions of employment and are not employing sweated labour, or otherwise offending against the recognised terms and conditions of employment.
  I should be delighted to have a wider discussion, following our earlier debate, on the extent to which workers' organisations and workers as individuals should have the right to have recognised terms and conditions of employment applied to themselves. The anxiety that that should be the case has been expressed, not merely by my hon. Friends, not merely by the trade unions, but by employers' organisations too, which are anxious about unfair, undercutting practices which seek to derogate from recognised terms and conditions of employment.
  Mr. Marlow: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has got things the wrong way round. What people are concerned about is that the employing authority should employ people who do not work under the same restrictive practices as those under which they are working so that they will be working more efficiently and effectively and getting better wages. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of, because it will explode a lot of the humbug uttered by himself and his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Walker: That is an extraordinary argument. The idea that local authorities and public and private sector employers who impose the condition about which complaints have been made do so because they want to protect worse working practices rather than better working practices is the most ridiculous argument that I have heard advanced from the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. John Evans: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Conservative reactionaries that one of the major concerns of local authorities is to ensure that

  387
  no one who operates under lump labour conditions will work for the local authority? Will he make it clear to Conservative Members that people who operate under lump labour conditions are generally people who avoid their contributions to society in income tax and national insurance payments? That is why Labour-controlled authorities are determined not to employ people of that ilk.
  Mr. Walker: Of course. But the issue is wider than the particular group to which my hon. Friend refers. To attack the practice of local authorities and other employers insisting that those who submit tenders shall employ trade union labour is to attack the principle embodied in the fair wages resolution. Some Conservative Members—and to some degree this is reflected by the Government in their approach to schedule 11—would like to repeal the fair wages resolution, which has stood on the statute book for over 80 years. A public sector employer should set decent standards and should show a good example in employment practices by using employers who observe recognised terms and conditions.
  Mr. John Townend: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many firms that do not operate a closed shop employ union labour and pay top rates—sometimes even above those of firms which operate a closed shop?
  Mr. Walker: Of course I accept that. I am merely saying that the employing authority wants to be satisfied that decent terms and conditions of employment are observed when it places its contracts. One way of doing that is to require those firms with which it places contracts to employ trade union labour. That is not an unreasonable safeguard. If there is an alternative safeguard, we should be prepared to examine it, but no alternative has been proposed and no concern or interest has been shown by Conservative Members to ensure that workers have decent terms and conditions of employment. While the principle objects of the attack have been Labour-controlled local authorities and public sector employers, the new clause would apply to all employers, including private employers.
  I can give many examples. The Minister referred to SLADE. SLADE insists
  388
  on putting a stamp on its work. That work will not be processed unless it includes a stamp. In Committee I recalled that my father worked in the felt hat manufacturing industry in Denton, Lancashire. In those days Denton was wholly dependent on the felt hat manufacturing industry. Hat manufacturers have not been criticised in the House. They have not indulged in militant action because they are reasonable and moderate. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is present because he will know of the town of Denton and its former dependence on hat manufacturing.
  My father was a hat manufacturer. In those days one could not obtain a job in Denton unless one wore a felt hat. One would not be served in a shop unless one wore a felt hat. Every employer in Denton, whether or not he was connected with the hat manufacturing industry, displayed a large plate at the entrance to his premises saying that no one would be admitted unless he wore a felt hat. Every felt hat manufacturer in Denton displayed a sticker. I hope that some Conservative Members who wear felt hats will look at the hat band when they next buy a felt hat. If it has been made in Denton there will be a sticker saying that the hat has been made by trade union labour.
  In those days the felt hat manufacturing workers tried to encourage everyone who wore a felt hat to buy only a hat that bore the little stamp inside it. A retailer would find that he could not sell hats if they did not have that stamp. He would say to the manufacturer who employed non-union labour and could not affix the sticker "I am sorry but I cannot sell your hats. I do not want to place a further order." If the clause had been enacted at that time, he would have committed an offence. He would have been exposed to legal action. That is the nonsense that the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is seeking to propagate with his daft new clauses.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he opposes the clause because he feels that public authorities and local authorities should have some assurance from the employing subcontractor that his employee is being paid proper wages. Will he tell the sub-contractor in my constituency, who is utterly

  389
  dependent upon the British Steel Corporation, what will happen to his employee if his, the right hon. Gentleman's, argument holds water? The result will be that the sub-contractor will be unable to tender and the employee of the subcontractor will be without a job.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the way in which I am presenting the argument. I do not pretend to be especially articulate or clear-minded, at this time of night. I may be misleading the hon. Gentleman. In advancing my view, I was explaining why the practices of local authorities, other public sector employers and some private sector employers have existed and developed.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I find it equally difficult to explain to the electrical wholesaler in my constituency, who is a member of the Conservative Party but despite that a friend of mine, why British Rail refuses to allow him to tender for the supply of electrical equipment. He does not employ non-union labour. That has nothing to do with it. It is because British Rail has a list containing the names of those from whom it invites and accepts tenders. It is a limited list. Try as he might, my friend cannot get on the list. He cannot discover why he cannot get on it.
  That does not apply only to British Rail. It applies to Conservative-controlled and Labour-controlled local authorities and a range of large private sector organisations. They have lists of those from whom they will invite tenders. If a person is not on the list, he does not stand a cat in hell's chance of being able to submit a tender. There are those who feel that they can submit competitive tenders to private sector companies. However, they cannot get on the lists. They are not told why and they cannot understand why.
  Why should Conservative Back Benchers select one qualification for attack and not all the others? It would be more helpful if the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) would dig into the reasons why an employer is refused leave to submit a tender to a private sector organisation, the acceptance of which could lead to additional employment It is daft to select one qualification in isolation.
  390
  I said that I had not intended to intervene. However, I have been lured into making what I fear is an over-long speech late at night. I apologise to the House for letting that happen. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not provoke us into getting involved in private family squabbles within the Tory Party. If he wants us to do so, I shall be happy to oblige, as on this occasion, on any other occasion before the night is out.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The debate has been widened. I am pleased to note that the Labour Party is alive and kicking—kicking anyway. Some of us were beginning to think it had finally vanished from view. I had no idea that we should get on to the intricacies of felt hats, and I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) down that line.
  The point that the right hon. Gentleman has missed is that one of the purposes of the Bill, one which I think all my hon. and right hon. Friends strongly support, is to ensure that we do not witness extensions of the closed shop against the wishes of those who are coralled into it. It is to deal with that aspect of the issue that the new clauses were tabled.
  I listened with great care to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State's reply. He was, as always, temperate and persuasive, but I regret to have to tell him that I am not wholly convinced. The objection he seemed to advance was a "Catch 22" objection. He said that these clauses raised the problem of immunities, and he wanted to deal with the whole issue of immunities in a Green Paper; so, he said, it was not appropriate to widen the whole question of immunities at this point. He went on to say that the trouble with the new clauses was that they made no provision for altering the immunities; they simply outlawed the inclusion of this wording in contracts. It is the second point which is decisive and the foundation of the desirability of the clauses.
  I can see that if we were to introduce at this stage new clauses which further raised the whole issue of trade union immunities, substantial additional problems would arise, but these clauses simply say that this type of wording in a contract shall be void and unlawful. The

  391
  onus is on the tenderer to desist from the inclusion of these offensive words in the contracts he advances. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) pointed out that this has been done following a change in control of the local authority, and it went through perfectly smoothly without any trouble.
  I am grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said about the way in which he and my right hon. Friends would exercise
  their influence to dissuade local authorities and nationalised industries from persisting in this practice, but on balance I think it would be better if we had this provision on the statute book. I therefore feel that I must press the clause, because the Bill would be better for its inclusion.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 217.

  Division No. 261]

  AYES

  [11.52 pm

  Alton, David

  Gorst, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Budgen, Nick

  Penhaligon, David

  Butcher, John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mr. Den Dover and

  Churchill, W. S.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Major, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Marland, Paul

  Alison, Michael

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Ancram, Michael

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mellor, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Gow, Ian

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Best, Keith

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Blackburn, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Blaker, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Hector

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Moore, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Bright, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hastings, Stephen

  Murphy, Christopher

  Brittan, Leon

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Myles, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neale, Gerrard

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Henderson, Barry

  Needham, Richard

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Neubert, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Hooson, Tom

  Newton, Tony

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hordern, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Channon, Paul

  Kurd, Hon Douglas

  Parris, Matthew

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Parry, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Cope, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Corrie, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Pawsey, James

  Costain, A. P.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollock, Alexander

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawson, Nigel

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lee, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Dunlop, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Raison, Timothy

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luce, Richard

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Eggar, Timothy

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Elliott, Sir William

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Renton, Tim

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacGregor, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Madel, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wakeham, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stokes, John

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rossi, Hugh

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watson, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Shersby, Michael

  Thompson, Donald

  Wheeler, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Speed, Keith

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speller Tony

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spence, John

  Trippier, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  TELLERS TOR THE NOES:

  Squire, Robin

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Stanley, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Stevens, Martin

  Waddington, David

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF SECRET BALLOTS
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert—
  '(b) carrying out an election provided for by the rules of a trade union;
  (c) electing a worker who is a member of a trade union to be a representative of other members also employed by his employer; '.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 21.
  Mr. Mayhew: The effect of these amendments is to enable elections to any position within a union, whether to a post such as shop steward or full-time officer, or to membership of any committee of a union—including the annual conference—to qualify for inclusion in the scheme to which clause I relates, by negative rather than affirmative resolution.
  The purpose of amendment No. 21 is to define the words "worker" and "employer", which are not defined in clause 1, in terms of the 1974 Act. When clause 1 was debated in Committee on 29 January, there was a good deal of discussion about elections to the committee of management of a trade union, and to posts held by individuals as employees of trade unions. It was said that the expression "committee of management" would give rise to difficulties, that not a single trade union uses that phrase in its rules, and that those who value the policy of a trade union should be treated as generously as its management.
  394
  Members of the Committee also said that the holders of some important union posts, such as that of president of the Transport and General Workers' Union, were not employees of a trade union and that elections to these posts would not qualify under the scheme. It was said that the ballot for shop stewards and conveners—arguably the most important ballot—would not be covered.
  I told the Committee that this was a brand new exercise, under the provisions of clause 1. It was an untried exercise, and we thought it best to start in a modest and limited way. However, we accept, as I told the Committee, that the scheme should be enlarged to take account of union officials, union office holders and members of a union policymaking committee. I said that we wished to consider how that could best be expressed.
  The purpose of the amendments is to give effect to that. I said that we could not give an assurance that the scheme would cover all the contents of these clauses in the first instance. Members of the Committee have already seen our first proposals for the ballot scheme, which we have sent also for comment to the TUC, the CBI, the certification officer and others with relevant knowledge and expertise.
  I have already said that we intend to make a relatively cautious start. We do not think it right to include from the outset elections to a union policy-making body, which usually meets once a year. We propose to confine the scheme to elections to the body that has the permanent executive responsibility of managing the affairs of a trade union, by whatever name it may be known. In the elections to union office we felt able to

  395
  go further than we had originally intended. We propose to cover from the outset elections to the positions of president, chairman, secretary and treasurer of a trade union, reardless of whether the officers are its employees.
  Although we have not felt able to go initially as far as the Opposition pressed us to do, the amendments will enable us to cover types of elections in the scheme, for example, shop stewards' elections and those to the policy-making committee of a trade union by order, subject to the negative resolution, of this House. My right hon. Friend earlier said that the Government attach great importance to the provisions of Clause 1, which provide for the reimbursement to a trade union of the cost of secret ballots held for the purposes set out in subsection (3). These amendments follow upon the undertakings and indications that I gave in Committee, and will make valuable additions to the ambit of the clause. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 21, in page 2, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert—
  "(8) Expressions used in this section and in the 1974 Act have the same meanings in this section as in that Act".—[Mr. Mayhew]

Clause 2

  ISSUE BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF CODES OF PRACTICE
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 3, leave out lines 29 to 39.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 92, in page 3, line 32, leave out from "section" to "he" in line 34.
  Mr. Walker: Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to make codes of practice, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I have no objection to codes of practice in industrial relations. Indeed, specific provision was made for them in the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Industrial Relations Act 1971. We never quarrelled with the provision then, and we do not quarrel with it now.
  The question that concerns us more specifically is who should make the codes
  396
  of practice. Consistent with the philosophy that underlies the creation of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, we have repeatedly said that rather than the Government interfering in the day-today management of industrial relations, which has become overdeveloped in recent years, they should withdraw from the scene and leave it to those directly involved and with experience—those in the ACAS council and the interests they represent, and the staff of ACAS. We thought it right that codes of practice, subject to the approval of Parliament, should be drafted and submitted to the House by those directly involved in ACAS. In addition, this clause proposes that the Secretary of State should be empowered to make codes of practice. Frankly, we think that it is daft to have both the Government and ACAS making codes of practice. Our amendment also tilts at the even dafter provision which enables the Secretary of State to override an existing ACAS code. We have been over this ground in Standing Committee and we thought it sufficiently important to argue it again on the Floor of the House.
  The provision is daft in several ways. First, ACAS has given invaluable service to industrial relations since it was created in 1975. It must be feeling rather demoralised now by a series of events that have weakened its status, role and prestige. This is yet another step along that road.
  Secondly, we thought it right that codes of practice should be produced by ACAS, because it is representative, in its council, of both sides of industry and commerce. For that reason, industry and commerce will feel a sense of commitment towards any decisions or proposals that emerge from that body. In taking over that part of ACAS's role, the Secretary of State will remove the sense of commitment.
  Further, we believe that ACAS should draw up the codes of practice because it is the body with expertise and experience in industrial relations. Its staff are better equipped and more authoritative to produce practical, feasible codes of practice. What resources would be available to the Secretary of State? The overwhelming majority of skilled people in this area in his Department have transferred to ACAS and are not now available, because of

  397
  the statutory independence of ACAS, to guide and advise the Secretary of State.
  For these reasons, we believe it is right that ACAS should produce the codes of practice, and that it is wrong for the Secretary of State to be given the power embodied in subsection (7) of clause 2 to override the ACAS codes of practice. That is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in ACAS in respect of its duties relating to production of a code of practice.
  We sought in Standing Committee to require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of ACAS. That is an area on which he might have reflected. I hope that he can inform the House that he has seen the good sense of our proposal. We do not like the idea of the Secretary of State having power to produce codes of practice, but that is not the issue before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has the power under the clause, but we hope that it will be exercised only after ACAS has agreed in discussion that the Secretary of State had seen some point that the service had overlooked.
  ACAS might accept that there was some action that the right hon. Gentleman could take that it was unable to carry out. It might agree, although still wishing to express views, that the Government needed to act for political reasons, perhaps because they were committed by their manifesto. That would provide some consolation. As matters stand, the Bill is a retrograde step. It weakens the status of ACAS and conflicts with our view of the manner in which codes of practice should be produced. We do not quarrel with the use of codes of practice in industrial relations. They are more likely to be beneficial than anything written into a statute.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he has reflected on the matter and that he is prepared to give the House some assurances.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Mayhew: There are two reasons why the Government believe that it would be wrong for these amendments to be accepted. Both amendments place what we regard as unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. These restrictions are not placed upon ACAS. There could result conflict-
  398
  ing advice in different codes, continuing to exist concurrently with the result that employers, unions and tribunals would be confused.
  Amendment No. 91 makes nonsense of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 2(6) to revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued by him. Nothing in the proposals in the Bill is intended to imply any lack of support or lack of confidence in ACAS. I echo and endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about the contribution of the service to industrial relations since its formation. On the other hand, there are areas in which it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice. We propose, for example, that he shall issue codes of practice, after consultation, in relation to the closed shop and in relation to picketing. It is because matters of public policy, as distinct from industrial relations questions, will be involved that it may not be appropriate for ACAS to issue them.
  ACAS has a parallel power under schedule 1, paragraph 4, of the Bill to override or supersede, in a code that it produces, the provisions of a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State. The power to supersede a code issued by ACAS that the Bill confers upon the Secretary of State is only the mirror image of that conferred by schedule 1 on ACAS itself. I hope that this illustrates the good faith in this context of the Government.
  The Secretary of State is given power by clause 2(6) to revise his codes issued under this clause. This power is given in recognition that industrial relations circumstances are likely to change, for example, because of technological or other developments. However, this power is void if a revised code cannot supersede a previous code. It is important that amendment No. 92 should be resisted. Although he has no current plans, it may be necessary, where circumstances have changed, for the Secretary of State to issue a code that will supersede in whole, or in part, an ACAS code if ACAS is unable or unwilling because of timing, expediency or for any other reason to issue a revised code. There is no suggestion that the Secretary of State will use his power automatically to supersede ACAS codes. It is important that he is required by

  399
  clause 2 to consult ACAS both when he issues a code and when he revises it. It is important to remember that in general the Government will be happy for ACAS to fulfil the main code-making role and that they do not intend to produce new or revised codes unless they are convinced that that is necessary and that it cannot be done by ACAS.
  The fears prove to be without foundation. The Secretary of State should not have to obtain the consent of ACAS before issuing or revising a code. That would be inappropriate. The ultimate responsibility must be with the Secretary of State. We believe that there are no grounds for anxieties. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

  UNREASONABLE EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION FROM TRADE UNION
  Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 4, line 38, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 5 and 7.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I should hate the House to be left with the impression that because we are not, at this hour, dividing the House we acquiesce in the retrograde changes in the Bill. We thought that the original provision was bad enough. The amendment makes it worse. A worker appealing against unfair dismissal by his employer has three months in which to make his application but a worker complaining against his trade union has twice as long. Because we are not dividing the House, it does not mean that we accept the proposition.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 5, in page 4, line 42, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
  Mr. Leighton: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 5, leave out lines 12 to 15.
  The lines which the amendment proposes to leave out read:
  400
  "if under the rules of a trade union any person ceases to be a member of the union on the happening of an event specified in the rules, he shall be treated as having been expelled from the union."
  I wonder what "an event" is. It is difficult to envisage anything other than that a member should fall behind with his dues. Normally, if a member does that he is lapsed, not expelled. In my union, if a member does not pay his contributions for 13 weeks his membership is lapsed. Are we to assume that such a person will be regarded as if he has been expelled? That would be odd. The officials involved have no secretarial assistance. If a member does not pay his contributions after a given number of weeks a line is struck through his name and he is crossed off the list of members.
  It is difficult to think of any other "event". Perhaps a member could resign. Would he be deemed to have been expelled? Each union has its rules. The officials and members are governed by the rules.
  In another clause of the Bill there is provision for public funds to ballot members on rules and changes in rules. Would it not be ironic if, after having given public money to change or agree the rules, Parliament should then interfere and seek to override the rules?
  We raised these matters in Committee and the Under-Secretary said:
  "I am impressed by the arguments "—
  I do not know whether he is impressed by the arguments now—
  "that have been put forward, and I think that there are difficulties which perhaps need further examination in regard to amendment No. 35."
  That amendment was similar to the one we are now discussing.
  Later the Under-Secretary said:
  "May I say, Mr. Goodhew, so that there be no misunderstanding, that I cannot give any commitment but I give a sincere undertaking to consider the arguments and review the drafting of the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 February 1980; c.c. 498–99.]
  Having been given that commitment, we have examined the clause and found that there has been no redrafting. We would like to hear why there has been no redrafting by the Government.
  Mr. Mayhew: The amendment deletes a provision in the Bill which deals with

  401
  the automatic cessation of union membership under circumstances specified in the union's rules—for example, the lapsing of membership for non-payment of dues.
  The Bill specifies that in such a case the member shall be treated as having been expelled. But it is important to remember that the clause prefaces that with the words
  "for the purposes of this section."
  One of the points that impressed me when it was made in Committee was that it was unfair that something that should have been perfectly innocent should give rise to an automatic expulsion. It is only for the purposes of this section that that is said by the Bill to occur. That is an important matter.
  The effect of the amendment is such that a case such as that would not necessarily be treated as one of expulsion and is unlikely to be so treated where the rules provide for automatic lapsing of membership. This matter is technical and I am aware of the time. I will, therefore, deal with the matter as quickly as I can.
  Different unions have differing rules as to how virtually the same event is to be regarded under the rules. For example, one union may provide for automatic lapsing of membership if subscriptions are a certain period in arrears, while another union's rules may provide that the member is liable in exactly the same circumstances to expulsion.
  It would be anomalous if in the former case there was no jurisdiction for a tribunal to deal with an aggrieved person who thought that he had an explanation for his arrears and should not have been treated as no longer a member but that in the latter case he would complain of unreasonable expulsion. We are dealing with clause 3, which relates to a claim against the union for unreasonable expulsion.
  It is possible, if the amendment were carried, that a union whose rules provided for automatic lapsing upon non-payment of dues could take advantage of a mistake of its own to effect the exclusion of a member whom those in charge aid not like without running the risk of a
  402
  complaint of unreasonable expulsion under the clause.
  That could occur where, perhaps through a mistake in the check off, or a positive decision of the union not to accept subscriptions, specified arrears accrued. It may be possible for the union to treat someone whom it wanted expelled as having lapsed. Rules may be so worded that a tribunal would then be bound to hold that such a person had not been expelled and that the tribunal itself had no jurisdiction to hear the claim for compensation for unreasonable expulsion.
  There is a risk that if, by deleting clause 3 (9)(b) it became clear that a member's membership could be terminated without expulsion, and without creating jurisdiction under this clause, the unions could amend their rules to expand the circumstances in which there was deemed to be automatic cessation of membership. That would defeat the object of the clause to which the Government attach considerable importance, because they see in it a means of substantially nullifying the sting of the closed shop. It must be remembered that, under the clause, such lapsing gives rise only to jurisdiction. The clause does not suggest that a union will have been unreasonable in the case of a former member who has deliberately refused to pay his union dues. It goes only to the question of jurisdiction.
  It is with that in mind, and in particular having in mind the words that I have repeated from subsection (9)—
  "For the purpose of this section "—
  that, on reflection—and we have given it very careful reflection—we believe that the clause should remain as drafted.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Leighton: I am sorry to hear what the Minister has said. He may have examples of which I have not heard, but I have not heard of a union, where a member has been willing to pay his union contributions, refusing to accept them and has sought to expel him. It seems a far-fetched example. There may be such cases. I do not know whether the Minister can instance some.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 4

  COMPENSATION
  Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 29, leave out from 'declared' to 'to' in line 31.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 5, leave out lines 34 to 39 and insert—
  '(2) An application under this section shall be to an industrial tribunal'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments:
  No. 99, in page 5, line 37, leave out from 'tribunal' to end of line 39.
  No. 101, in page 5, line 40, leave out 'or the Employment Appeal Tribunal'.
  No. 102, in page 6, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert
  'shall be such as the tribunal considers appropriate compensation for the loss sustained by the applicant'.
  No. 103, in page 6, line 13, leave out 'or the Employment Appeal Tribunal'.
  No. 104, in page 6, leave out lines 35 to 46.
  Mr. Walker: The principal purpose of this batch of amendments is to fill out from the procedures provided for in clause 4 the role of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I shall stick to this one point in view of the hour.
  Amongst other things, the clause gives the Employment Appeal Tribunal a function which is other than appellate and makes it a court of first instance. We think that is wrong. It perverts the whole purpose of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. We fear that, having departed from its appellate function—at least in this matter—there will be no end to the primary jurisdictions which may subsequently be conferred on the tribunal.
  As I said, in view of the hour, I shall not develop the argument at length. This is a matter about which we expressed concern in Committee and we thought it right to express it again on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Mayhew: The arguments for and against this proposal were fully debated in Committee. I propose to follow the example set by the right hon. Member for
  404
  Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and to try, in a sentence or two, to say why the Employment Appeal Tribunal should have the jurisdiction of deciding at first instance what the compensation should be.
  The tribunal's jurisdiction arises only if a complaint has been made to the industrial tribunal that somebody has been wrongfully expelled or excluded from a union and the industrial tribunal makes a declaration "Aye" or "Nay". If it holds that there has been a wrongful expulsion and makes a declaration accordingly, there is then time for the union to act upon that declaration and, if so minded, to reinstate the former member. But, if it does not, the proposal is that there shall be a claim for compensation for the loss that has been sustained as a result of being excluded and the loss that is likely to be sustained in future if that exclusion or expulsion is continued. It is a difficult jurisdiction. We feel that it is one that is not likely to arise in many instances, but, when it does arise, it will be important. Because the Employment Appeal Tribunal is staffed by people with plenty of industrial experience, but presided over by a High Court judge of great distinction, Sir Gordon Slynn, its reputation stands extremely high in trades union and other circles, and we felt it right that it should exercise this much more difficult and delicate jurisdiction. At one time we thought that it should be exercised by the High Court, but on reflection, and after consultation, we felt it right that the industrial expertise of the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be used in these circumstances. Therefore, we think that, albeit exceptionally—though not wholly exceptionally because it has a similar jurisdiction in one or two specialised areas elsewhere—it is right that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should exercise that jurisdiction. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say more than that.
  Mr. Harold Walker: May I press the Minister on a point that we raised in Committee but to which I do not recall him responding? The clause provides for divided jurisdiction, where the industrial tribunals will take a certain area and the Employment Appeal Tribunal will take the other area. While there can be an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against an industrial tribunal decision, it appears that there is no provision for an appeal against an Employment

  405
  Appeal Tribunal decision in respect of its primary jurisdiction responsibilities.
  Mr. Mayhew: An appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in respect of its primary jurisdiction responsibilities would be to the Court of Appeal, but it would be only on a point of law and not on fact.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 7, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 6, line 25, leave out from 'exceed' to 'an' in line 32.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 38, in page 6, line 32, leave out 'for the time being'.
  No. 40, in page 6, line 33, after '75', insert '(1)'.
  No. 39, in page 6, line 34, at end insert—
  '(c) in subsection (2) of section 75 of the 1978 Act shall have no application to this section in determining the limits imposed by (b) above.'.
  No. 42, in page 6, line 37, leave out from 'exceed' to end of line 46 and insert
  'the amount referred to in subsection (7) above.'.
  Mr. Walker: I do not intend to detain the House, but this is a matter about which we have continuing concern. While we object to the whole principle embodied in the clause, a matter of special concern is the high level of compensation. We fear that that will induce some individuals, for what may be understandable reasons, to chance their arm and behave in an unreasonable manner calculated to get them expelled from their union in the hope that they could subsequently apply to the industrial tribunal or to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a bid for compensation, which may be generous according to their length of service and the circumstances in which they were expelled. We are talking of sums which run into tens of thousands of pounds.
  406
  I shall not go over the examples that were given in Committee. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) described vividly how a person approaching retirement could see an opportunity to gain an amount of money that would launch him into a more easy retirement than might otherwise have been the case, if he could create the circumstances in which he provoked his trade union into behaving in a manner that would subsequently give him grounds on which to go to a tribunal and claim the substantial amounts of money that would be available under the clause. That would be harmful to industrial relations. It is one of the features of the Bill that will be detrimental to good industrial relations, and which should be opposed.
  Mr. John Evans: I wish to intervene only briefly. It is essential to put on record what my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has said about those individuals who will seek to take the trade unions for a ride. At this stage, it is essential that the Opposition make it perfectly clear that what the Government are doing, if they are not prepared to accept the amendment, is to create a situation whereby every free-rider in industry will be seeking to make a lot of money out of the trade union movement.
  I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will quote figures to show that in past instances only small amounts of money have been involved. But, in answer to a question from one of his hon. Friends at Question Time today, the Minister made it perfectly clear that we could possibly be talking about sums of £14,000 or £15,000. It is figures such as those to which the characters who operate within British industry will be looking.
  Conservative Members should appreciate that certain individuals in British society are nowadays known as "bounty hunters". Such individuals look for firms in which redundancies will be declared in the not too distant future in order to latch on. Of course, such people are not concerned with the State redundancy scheme, but rather with the additional benefits which the trade union movement negotiates on behalf of the workers who are declared redundant.

  407
  I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are some very astute characters knocking around industry at present. They will read this clause with some interest, and will recognise that substantial sums of money are potentially involved. It is essential that Conservative Members do not assume that everyone who declares that he has a longstanding, deeply-held personal conviction not to belong to a trade union is interested only in being a non-trade unionist. Such people will be interested in this clause. In the next two or three years, it will be fascinating to read some of the amazing arguments which will be presented to industrial tribunals by individuals who have suddenly travelled various roads to Damascus in order to persuade those tribunals that they have had an amazing conversion and suddenly, because of some deeply-held personal conviction, they do not want to belong to a trade union.
  I only seek to put on the record the fact that the Government are giving the go-ahead to every outrageous character in industry, who will try to establish his right to what could potentially be massive compensation, simply because he has no feelings one way or the other for the trade union movement. He will simply seek to make a lot of money as a result of this clause in the Bill.
  I wonder whether that is what the Government are seeking to achieve. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that that will not improve industrial relations or the feelings of genuine trade unionists, even if they are not activists. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will come to regret the insertion of this subsection in this clause.
  Mr. Mayhew: This clause has nothing to do with "deeply-held personal conviction". That relates to the conscience clause, which has nothing to do with this clause. This clause is connected with compensation for unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. The effect of the amendment is to reduce to a maximum of £5,200 the compensation which can be awarded in that event.
  The Bill sets as the maximum for compensation to be awarded for unreasonable exclusion or expulsion the same maximum
  408
  which can be awarded for unfair dismissal by an employer. Indeed, if there are grounds for any criticism, they are that the figure ought to be higher. If one is sacked from one's job by an employer, one can go and get a job somewhere else. If a person is sacked from his union and his industry is organised in a closed shop, he may very well be deprived of the ability to earn a living in the only trade he knows. That is why, I suspect, there are grounds for criticising us for not pitching the maximum high enough.
  12.45 am
  Everything that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) has said might have been argued in defence of employers. It might have been said that the bounty hunters would go round trying to exploit the jurisdiction to get compensation for unfair dismissal from an employer, when the provisions were first introduced in 1971. I never heard that type of argument being advanced from the Labour Benches. The tribunals are well able to spot a useless case. We hope, before long, by changes in their administrative procedures, to enable them to filter out the really useless case before it gets off the ground.
  What we are proposing to do is to say "Very well, if you consider that you have been unreasonably expelled from a union and suffered loss in consequence, you may go to the tribunals—first the industrial tribunal and then the employment appeal tribunal—and claim compensation from the union." We do not think that it could be right, when the maximum for unfair dismissal by an employer is £16,000, to say that the maximum under the terms of this amendent shall be only £5,200, if it is established that a person has been unreasonably expelled from his union.
  As I said at Question Time today, it is rare for a claim to reach anything like the maximum. The median compensation award for unfair dismissal is about £375. There may well be circumstances in which someone is expelled from a union and is able to show that he will suffer considerable ongoing loss of earnings. Such cases will be rare, but they should be catered for. That is why we feel entirely confident in advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Once again the hon. and learned Gentleman has trailed this issue of pending changes in the

  409
  administrative procedures of the tribunal across the debate. That is wholly irrelevant to the many matters under the Bill which will be dealt with by the industrial tribunals. We are entitled to know what changes the Government propose to introduce and when, and when we shall have an opportunity to debate them, so that the House can make up its mind on these pending changes. We are entitled to more than these coy hints that the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps dropping. I hope that he will give us more information about this matter before we leave the subject.
  Mr. Mayhew: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the right hon. Gentleman. We said in the working papers published last summer that we wished to make changes in the administrative procedures of the industrial tribunals so that, for example, costs could be more readily awarded against an unsuccessful claimant where it was unreasonable that the claim should have been brought. We also believe that there should be a procedure whereby the tribunals can seek to filter out the claim that appears to have little chance of success. Of course, the claimant should have every opportunity to make himself heard. Such changes should be made to cut down the number of cases brought for unfair dismissal which have virtually no chance of success but which take up a great deal of time and money and cause a great deal of administrative inconvenience. That is very much in the interests, in this case, of a trade union in the parallel jurisdiction with which these two clauses are concerned. That was the relevance of introducing it, albeit at a late hour—
  Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. and learned Member accept that there is a difference here in that a frivolous trade union claimant will not be supported by trade union officials? I can assure the Minister that that is the position. Fulltime union officials are too busy to advise claimants with bad cases to approach the tribunal. That still leaves such claimants free to approach the tribunal themselves. When a person is seeking to prove unfair dismissal by a trade union he will undoubtedly be assisted by Right-wing lawyers looking for easy pickings from the trade unions.
  Mr. Mayhew: That goes to the root of the policy of the two clauses. The Government believe that it is right that a person should be able to claim for compensation if he has been wrongfully expelled from his union. If a person working in a firm where a closed shop is operated—clauses 3 and 4 relate only to closed shops—loses his union card, he loses his ability to work. Everything that was said by the hon. Member for Newton goes to the root of the policy of the clauses. I understand why he is opposed to the clauses, but I disagree with him. I should have thought that it would be in the interests of the trade union to have a mechanism to filter out the bounty hunter or the bum case that he has in mind. If he would prefer that it did not apply to trade unions, no doubt that could be arranged.
  Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that if an individual is expelled from a trade union for whatever reason he has a right under common law to appeal against the decision of the trade union in the courts? There are a number of cases on record where individuals have appealed to have their union cards restored on the grounds of natural justice, and the courts have made awards in their favour. But the Government are setting up new legislation that will allow the individual who regards himself is wrongly dismissed to ignore the courts and the claims of natural justice because he will be interested in the compensation arguments that have been propounded in the clause. Is not that what the bounty hunters are seeking?
  Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is saying that at present the courts have jurisdiction in at least two circumstances if a person is expelled from a union. They have jurisdiction if he has not been given an opportunity to hear the complaint against him, or if he has not been given an opportunity to explain his story—that is, where the rules of natural justice have not been complied with. They also have jurisdiction if the expulsion from the union has taken place not in compliance with the rules of the union. But that does not wholly meet the justice of the circumstances.
  There are also circumstances in which a union complies with the rules of natural justice and with its own rules but none the less considers that a person should be

  411
  expelled—in circumstances that are unreasonable. I agree that the tribunal will have to decide what is unreasonable. We propose that there shall be a code of practice in respect of the closed shop—as has been made clear many times—which will seek to give guidance in those circumstances, and which will be of value to all concerned. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with this separate jurisdiction, which will award compensation for unreasonable, as distinct from unlawful, expulsion from a trade union.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 7, line 2, after 'law', insert 'or fact'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in page 10, line 43, clause 9, at end insert—
  '(4) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on any question of law or fact arising from any decision of, or arising in any proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this section.'.
  Mr. Walker: The amendment arises from clause 4, but we cannot ignore the way in which that clause hangs on clause 3 and follows from it. I shall quickly remind the House that clause 3 gives a person who feels that he has been unfairly or unreasonably excluded or expelled from a trade union the right to go to a tribunal for a determination to be made. If he is successful, he can ask the Employment Appeal Tribunal to make a compensation award.
  If on that person's application to the tribunal under clause 3 he fails, he can appeal. Clause 3(8) provides that
  "An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on any question of law or fact arising from any decision of, or arising in any proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this section."
  It seems clear that almost invariably the appellant will be an applicant who has failed following a decision of the tribunal in favour of the union.
  I direct the attention of the House to the parallel provision in clause 4 for an appeal against the determination of the amount of compensation that has been awarded. Subsection (9) states that
  "An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law "—
  412
  and only on a question of law—
  "arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this section."
  As I suggested that it would be almost inevitable that it would be the person appealing against the trade union under clause 3, equally inevitably it would be a union that would be appealing against a decision under clause 4. However, we find that for some odd, inexplicable and clearly inequitable reason we have appeals under clause 3 being determined on questions of law or fact while under clause 4 the grounds of appeal are substantially narrowed by excluding appeals on questions of fact. That seems inexplicable and unfair. The appeals should be on all fours under both clauses, which hang together.
  1 am
  Amendment No. 71 seeks to remedy an omission in clause 9 in so far as no right of appeal arises out of its provisions. Where a person or trade union has successfully applied to a tribunal and is awarded compensation, the employer may require the person or trade union to be joined in the proceedings so that that person or trade union may have to pay part of or all the compensation that is awarded. There is no provision for a person or trade union—or the employer for that matter—who feels that the tribunal has wrongly directed itself to have a right of appeal. We believe that a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law or fact should be set down in the statute.
  Unless the Government can explain to the satisfaction of the House why no such right of appeal is written into the Bill, they should either accept amendment No. 71 in toto or alternatively tell us what they propose to provide by way of a right of appeal.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be an appeal against a finding of fact. Will he concede that that would be an almost unique provision in English law and that as a general principle there is no appeal against a finding of fact in any court?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to what I said or read the Bill. As I said, clause 3

  413
  provides for an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on grounds of law or fact. Under clause 3 there is an appeal by an individual against a decision in favour of the trade union on grounds of law or fact. Under clause 4 the appeal will almost invariably be by a trade union and it will be an appeal only on grounds of law. I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has now woken up sufficiently to read that part of the Bill.
  If it is sensible to make that provision in clause 3, it is equally sensible to make it in clause 4 and clause 9. We are suggesting that the Government should put clauses 3, 4 and 9 on all fours.
  Mr. Mayhew: Clauses 3 and 4 run together, and a person can appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal if the industrial tribunal has made a declaration that he has been unreasonably expelled or excluded from his union. I do not know why the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) says that it will almost always be an applicant who has failed before the industrial tribunal who will wish to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
  What we are talking about first is someone who has either got his declaration or has failed to get a declaration, or has had a declaration made against him as a trade union of unreasonable expulsion.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that it is unusual for there to be jurisdiction for appeals on questions of fact, but he will know that one can appeal on questions of fact from the magistrates' court to the Crown court and always could do so from the magistrates court to quarter sessions. It is not unique.
  There is a difficult and new jurisdiction in the question whether someone has been unreasonably excluded or expelled from a union and we feel that the industrial tribunal is the right body, because of its tripartite structure and its industrial expertise, to deal with that. However, because of the difficulty, delicacy and importance of the issue, there ought to be an appeal on questions of fact, as well as on points of law, to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
  414
  The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the contrast with the provisions of the Bill under which the industrial tribunal makes an award of compensation. If a person gets a declaration from an industrial tribunal that he has been unreasonably excluded or expelled, time is allowed for the union to decide what to do about that. The person cannot take any steps towards getting compensation for a period of four weeks.
  Let us assume that the union agrees to admit that person to membership. It will be open to him to go to the industrial tribunal and say that he has been out of work for four weeks and wants to be compensated for lost earnings. The tribunal has the power to award that compensation. Against that part of its jurisdiction, there is a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal only on an issue of law, and not on a question of fact. The reason is that it is a much simpler and less important job.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, we do not want a flood of appeals on questions of facts, and the latter part of the jurisdiction is much simpler and less important and is one which the industrial tribunal is quite capable of getting right. Therefore, the appeal should be on a question of law only.
  Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot keep riding off on generalised assertions without producing any reasoned arguments. Suppose that the individual who goes to a tribunal for compensation is able to trot out what is seen, after the tribunal has made its decision, to be a load of codswallop about how much bonus and overtime he has lost. It may not be possible to examine such details at the time and the union may be lumbered with forking out money that ought not to be paid.
  The Minister says that the union should have no right to go back to the tribunal and say "This man told a load of damn lies and we have the employer's accounts to prove it." I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not overlooked that aspect.
  Mr. Mayhew: It is not overlooked, but there must be an end, at a reasonable time, to legislation—just as there must be an end, at a reasonable time, to debates.

  415
  Labour Members are always pointing out to me that one of the advantages of belonging to a union is that members have at their disposal the expertise of the union's legal department. When a union is at the sharp end of a claim for compensation for unreasonable exclusion or expulsion, it can be relied upon to use its lawyers to go through the process of examining the case made against it.
  It is not too difficult to test the evidence that may be brought forward by the claimant that he has been kept out of a job and that, although he was earning £100 a week before he got the sack, he has been earning nothing since his dismissal. That is the nature of it. It is very simple. There is no injustice there.
  The effect of the amendment is to create a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on fact as well as law regarding industrial tribunal proceedings in which a party has been joined under the provisions of clause 9. Clause 9 deals with joinder. The only question that arises is whether there ought to be a right of appeal on questions of fact, so we are assuming that the industrial tribunal has said "Yes, we have dealt with your claim. We think that the union has had a part in the responsibility for your getting the sack, because we find that it exerted pressure upon the employer to sack you because you were not a member of the union. We find that the union must contribute 30 per cent. of the compensation."
  Should there be a right of appeal on questions of fact there or not? The Government believe that there should not be. This is a relatively simple matter. Appeal on fact as well as law is provided for under clause 3, because such cases may involve extremely delicate questions of judgment on which it would be advantageous to facilitate a complete re-hearing of the case by the more senior tribunal.
  But no such question arises, we believe, on joinder, and there is the further point that it is not easy to see how there could be appeal on questions of fact on the question of contribution and not on compensation for unfair dismissal more generally. There is not, of course, in that case. There is no need for such a change.
  416
  Industrial tribunals are extremely skilled in assessing compensation and no difficulties need be anticipated. The only proper questions for appeal in such cases are, we believe, questions of law.
  Amendment negatived.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Mather.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

GROVE MATERNITY HOSPITAL, BARTON-ON-SEA
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
1.11 am
Mr. Robert Adley: I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends are leaving. I implore them to stay so that they may hear about this very important matter. Even if it does not concern their constituencies, it deeply concerns mine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who has taken a most helpful attitude throughout the many months during which the problem has been under discussion.
The debate tonight on the proposal by the Hampshire area health authority to close the maternity hospital at Barton-on-Sea has nothing whatever to do with the current debate on public expenditure. The Grove, as the hospital is known, has for many years been a target for the administrative machine in the part of the world that I represent. It would be out of order if I were to refer to constituents who were here to listen to the debate but I can assure the Minister that this is a matter of overriding importance to very many of my constituents.
I wish to deploy four points in my argument. First, there is dissatisfaction with the role and impartiality of the community health council. Secondly, we believe that there has been an unsatisfactory and an inadequate consultation process. Thirdly, we believe that we have been regaled with unsubstantiated facts of a financial and a medical nature. Fourthly, we believe that there is, or will shortly be, a need for a ministerial intervention at the appropriate stage if the

417
community health council does not do its job, namely, to reflect the overwhelming balance of local opinion.
I want to look first at the role of community health councils. I have a number of circulars which have been issued by the Department over the years and from which I intend to quote briefly, but I shall not weary the Minister or the House by reading out the numbers and references to them. But in 1974 a document on community health services said that they
"will provide a new means of representing the local community's interests in the health services to those responsible for managing them."
Thereafter, in another document listing the features which were considered to be relevant, one out of many was if there was a considerable seasonal fluctuation. This is one of the points that I wish to mention briefly in the debate. Living in and representing a constituency which has a large influx of people in the summer season, I can say that this is a very relevant factor and one of many which have been totally ignored by the community health council in its deliberations.
The community health council has a direct relationship to the area health authority. However, when the community health councils were being set up, my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), then a Minister in the DHSS, said on 15 May 1973:
"One advantage of the community health council is that it is totally free and independent of the managerial role."—[Official Report, 15 May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 694.]
I do not know what has happened elsewhere, but that is nonsense in my constituency. The membership of the community health council was created by the regional health authority. The area health authority has made a proposal to close the Grove and the community health council either has to agree or disagree with the area health authority.
Any suggestion that the community health council is totally free and independent of the managerial role of the Health Service is little less than nonsense. That is widely believed in my constituency. At a recent public meeting in my constituency, which was attended by a very large number of people, Dr. Sandy Cattanach—a well-known and respected local doctor—stated:
418
"If you believe the decision has not already been made, you'll believe anything."
There is a widespread belief in my constituency that the decision has been made. I hope that the Minister will disabuse my constituents and me of that belief. The administration of the area health authority wants to concentrate all the funds in the area on Southampton general hospital. That is the nub of this problem. The Lymington Times recently had the sub-headline:
"£80,000 'saving' to help pay for Southampton Unit".
That sums up people's feelings.
My second point is that of the unsatisfactory consultation process. I pay tribute to Mrs. Carol Warne, leader of the protest group. She forced the need to have a public meeting on the community health council. The community health council now says that it had intended to hold a meeting, but it did not spend a penny on advertising. Mrs. Warne and her colleagues had to spend their money on advertising a public meeting that would attract the public's attention to the proposals of the area health authority.
Turning to the role of the community health council in the consultative process, I quote from another of the Department's documents:
"It will be for each CHC to decide how best to fulfil its role of representing to the relevant Area Authority the interests of users of health services in the district".
We do not know what is meant by "district". We suspect that what we regard as our district and locality is not what the community health council has in mind. When it speaks of the district, it is speaking of the wider area. The name of the district is Southampton and south-west Hampshire. Southampton will always get its way because it is numerically more powerful.
I have received scores of letters on this subject. I shall not weary the House by reading long passages from them. However, in addition to the letters of protest that form part of the so-called consultation process, Drs. Cattanach, Ball, Tuddenham and Badham—all local doctors—came to that meeting and made their views known. Mrs. Warne and her colleagues have given me a petition that is signed by more than 5,000 people. The New Forest district council environmental

419
services committee held a special emergency meeting last week and passed a unanimous resolution opposing the closure of the Grove. That local authority stretches from suburban Southampton to within a few miles of Salisbury.
My hon. Friend the Minister may think that I have received representations only from my constituents. I advise him that only tonight I have had a conversation with staff midwife May, who for five years has been at Southampton general hospital's maternity unit. Since last month she has been at Barton. This evening she spoke to me on the telephone and said that the Southampton unit is hard pressed, even with peripheral units such as Barton, to deal with patients. She said that the chief concern of the postnatal ward at Southampton was finding beds to send mothers to. She did not like to contemplate what it would be like if the Grove was closed. I understand that the staff at Southampton maternity unit are not in favour of the closure either.
Finally I shall quote Mr. Gillibrand, a consultant gynaecologist at Southampton general hospital who wrote to me on 3 March saying:
"I do wish there was more that I could do in return to save the Grove Maternity Hospital in Barton-on-Sea. In the course of the last few years, during which it has been under threat of closure, I have, firstly as Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and later as Chairman of the Maternity Services Health Care Planning Team, helped to achieve a stay of execution. I do believe it serves a most useful purpose, particularly in that area, which is so far from the maternity departments at Bournemouth or Southampton."
That is the nub of this problem. It is about 25 miles from Barton-on-Sea or New Milton to Southampton, and about 10 miles to Boscombe. While it is proposed to close the Grove, there is no proposal to close either the maternity unit at Romsey, or the Fenwick at Lyndhurst, both of which are many miles nearer to Southampton, and do not involve a long and arduous journey across the New Forest. That journey is fine in the middle of the night in the middle of winter, but at midday in mid-summer presents a most serious problem. It can take between an hour and an hour and a half.
I turn to the unsubstantiated financial and medical facts. Doctors locally have confirmed that if the Grove is closed there
420
will be inevitable side effects. There will be a substantial increase in ambulance costs, and patient travel costs. Another DHSS circular recommends that one of the criteria which the CHCs should take account of is the hospital visiting arrangements for patients. The closure of the Grove will present very real problems for many people, particularly those who are not so well off, in getting from Barton or New Milton to Southampton.
Another by-product of the closure will be a substantial increase in the number of home confinements. I understand that this is contrary to DHSS policy. There will be more ambulance births, and this point was made abundantly clear by Dr. Ball at the recent meeting to which I have already referred.
Also, there will undoubtedly be an increase in the risk to the health of pregnant mothers, particularly those who may have complications immediately prior to the birth of their babies. One New Milton baby was born recently in the waiting room at Southampton general hospital. Even in the winter, the travelling time was insufficient to get from New Milton to Southampton and have the baby delivered safely. Even now, six babies a year are delivered in the ambulances in spite of the fact that the Grove is still open and many local mothers are still able to go there. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the journey through the New Forest, but if he does not, I can assure him that it is a real problem.
I shall quote two letters that I have received. One is from a lady in Banbury, a Mrs. Susan Morris, who says:
"Had it not been for the ready availability of that maternity facility and its most expert staff, I may have lost my five-week premature baby. I had approximately 30 minutes warning of the impending birth—30 minutes to call a doctor, (I was a visitor on holiday in the area) get an ambulance and be admitted to a maternity hospital. Had it not been for the existence of Barton, this would not have been possible because there is no other such facility in the close proximity of Milton, Barton or Highcliffe."
That is undoubtedly true. If that lady had had to go to Southampton it is quite clear that she would never have made it. One of my constituents, Julia Villers, wrote to me from Hordle. She says:
"On the afternoon of 6 January I began to have strong contractions lasting 10 minutes. By 8 pm they were stronger, yet, still at 10-minute intervals. I decided to ring Southampton where a sister told me to hang on

421
till the contractions were coming every five minutes. I was somewhat anxious to hear this advice, bearing in mind the 20-mile drive to the hospital. By 10 pm when I felt I could bear the pain no longer, I again rang the hospital, almost in desperation. A second sister answered my call. I explained the position again, and when I told her where we lived she did agree that I should make my way into Southampton. The drive was quite a nightmare and my husband and I were only thankful that it was late on Sunday evening, and therefore there was very little traffic on the roads."
I will not weary the House with Mrs. Villiers' whole letter, but she says that her son was born 12 minutes after she was taken to the delivery room.
The area health authority says that £80,000 is the cost of running the Grove. The assumption it puts forward is that by closing the Grove the sum of £80,000 will be saved. This is nonsense. No account is taken of the extra ambulance costs. I am told that this is not a relevant factor. No account has been taken of the additional travel cost. No figures has been provided for me, the local press or anyone else.
The area health authority refuses to supply any individual costs for Southampton general maternity unit. Mr. Shaw, the district administrator of the Hampshire area health authority has, however, admitted that the cost of patient care at Southampton general hospital is double that of the hospital at Barton-on-Sea. If one is talking about an £80,000 so-called saving, where is anything mentioned about the cost of caring for the 450 women and babies presently looked after at Barton? So far as I can deduce, these women and babies have not been accounted for as an obvious offsetting cost that will have to be borne if the Grove is closed.
Those who are advocating closure are the same people who provide the figures. We know, from experience in this House, that officialdom can cook the books when it wants to prove something. British Rail has managed, over the years, to close innumerable branch lines by the old tactic of reducing the service, increasing the cost for a 12-month period and then, after 12 months, pointing to the increased cost of running the line and the fall in passenger revenues as reasons for deciding to close the line.
I have no confidence that the figures with which we have been presented are
422
accurate. There has been no opportunity to challenge them. However, now that the matter comes to be challenged in the House of Commons, there is a fluttering in the dovecotes of the area health authority and the community health council. I understand that feelers hav already been put to the objectors suggesting that if the Grove is closed, a maternity unit might be built at Lymington hospital. That is a ridiculous suggestion. What will be the cost of building a whole new maternity unit when there is a perfectly good unit working and operating five miles away from Lymington hospital? Anyway, local residents are having to raise £150,000, by public appeal, to keep Lymington hospital in existence.
My last point concerns ministerial intervention. I realise that this is a matter of timing. I do not expect my hon. Friend to say tonight, in the middle of the consultation process, that he will agree immediately to call in the decision. There are some unusual factors that I must mention. Area health authorities are being abolished. The Bill is before Parliament. There is no doubt that, by the end of this Parliamentary Session, legislation will be on the statute book to wind up area health authorities. But the Hampshire area health authority, whose dastardly proposal is the subject of this discussion, seems determined to close the Grove as a final act of showing its power. The Community health council seems to support the area health authority. It is behaving in an unattractive manner contrary to the spirit by which community health councils and the whole Health Service administration was established.
I wish to refer to the timing of the closure. I am conscious of the fact that I do not want to take my hon. Friend's time. A document from his Department in October 1975 said:
"In general, responsibility for determining the closure or change of use of health buildings rests with the Area Health Authority, subject to the formal agreement of the Community Health Council. Where sufficient local agreement exists, it should be possible to move from a proposal to close (or change use) to actual closure or change of use within a period of six months."
That happens where local agreement exists. It would be impossible to find a situation where there is less local agreement to a proposal than exists in the present situation. A closure is proposed

423
to take place after the area health authority, which is making the proposal, will have had its death-knell pronounced by Parliament and when there is universal agreement that the administration of the Health Service is over-burdened. There is a clear case, in this instance, for my hon. Friend to recognise the peculiarity of the circumstances. Can there be intervention before consultation is complete? How much consultation is the community health council proposing to indulge in? So far as I know, it has not consulted the town council of New Milton and Barton, the biggest population centre in my constituency. It has not consulted formally local general practitioners, nor does it intend to. I do not suppose that it has consulted, or wants to consult, the staff of the Southampton maternity unit. If the council is to do any job, it is honour bound to have consultations. The White Paper states:
"The council's basic job will be to represent to the AHA the interests of the public in the health service in its district."
That should be repeated. That job is not being done properly by the community health council. The Minister has powers to call in the proposal, even if the community health council disagrees with the area health authority.
Barton is a country area. It is not understood by the Southampton urban administrators who want to create a world of office hour births. That, frankly, is an unreal and unpleasant ambition.
The Grove is a superb, friendly, efficient, small, cost-effective part of the community. Sister Knott and her staff are highly respected. It is the type of small establishment which I understand the Government have come to believe is of value to local communities. We are not getting a fair or straight deal from the community health council.
The chairman of the CHC wrote to me about a different matter. She wants to keep her job and for the community health councils to remain. In a letter of 20 March she said that the community health councils
"are an important part of the democratic process and enable local communities to have a vigorous independent voice in the provision of health care."
If that is true there can be no doubt about the conclusion that the council should come to if it pretends to do an
424
honest job in putting the views of local people about the proposed closure to the area health authority.
1.31 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on securing the debate about the future of the Barton on Sea maternity home, otherwise known as "The Grove". He has been most assiduous in seeking to protect the interests of his constituents. He has delivered—if that is the right word—a well-researched and cogent case. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out as a matter of record the background to the debate and to give an account of the procedures that must be followed when the closure of any hospital is proposed.
No decision has yet been taken to close the Barton on Sea maternity home, nor indeed is any final decision imminent. I shall refer later to the various stages that must be gone through before a hospital can be closed. If local agreement cannot be reached—in particular if the local community health council objects—the final stage in the process will involve a decision by Ministers in my Department. It would not be right for me to pre-empt tonight that decision or, indeed any decision of the relevant health authorities. My hon. Friend acknowledged that.
I should also stress that I am well aware of the dedicated work done by the staff of this hospital, both now and in the past. I am aware of the strength of their feelings in this issue. Any proposal to close this home of course in no way reflects adversely on the high standard of care that I know they have always given their patients.
My hon. Friend has rightly been concerned that any proposal to close The Grove—and I stress again that we are no more than dealing with a proposal-should not be rushed through by the Hampshire area health authority without adequate consultation and without due regard to the staff of this hospital and the interests of the local community. I can assure him that the proper procedures laid down by my Department must and will be followed.

425
Equally, I know that he is concerned that the interests of his constituents might not receive due consideration because of their proximity to Southampton and its preponderance of population. I have no doubt that his activity in this matter has ensured that there is little risk of this and that the voices of his constituents in Lymington, Milford-on-Sea, New Milton, Hordle, Barton-on-Sea and other areas are being loud and clear.
Any proposal to close Barton-on-Sea maternity home has to be considered in the context of the total maternity and gynaecology services provided in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire health district and surrounding localities. A major, but not the only, factor is the opening in 1981 of the new maternity and gynaecology unit at Southampton—20 miles from Barton-in-Sea. This unit cost £8 million and will I am told contain all the facilities to provide the highest possible standards of care both for obstetrics and gynaecology.
Once this new unit has opened the area health authority proposes a number of changes in bed distribution for maternity and gynaecology services in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire district. One of these consequences is the proposed closure of the 11 maternity beds and seven gynaecology beds at Barton-on-sea.
The consultative paper issued by the area health authority gives in part the following reasons for wanting to close the Barton on Sea maternity Home's maternity facilities. It says that the home is the least used of the maternity units peripheral to the central unit at the Southampon general hospital in terms of the number of births, the number of transferred cases, and the level of bed occupancy.
These factors, it claims, combine to render Barton the least economical of the peripheral units. I note what my hon. Friend said on that subject. The paper states that recruitment of staff to the home has proved difficult in the past and there is no reason to assume that this situation will improve. There is also said to be growing professional concern that the existing staff are unable to make full use of their midwifery skills in view of the low number of deliveries. In 1979 there was an average of about one delivery per week at the home and the total annual
426
number of births in the hospital has fallen progressively from 104 in 1975 to about 50 last year.
The area health authority states that the desirability of retaining a facility in the western New Forest has been carefully considered, but it feels that there is no justification for retaining beds at the Grove simply to provide for mothers who give birth very quickly. Indeed, in the authority's view, it is questionable whether this type of isolated unit is appropriate for such cases. Additionally, the health authority draws attention to the wider and more comprehensive service that is already available at the Royal Victoria Hospital and the more than adequate spare capacity that exists there.
It would not be right for me to comment at this stage on the validity of these points other than to say that I am well aware of he strength of feeling that can be aroused among both mothers-to-be and professional staff by proposals to vary maternity services. Factors such as maximising safety, providing a friendly, homely and sympathetic environment, and the convenience of patients and visitors, do not always pull in the same direction and have to be balanced locally with tact and sensitivity.
I know that many authorities are now searching for ways to save money, and, as a last resort, closure may seem to be the only option. But my fellow Ministers and I have repeatedly made it clear that we will not agree to permanent closure as a way out of short-term difficulties.
As I have said before, permanent closures in some areas reduce the Health Services's precious stock of hospitals at a time when the country can ill afford to make good the loss and the cumulative effect of a number of small closures can be substantial. Thus we are quite firm that permanent closure should occur only as part of an agreed long-term plan for the development or rationalisation of health services in a particular area.
Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he assure me that we can have access to the facts about the costs of Southampton general hospital maternity unit? I think that it is monstrous that these have been hidden from us. Can he make sure that we have the facts?
Sir G. Young: What I propose to do is make sure that the area health authority and the relevant officers in the district have copies of the report of the speech which my hon. Friend has just made so that they can read his criticisms of the statistics that have been put forward. I hope that they will respond to his hard-hitting speech and come up with the underlying facts which enabled them to put forward the statistics in their paper.
If I may revert to what I was saying, the health authorities in Wessex have a firm policy towards maternity services and their 1979–80 regional plan stated their intention to provide facilities to permit all mothers to have their babies in hospital, preferably in district general hospital based units.
To revert to the procedure that has to be adopted, the area health authority must issue a formal consultation document setting out its proposals to the relevant community health council and local authorities involved and to staff and professional interests. Three months are allowed for comment and all comments must then be passed to the CHC for any further observations it may wish to make. I understand that the CHC has not come to a decision on this proposal.
If the CHC does not object to closure, the AHA considers all the comments on its proposal and decides whether to close. If the CHC does object it has to submit a counter proposal to the area health authority. If the authority still wishes to proceed, it must then refer the matter to the regional health authority. If that authority supports the case for closure
428
the case is submitted to Ministers for a final decision.
We have made it clear that, in cases where we are called on to intervene, Ministers will not support any case for closure unless it can be clearly demonstrated to be in the best interests of local health services and the community they serve.
But we are, of course, as yet a long way from that point in this case. The area health authority has asked for comments on its consultation paper by 19 May. The CHC has been asked to make its final recommendations by the end of June and the area health authority will consider the matter at its July meeting. The procedures are designed to be as scrupulously fair as possible and very careful consideration will be given to comments received at all points in the procedure.
I hope that I have allayed some of my hon. Friend's concern by setting out the procedures that have to be followed. I will draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my hon. Friend's request that this matter should be called in.
Additionally I know that all concerned will give full consideration to the points that have been expressed here tonight, especially those that demonstrate the strength of local feeling on this issue. I say again how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Two o'clock.

TRADE
  Furness Withy
  Furness Withy
  Iran
  Iran
  Manufactured Goods (Trade Trends)
  Manufactured Goods (Trade Trends)
  Sperm Whale Oil
  Sperm Whale Oil
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Employment Bill
  Employment Bill
  European Community (Industrial Relations Law)
  European Community (Industrial Relations Law)
  Unemployment Trends
  Unemployment Trends
  High Unemployment Areas
  High Unemployment Areas
  Training
  Training
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Job Creation (Rural Areas)
  Job Creation (Rural Areas)
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Unemployment Forecasting
  Unemployment Forecasting
  Industrial Action (Ballots)
  Industrial Action (Ballots)
  Unemployment Levels (Budget Proposals)
  Unemployment Levels (Budget Proposals)
  Employment Objectives
  Employment Objectives
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Trades Union Congress (Day of Action)
  Trades Union Congress (Day of Action)
  Specialist Careers Officers
  Specialist Careers Officers
  Maternity Pay
  Maternity Pay
  Laser Beams (Safety Requirements)
  Laser Beams (Safety Requirements)
  Sheffield
  Sheffield
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Tyre Industry
  Tyre Industry
  Prices
  Prices
  Employment Exchanges (Manchester)
  Employment Exchanges (Manchester)
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Murders
  Murders
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Departmental Booklets
  Departmental Booklets
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  BELGIUM
  BELGIUM
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (FULTON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (FULTON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (SCOTLAND)
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (SCOTLAND)
  GWYNEDD
  GWYNEDD
  TEACHERS (PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
  TEACHERS (PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
WALES
  New Town Corporations
  New Town Corporations
  Departmental Booklets
  Departmental Booklets
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Risley Remand Centre
  Risley Remand Centre
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Leeds Prison
  Leeds Prison
  Medical Reports (Prisoners and Detained Persons)
  Medical Reports (Prisoners and Detained Persons)
  Indelible Dye Spray Water Hoses
  Indelible Dye Spray Water Hoses
  Detained Persons (Assaults and Deaths)
  Detained Persons (Assaults and Deaths)
  Justices of the Peace (Pension Rights)
  Justices of the Peace (Pension Rights)
  Outstanding Fines
  Outstanding Fines
  Mr. Mustafa Ramadan
  Mr. Mustafa Ramadan
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Iraq Ba'athist Party
  Iraq Ba'athist Party
  National Front March (Oldham)
  National Front March (Oldham)
  Citizen's Arrests
  Citizen's Arrests
  Metropolitan Police (Borough of Lewisham's Contribution)
  Metropolitan Police (Borough of Lewisham's Contribution)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
INDUSTRY
  Tobacco (European Community Support Arrangements)
  Tobacco (European Community Support Arrangements)
  Tobacco Imports
  Tobacco Imports
  Grimsby
  Grimsby
ENVIRONMENT
  Palace of Westminster (Heating)
  Palace of Westminster (Heating)
  Sports Council (Tour Report)
  Sports Council (Tour Report)
  Derelict Land Clearance
  Derelict Land Clearance
  Housing Development Directorate
  Housing Development Directorate
  New Towns (Housing Sales)
  New Towns (Housing Sales)
  Peabody Trust
  Peabody Trust
FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  British Council
  British Council
  North Atlantic Assembly (United Kingdom Representation)
  North Atlantic Assembly (United Kingdom Representation)
TRANSPORT
  Billericay High Street
  Billericay High Street
  A27-M27 (Worthing)
  A27-M27 (Worthing)
  Docklands (Public Transport)
  Docklands (Public Transport)
  Ports
  Ports
ENERGY
  North Sea Gas (Exploration)
  North Sea Gas (Exploration)
  British Gas Corporation (National Loan Fund)
  British Gas Corporation (National Loan Fund)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Planned Parenthood Programmes
  Planned Parenthood Programmes
  Sudan (Power III Project)
  Sudan (Power III Project)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Social Security Abuse (Dundee)
  Social Security Abuse (Dundee)
  Widows
  Widows
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Part III Residential Accommodation
  Part III Residential Accommodation
  Retirement Pensions (Uprating)
  Retirement Pensions (Uprating)
  Three-wheeler Vehicles (Disabled Users)
  Three-wheeler Vehicles (Disabled Users)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Human Beings (Clinical Trials)
  Human Beings (Clinical Trials)
  Young Females (Provision of Contraceptives)
  Young Females (Provision of Contraceptives)
  Debendox
  Debendox
  Drugs (Safety in Use)
  Drugs (Safety in Use)
  Balderton Hospital
  Balderton Hospital
NORTHERN IRELAND
  IRA March
  IRA March
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
  Citizens' Arrests
  Citizens' Arrests
DEFENCE
  Air Defence
  Air Defence
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Agreement
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Agreement
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  USSR Bombers
  USSR Bombers
  USSR Missiles
  USSR Missiles
  Fast-jet Production
  Fast-jet Production
  Hawk Jet Trainers (AIM 9L Missiles)
  Hawk Jet Trainers (AIM 9L Missiles)
  Balance of Forces (Europe)
  Balance of Forces (Europe)
  West Ruislip Air Base (Surplus Land)
  West Ruislip Air Base (Surplus Land)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Travel-to-work Costs
  Travel-to-work Costs
  Customs and Excise Duties (Statistics)
  Customs and Excise Duties (Statistics)
  Foreign Currency Borrowings and Loans
  Foreign Currency Borrowings and Loans
  Bank of International Settlements (Charter)
  Bank of International Settlements (Charter)
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  European Community
  European Community
  North Sea Oil and Gas Revenues
  North Sea Oil and Gas Revenues
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Crude Oil (Price)
  Crude Oil (Price)
  Iran (Sanctions)
  Iran (Sanctions)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Service Manpower
  Civil Service Manpower

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

ZIMBABWE: AID
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much aid—

(i) the Commonwealth, and

(ii) the United States of America has currently offered to the newly independent Zimbabwe.

Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we have raised the question of aid to Zimbabwe with our Commonwealth colleagues and other friendly Governments. As a member of the Commonwealth, Zimbabwe is now eligible for the technical co-operation and advice normally available to Member States.
The United States Government have announced an independence grant of 15 million dollars for Zimbabwe, in addition to a contribution of 5 million dollars for UNHCR work in Zimbabwe; both these commitments are for the financial year ending 30th September 1980. In addition, the United States Government have proposed to Congress the allocation of 25.3 million dollars for Zimbabwe in the following financial year.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. He did not give a figure of how much the Commonwealth contribution might be. Would he not agree that, in spite of these generous amounts from the United States and also the £75million from the United Kingdom, this is still a very small amount, considering that Zimbabwe may well become one of the bastions of the Free World in Central Africa?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the details of commitments given by other Commonwealth countries are a matter primarily for those countries and for Zimbabwe, which is, after all, now an independent nation. In any event, a number of Commonwealth countries have not yet announced precisely the aid they propose to give, although many of them have said that in principle they will be ready and willing to do so. As for Zimbabwe becoming a bastion of the Free World, I am not sure I would have chosen precisely those words, but I certainly recognise and agree that the new nation will require substantial support in the years to come, and the programme that we have announced indicates the importance we attach to this matter.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Lord's statement about American aid, which is immediate and therefore especially valuable, and noting that the Commonwealth also will give aid, may we ask the Government, after their magnificent achievement in getting Zimbabwe to independence with so little bloodshed, not to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar at this point? The £75million spread over four years which the Government propose to give is, we feel, while understanding the need for cuts, almost grossly inadequate at this stage. Is the noble Lord aware that at Lancaster House the suggestion was that for the whole land problem £200 million should be available immediately? Is he also aware that we were rather disturbed by his rather grudging response to the noble Earl's comment about Zimbabwe being a bastion of the Free World? Are the Government aware that Zimbabwe is potentially a centre of stability in one of the most important areas in Central Africa?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that we hope that Zimbabwe will become a centre of stability in Southern Africa, as she suggests. I am not sure I quite understand the meaning of the words "a bastion of the Free World", and that was why I hesitated before endorsing those words when expressed by my noble friend. As for United Kingdom aid, my noble friend the Secretary of State announced on 15th April our allocation

639
of £75million. It is a three-year commitment but it will in fact be spent over four years, which is quite normal. A three-year commitment is never spent over three years; it always takes rather longer to spend it than to cover the commitment. I perhaps ought not to repeat the details of that Statement now, but some of that £75million is, of course, available now for purposes as necessary.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Zimbabwe, as a member of the Commonwealth, will have access to the resources of the Commonwealth Development Corporation separately from and independently of the £75million we are making available for the three years from Treasury funds in this country?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am speaking without a note on that matter, but I feel sure it is the case.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, can my noble friend be a little more specific? To what projects is this aid to Zimbabwe to be applied, and how is the amount of necessary aid calculated?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the precise purposes for which aid is to be applied will be discussed with the new Zimbabwe Government when our team goes there early in June.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while supporting the request from my Front Bench for an increase of the British contribution, may I ask the noble Lord this: Is not a tremendous debt due to the Commonwealth, because at the Commonwealth Meeting, at Lusaka there were initiated the proceedings which have led to the recognition of the independence of Zimbabwe? Have not the Government made an appeal to all countries to contribute towards the reconstruction of Zimbabwe? Has not that appeal gone out quite recently, so that it is not possible now to say what the Commonwealth countries have contributed?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that is exactly so. As I said earlier, we are not yet in a position to say precisely what the other Commonwealth nations will be giving. In any event, it is not wholly
640
a matter for us: it is a matter for the Governments concerned and for Zimbabwe. Reconstruction is, of course, a most important matter and I can say that £7 million is now available from the British aid allocation for this purpose.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will be rather puzzled at him being urged to give an almost open-ended commitment at these early stages? One must take into account that, in making this initial grant, it will in no way prevent added grants being made later if circumstances and projects warrant it. However, to suggest at this early stage that the figure should be almost, as I have said, an open-ended one, would perhaps not give the type of impression that we want to give as to the real independence of Zimbabwe.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in the light of all the things that have gone before over so many years, we certainly recognise that the new Zimbabwe has a special claim upon our limited aid budget. Indeed, we were able to go beyond that, as my noble friend announced on 15th April, and certain additional allocations were made to the aid budget specifically for Zimbabwe. However, I can assure my noble friend that there is no question of an open-ended commitment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that other countries have been mentioned besides the Commonweath and the United States of America, may I ask my noble friend whether the EEC is contributing anything in view of the Lomé Convention?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, there is no announcement yet from the EEC on these matters, but I had the pleasure of dining with M. Cheysson while I was in Salisbury and lie was certainly keen to do what he could.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the point, but what worries those of us who are deeply concerned with the matter is that we wonder whether the Minister is aware that the need for aid arises now. Of course, Zimbabwe is potentially a rich country in minerals and everything else; but may I say that to

641
make an offer of only £7 million at this time, despite the extra over the next three years, does not fulfil what is needed to keep the stability which both sides of the House wish to see?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Baroness is mistaken. Mr. Mugabe is quite satisfied with the aid figure that we have allocated. He expressed publicly his gratitude and satisfaction at what we have been able to do. Moreover, the timing of the aid mission, which has been criticised in some quarters, has met with the Zimbabwean Government's full agreement.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are occasions when one says, "Thank you very much", hoping to get some more pretty quickly?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, those were not the words of the Prime Minister.

METRICATION: THE WHITELEY REPORT
2.46 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 action they will take as a result of the Whiteley Report on Metrication in 1980.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the survey referred to has not been published, but it is a consultants' analysis of the progress of metrication in the engineering sector of industry. Its conclusions are in line with what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said in the metrication debate on 31st January: that the transition was half completed. The Government's policy remains to permit manufacturers to change over to metric working if and when they judge the time is right.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that the survey shows that the extra cost annually to an average engineering company of dual
642
working—that is, continuing with both metric and imperial—is nearly £50,000; whereas the cost to the average company of completing the change once and for all is only £64,000? Therefore, the cost of completing the change can be recouped in less than one and a half years. Is this not the first time that any survey, by any organisation, has quantified these costs and do we not, therefore, owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Whiteley for undertaking this work?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am highly suspicious of costs said to accrue to so-called "average" companies. I really do not know what an average company is. But, the fact of the matter is that the costs of metrication can be very substantial—for example, if it is necessary to retire a piece of machinery earlier than one would otherwise have done so, and to replace it with a new machine at very considerable expense. We think that it is right to leave it to individual companies to decide when it is in their best interests to change over to metric units.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when we changed the monetary system about 10 years ago, working-class people felt that they were robbed right, left and centre by the prices that ensued from that change? Is he further aware that many people are terrified by the metrication system that has been talked about today?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think that people have unjustified fears of the metric system. We definitely think that it is a good thing for firms to move to the metric system of units, but we do not want to dragoon them into doing so.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is it true that the CBI has requested a meeting with a Minister at the Department of Industry on this matter? If so, is it intended to accord the CBI an opportunity to discusss this matter with him?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not aware that the CBI has asked for such a meeting, but if it has I am sure that it will be given most sympathetic consideration.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the impact that the failure of the Government to implement their first intended promise has had on the education service? We made a definite switch to metrication in primary schools preparing children to live in what was to be a metric world, and the effect of the retreat is that the children who are now coming into industry and commerce have been prepared for a metric system but are having to operate a dual system with very great difficulty.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken; there has been no retreat. Firms are still ready and able, and certainly encouraged, to proceed with metrication at the speed which suits them best. As for what happens in schools, although I understand that the metric system is the one primarily taught in schools, children are certainly also given an exposure to the basic imperial units which still exist.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to costs, has the noble Lord noted that in the United States, where General Motors has been among the first to go ahead with metrication, it has discovered that the costs of doing so were approximately one-tenth of its original estimate?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the costs which a firm incurs when it goes metric depend on the timing of those changes; for example, as I said earlier, on the desirability of replacing a machine when it comes to the end of its useful life. No doubt the Americans were able to time their change-over accordingly.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when some respondents to this survey were asked what, in their view, was the main cause of delay to industrial metrication, they put high on the list Government vacillation? Is the noble Lord aware that this applies to all Governments of every complexion, at least for the last decade? But is he also aware that only 3 per cent. of those who responded gave as their opinion that metrication is not necessary? The corollary of that is that 97 per cent. believe it to be necessary. As someone who has worked on this matter for a very long time, will he take it from me that the cost to industry of
644
Government vacillation has been far higher than any costs that industry could have otherwise borne for itself?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Baroness appears to misunderstand the basis upon which this Government was elected to office. We have stopped the practice of dragooning people into doing these things because we allow them to decide for themselves when it is best to do something. As for the various assertions which guided Mr. Whiteley in producing his report, one of the persons of whom he inquired, and on whom he relied, replied, "For Heaven's sake get on with it; I am getting old".
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that as it is now 15 years since we launched this programme, with the support of all parties, and that in another nine years we have to complete it? If we are to abide by the regulations of the EEC, and in view of the fact that 143 countries in the world have decided to go over to the metric system and that we are more dependent than any of them on our exports, should we not get on with the job, and do we not need the encouragement of the Government and their Ministers to do so?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to think that we have not decided to go metric. As I have repeatedly said, that is not the case; we agree with the benefits of going metric, but we are not prepared to order firms to do so.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that for a century British firms have known what measurements to use to sell goods abroad, without being told right, left and centre? They have enough sense to adjust their machinery to the orders that are given to them.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, and that is just what I have been saying.

CHINA: DEFENCE MINISTER'S VISIT
2.53 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I

645
take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on his safe return, despite the mishap to his aircraft.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the visit to China by the Secretary of State for Defence has met with success and whether they will make a Statement.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his personal comments. The Answer to his Question is that my right honourable friend had talks on a wide range of matters with senior Chinese Ministers, including Premier Hua. In Shanghai he represented Her Majesty's Government at the opening of the British Aviation Equipment Exhibition. My right honourable friend found a considerable degree of common understanding on world issues, and a common recognition that instability in one region, such as in Afghanistan, can affect global stability.
On defence sales, we believe that the Chinese will want to move cautiously and to consider their needs and resources carefully before making or accepting any particular proposals. They are, however, looking to the United Kingdom as a major supplier in the future and, although my right honourable friend did not go to China to negotiate any specific contracts, we are confident that the understandings reached laid the best possible foundation for the further development of trade.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. Can he explain why, when 12 months ago there was a great deal of excitement and, indeed, high expectation of sales to the Chinese People's Republic, there is now this caution? Can it be because the prices that we propose to charge are regarded as excessive?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think that expectations—and possibly expectations outside the Government—were exaggerated. Chinese trade negotiations are notorious for taking time to come to maturity. Prices are principally the concern of the companies themselves, but I should add
646
here that the Chinese are having to be cautious, because we are very well aware that they have a very limited amount of foreign exchange available for the purpose of purchasing arms.

HEATHROW AIRPORT THEFTS: PREVENTIVE MEASURES
2.56 p.m.
Lord BRAYE: 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 security measures at Heathrow Airport could be overhauled and increased to prevent theft of and pilferage from passengers' baggage.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the prevention of theft and pilferage from passengers' baggage at Heathrow Airport is a matter for the airlines and the Metropolitan Police. The need for additional measures must be judged against the fact that over the last four years there has been a substantial decline in the number of thefts reported at the airport while the number of arrests over the same period has shown a significant increase.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Could not a few very top men from the CID be posted to Heathrow in order to prevent this continuous pilferage of baggage which goes on? It goes on the whole time, and it must have a very bad effect on foreigners arriving in this country, especially on those arriving for the first time, to find that their luggage has been stolen or pilfered.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can only emphasise what I said in my original Answer, that the number of thefts at Heathrow has shown a substantial decline in recent years. I shall quote some figures to support that. In 1976 the total number of confirmed thefts was 726; in 1979 it had dropped to 202. In the same period the number of arrests rose from 14 to 57, and the number of passengers from 23·7 million to 28·4 million.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that

647
whatever he may say, and whatever the figures that he has given may seem to prove, this question of thefts and pilferage has got Heathrow a very bad reputation worldwide? Is it correct that the loaders at Heathrow have been pressing for the introduction of the banding of luggage? Does the noble Lord recall that some two years ago the banding machines, which tie straps round luggage at check-in desks, were installed for security flights, such as El-Al, the Belfast shuttle and Concorde, and that these were most successful? Finally, as I gather that both the British Airports Authority and the police are in favour of the introduction of such machines, can the Minister look at the matter again?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the banding of luggage is certainly one of the matters that has been considered. Indeed, as the noble Baroness has said, it has been adopted for certain flights which are regarded as being particularly sensitive. But the cost of doing that for all the flights has proved to be prohibitive.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on that—at least, I do not know that I am sorry—but I should like to ask another question arising from it. Is the Minister aware that, as I gather, the commercial management of British Airways do not deny the use of this system because of the question of cost—which would seem to be contrary to what the Minister has just said—but because they feel that it would take up additional time at the check-in desks? As it is a matter for individual, airlines, will the Minister, the Department of Trade or the Civil Aviation Authority ask British Airways whether they would give it a trial on one or two other flights?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I shall certainly ask British Airways to look at this matter again with regard to the wider range of flights that the noble Baroness suggests, but I cannot hold out much hope that the earlier difficulties will be overcome.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, if the cost is too much, could the noble Lord tell us how much it costs per case and what percentage it is of an actual flight ticket?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, not without notice. But I recall that many noble Lords, including in particular the noble Baroness, were pressing hard for us to keep the fares as low as possible.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although Heathrow may have a bad reputation for this in some quarters, there are many other airports in the world that have a far worse reputation than Heathrow?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. In point of fact the percentage of baggage broken into or pilfered is about the same at most of the major international airports of the world.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could not the banding of luggage be made available voluntarily to passengers at their request?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that might pose certain difficulties, but I shall draw what the noble Lord has said to the attention of British Airways.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that a few years ago there was a strike by the unions when extra measures of security were imposed to prevent or discourage pilfering? From the figures he has given it suggests that the unions are now co-operating in trying to tighten up on security. Is this so? If not, could my noble friend tell us what progress has been made in that direction?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, perhaps I can simply refer to a case which attracted some notoriety recently when the judge in question said that honest loaders at Heathrow stood out like sore thumbs. We think that the learned judge was misinformed on that point, and I think the figures I have produced support that assertion. I would say that the incidence of dishonest loaders is no greater than the incidence of dishonest passengers.

HUMBERSIDE BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That the

649
Bills be committed to a Select Committee and that notwithstanding the provisions of Private Bill Standing Order 109(a) there shall in respect of each Bill be referred to the Committee only such petitions or parts of petitions as complain of clauses common to two or more of the Bills, or related provisions; namely, the petitions of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport, and the Confederation of British Industry. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion follows a successful precedent in setting up a special Select Committee to deal with those petitions against clauses of the large county council Bills—so-called "jumbo Bills"—when these petitions cover more than one of the Bills. This avoids the possibility that three separate Select Committees might treat the petitions differently, and also saves time. In this instance there are petitions lodged by the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport against clauses common to all three Bills, and by the CBI against clauses common to the County of Kent Bill and the Humberside Bill. These petitions will be sent before this one Select Committee if your Lordships agree to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bills be committed to a Select Committee and that notwithstanding the provisions of Private Bill Standing Order 109(a) there shall in respect of each Bill be referred to the Committee only such petitions or parts of petitions as complain of clauses common to two or more of the Bills, or related provisions; namely, the petitions of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport; and the Confederation of British Industry.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.3 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandys.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
Regular publication of supplementary Benefits Act 1976 as amended
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements for—

(a) the publication in a single volume, in each calendar year, of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, as then amended and of any regulations made under that Act and for the time being in force;

(b) sale of the publication mentioned in the preceding paragraph to members of the public at a price which shall not exceed £1·00 or such larger sum as may be appropriate having regard to increases in production and distribution costs after the passing of this Act;

(c) making copies of the publication mentioned in paragraph (a) above available for consultation by members of the public at local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security; and

(d) supplying a copy of the publication mentioned in paragraph (a) above each year to every member of a tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976.

(2) The Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland shall make copies of the publication mentioned in subsection (1) of this section available for consultation by members of the public at local offices of the Department.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to discuss certain changes in the supplementary benefit regulations. At present the only way of keeping up to date with changes in the supplementary benefit regulations is by subscribing to the publication of Her Majesty's Stationery Office known as the Yellow Book. It is entitled, The Law Relating to Supplementary Benefits and Family Income Supplements. For anybody who bought the Yellow Book when it was first published in 1972 the cost of the loose-leaf supplements published from time to time to keep it up to date is not unreasonable. But anybody buying the book for the first time now has to buy all the supplements issued to date and the total price is £20, and rising steadily.
This may not be a serious matter under the present scheme as, apart from lawyers,

651
only a few people are likely to be much interested in the supplementary benefit regulations, which are largely concerned with matters of administration rather than policy. From this November, however, the regulations will cover all the policy questions now dealt with in the Supplementary Benefits Commission's unpublished rules, which are known as the A Code. They will therefore be not only far more voluminous but of much greater interest to those concerned with people's rights under the Supplementary Benefits Act.
The Government have proclaimed as one of the virtues of the new schemes, "the emphasis on legal entitlement and published rules". But there is little point in publishing the rules if no one can afford to buy them. It is true that they will be summarised in the Supplementary Benefits Book, which is revised every two or three years. But the growing number of people engaged in giving advice and advocacy in this field will need to have ready access to the regulations themselves. I am primarily concerned with the vast army—and I think I would be right in saying "vast"—of people who are called upon to give advice to applicants in the social service field.
I think there is certainly one Member of your Lordships' House who would he able to say that a disproportionate amount of their time is taken up every day giving advice to people. It is all very well to say that they can get this advice from the supplementary benefit officer. That in theory may be right, but in practice it does not work out. Therefore, we have not only voluntary social workers who are called upon to give advice to applicants but also probation officers and local authority social workers. It is desirable in the interests of the community and the claimants that they are able to go and seek the help of somebody whom they know and trust.
It is important that we should have a handbook which is going to be reasonable in price for people who want to buy it, because many of these social workers will have to pay for their own copies. I am not denying for one moment that local authorities and probation committees, and, so on, will buy a number, but your Lordships will know that whenever you want
652
something out of the library somebody else has got it. That is at least my experience, and certainly so just before I came into your Lordships' House.
Making copies of the regulations available for reference in local social security offices, as suggested in subsections (1)(c) and (2) of the clause, would be helpful but not really sufficient. People cannot be expected to go to the local office every time they need to look up a regulation. It is in our view essential that a complete and up-to-date copy of the regulations should be obtainable at a reasonable price by anyone who wants to buy it. The price suggested in the amendment is £1. Probably the demand for it will be such that it would prove to be an economic price as well. It would be within the pocket of most people.
Subsection (1)(d) of the new clause proposes that copies be supplied to all tribunal members. I included that proposal because one tribunal member has complained that the department is supplying the new edition of the Supplementary Benefits Handbook to the chairman, but not to him. In our view in future every member of the tribunal should have a copy of the regulations. I would not say that I am not concerned about what happens in this respect in the tribunal, though there are only three members, and if the chairman has a copy that should perhaps be sufficient; but what I am concerned about is the tremendous service which claimants and other people in need receive from this vast army—as I prefer to call them—of qualified social workers who should be able to have a copy if they so wish, and who should be able to buy one at a reasonable price. I hope that the Government will say "Yes" at least just once in these Committee proceedings. They probably do not know of the existence of the word, but it is spelt "Y-e-s", and I hope that this proves to he an occasion on which I shall hear it, which would certainly make my day. I beg to move.
Lord UNDERHILL: I wish to support my noble friend in what he said in moving the amendment. Time after time, upon clause after clause, Ministers, in replying to criticism, have made quite clear that the details of claimants' benefits and other matters will he fully published. Before the noble Lord the Minister replies, I wish to

653
ask him to look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said yesterday, as reported at column 584 of the Official Report. I will not read out what she said, so as to save the time of the Committee, but it would seem to indicate that she would support the amendment.
3.12 p.m.
Lord RENTON: I am sure that all your Lordships have great sympathy with the case that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at any rate to the extent of the motives behind it. It is very difficult for us to legislate in clear terms which will have certainty of legal effect yet which will at the same time be understood by the people who will be affected by that legislation when it comes to working out in detail the arrangements as they affect individuals.
One would have great sympathy not only with the recipients of supplementary benefit, and with those who wonder how they can claim their rights, but also with those people, who are sometimes in a relatively humble clerical position, who have to decide how much benefit shall he paid; in other words, have to decide what the legislation means, and what the regulations mean, and of course they are indirectly part of the legislation, too. Therefore the question of communication to those people, and to members of the public, is, I respectfully suggest, a matter which should concern us, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said.
If we can agree upon the motive, the next question that arises is, how should it be done? One feasible, possible way has been put forward in the proposed new clause. If it is to be done in this way, or indeed in any way, there is one fact which will make the situation somewhat easier than it might otherwise be, and than it has been in many another Bill; namely, your Lordships are able to rejoice and be glad that there is a Keeling schedule in Part II of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Keeling schedules confer upon the legislators the great advantage that in them they can immediately see the effect of the proposed amendments to previous legislation. So although we have a Keeling schedule only very rarely, when-
654
ever there is one we should be thankful; and we have one here.
However I should mention that there are several different ways of handling Keeling schedules. Sometimes they are regarded as a mere temporary expedient, and they fall out of the Bill before it receives Royal Assent. Sometimes they are regarded as a contribution to the final form of the Bill, and if that were the case here Part I of Schedule 1 would fall out and the Keeling schedule would remain. It would be of great interest to your Lordships to learn which of these two possibilities is to come about in regard to this Bill. This is relevant to the first paragraph of subsection (1) of the new clause, because that refers to
"the publication in a single volume, in each calendar year, of the … 1976 [Act], as then amended … ".
If there is to be the kind of large-scale amendment that we have on this occasion, one would hope that there would be consolidation fairly quickly. The consolidation would be made much easier by having a Keeling schedule, because the Keeling schedule itself is based upon the principle of textual amendment rather than non-textual amendment, and therefore can simply be slotted into the previous Act, and consolidation can take place almost in a flash. So to that extent the task envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is eased by the wisdom of the Government in having a Keeling schedule on this occasion, and one would naturally hope that they would not lose the advantage of it.
This is a matter on which a great deal could be said, but I think that I can summarise the problem by saying that something on the lines that the noble Lord proposed is needed. Whether it is to be accomplished in exactly the form that he proposes, or in some other form, remains to be seen, but no doubt we shall be told by one of my noble friends on the Front Bench what proposals the Government have for achieving the purpose.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I do not want to make a meal of the amendment, but speaking as one who once had the privilege to serve in the Ministry which deals with these matters, I am aware of the difficulties of people who, when applying

655
for supplementary benefit, want a clear and concise understanding of the situation, stated in English language that the ordinary people can understand. I have had vast experience of this problem, and I believe that we should try to eliminate the difficulties for people at these times of distress. I am sure that the Government have the same human approach to this problem as do noble Lords on this side of the Committee. Without deliberating any further upon what is an obvious point, I hope that we can find a solution to the problem which will help those people, whose numbers—without making a party political point—may increase in the next two or three years.
Lord ROBBINS: May I address a question to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I have a 100 per cent, sympathy with the case that he has put forward, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has taken expert advice in fixing the initial price of the publication. It occurs to me that nowadays many paperbacks which are expected to sell in their tens of thousands are priced at more than £1.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I may reply to that point, I say with the greatest possible respect that the publication I have in mind cannot be equated with a paperback, in regard to which the author, the printer, the publisher, the retailer and the wholesaler each want a profit. I imagine that the publication could be handled through Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and that should eliminate four or five separate profits. I do not claim to have consulted the experts—I do not know who they are in this field—but you should know that it would not be (shall I say?) the size of a paperback. Therefore, I would have thought it would not be difficult to get what I am asking for at around a £1. I agree it might be a bit more; it might be a hit less.
Lord SANDYS: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the Keeling schedule before we go on to the substance of the amendment as such. We shall endeavour to retain the Keeling schedule in the Bill and, as we are feeling our way through this particular Committee stage
656
using the Keeling schedule, I think that on behalf of the Government I can say now that we have every intention of keeping the schedule up to date and amending it as indicated, and as the noble Lord indicated in his remarks.
Having said that, I shall turn to the substance of the amendment as such. May I begin by explaining that the law relating to supplementary benefits—that is the Act, the regulations and extracts from other relevant legislation—is already published in the Yellow Book referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I think I should go on to explain that copies of this publication are issued to all members—and I stress that—of supplementary benefits appeal tribunals. I can assure your Lordships there is no intention to depart from these arrangements and this will go part of the way to meet the proposals in the amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has knowledge of particular situations in which members of tribunals have not received a copy of the Yellow Book—and I believe he cited one—the Government will take note of this because it was not the intention.
The law relating to supplementary benefits is thus already available at cost from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The noble Lord quoted the cost at about £20, and this is the current cost to the best of our belief. The amendment suggests that it should he available at a very much subsidised price of £1. We do not think the extra cost involved would be justifiable, and I will come on to the argument in a moment. For those such as occasional advisers to claimants who may need to refer to the law only intermittently, and therefore do not want to meet the cost price of a copy of their own, it will be possible to consult the publication elsewhere. Mention has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, of public libraries. I fully acknowledge his point that when one wants to borrow a publication it is quite frequently not available. Perhaps public libraries will take this into account and have more than one copy.
So far as the claimants are concerned—and this is the major area—our firm intention is to make all rules available to them. For this purpose there will be a series of publications and I will, with your Lordships' permission, read out the

657
seven principal items that we have in mind: First, the regulations themselves; secondly, an expanded and simplified Supplementary Benefits Handbook which is intended also as a source of information for advisers; thirdly, a written explanation showing how benefit has been worked out for all new and repeat claims; fourthly, a new leaflet named SB14 going to all existing claimants as part of the uprating exercise and explaining the changes; fifthly, special letters to claimants in certain circumstances such as the capital cut-off situation; sixthly, leaflets SB8 and SB9 which are available to claimants after original interview, and these will explain the scheme in some detail; lastly, a new leaflet on exceptional needs payments (the ENP) setting out precise details of the circumstances in which payments will be made. In addition, the Department's officers will always be ready to help with particular points of detail where claims may arise, and to show the claimants relevant parts of the Yellow Book if they need to refer to it. The arrangements I have outlined will go a very great way to meeting the proposals in the amendment so far as we believe it is reasonable to do so.
There remains only the question of making the Yellow Book available for consultation to the general public at local offices. I do not think that it would be a very practical proposition. There are in many offices very limited facilities for this sort of thing. It is important that nothing should be done to impede local offices in their essential task of paying benefits. In any event, it would be open to members of the public to consult the law in, for example, public libraries. To sum up, there will continue to be access to the Act and regulations in published form for those who require it. In addition, there will be a comprehensive range of information produced with the claimants' interests in mind.
I should like to refer both to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, and to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, because I think it especially important. First, in regard to a subsidised Yellow Book which the noble Lord suggested, he thought the demand would be such that the cost would be covered. Our information, regretfully, is that this is not so. Secondly, he referred to the
658
fact—and I quote his words—that he was primarily concerned that
"a vast army of people would be called upon to give advice."
We believe that the seven items I have cited would meet this need and that this is a very practical way of setting about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to what was said yesterday in Committee by my noble friend Lady Young, at column 584. I totally agree with every word she said and I quote her words from that column:
"What we are saying is that, although we are not putting a definition in regulations but relying on case law, we are, from the claimant's point of view, not only publishing the rules in the form of regulations but publishing any relevant information in the supplementary benefits handbook which I think everybody will agree will be helpful to claimants."
I regret we cannot accept this amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is very unreasonable of the Government not to do so. We have listened to a whole catalogue of things which the Government are going to provide. There are social security benefits and then they are going to have another group of papers. There is the Supplementary Benefits Handbook. Then there will be the regulations. The regulations are not yet made. Although the regulations will contain everything which will be of supreme importance to people who are called upon to advise claimants, we have to appreciate that, whether it is right or whether it is wrong, a very substantial proportion of claimants do not think they get a fair deal. They may be wrong, but many of them have been proved right when social workers have gone down to their local DHSS office and pointed out certain things; money has been given over and they have said: "We did not know this". Some have even encouraged claimants to take action which has resulted in their getting benefits which have hitherto been refused.
Then there is going to he documentation for exceptional needs payments. There is going to be some documentation on forms to claimants. We are told that people can go to the public library to consult the law, but the vast majority of the claimants—like a good many other laymen—would not be able to make

659
head or tail of the law. Very often one needs background knowledge of what the department and the Supplementary Benefits Commission do before one can begin to understand what is laid down.
Then the noble Lord says that he is advised that the demand for the Yellow Book is not such that what is proposed is warranted. I have to say, with very great respect, that if I pressed him on how he came to this conclusion, he would not be able to tell me. It is a phrase which Ministers use when they do not want to do something—"My advice is that it would not be worthwhile." Nobody can have the beginning of an idea how much demand there would be for it. We have thousands and thousands of local authority social workers, probation officers and so on who would use something like this if the price was right.
I say again to the noble Lord that, instead of issuing a lot of separate documents, let us put them together in the Supplementary Benefits Handbook—the exceptional needs, what people are entitled to, what the benefits are, how they qualify for the various benefits and the claim forms—so that people advising claimants can say to them, "You should have had such-and-such a form". Very often the answer is, "I did not get one"; and when inquiries are made that is found to be so. I ask the noble Lord to think again. This really is of supreme importance if we want to help people who are in need.
Lord SANDYS: I think we are very much aware—and what was said yesterday by my noble friend Lady Young emphasises this particularly—of the need to provide suitable and full information. The question is: In what form should it appear? I think that was very clearly in the minds of Members of another place. The way in which that information is made available, and the form which it takes, is of supreme importance; and that point was made by the noble Lord. I do not wish to detain the Committee overlong with a quotation, but I think it is relevant and I was very much struck by it when reading the report of the proceedings of Standing Committee E in another place on 14th February. The honourable Member for Birkenhead said this, at column 628:
"The details which the Minister gave the Committee on exceptional needs payments are
660
contained in a few pages of the red missal. We are not asking for claimants to be clobbered with huge tomes such as the A Code. We are asking that the leaflet, when issued, should be really helpful and not an introductory leaflet whose information is almost pointless. People go to supplementary benefit offices because they are in need. They know that. We want to know what types of need will be met."
I think it is worth quoting my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker, the Under-Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security. Her reply was:
"I think that the honourable Member knows full well that we shall be as helpful as we can be in those leaflets. One thing I did not want him to assume from my remarks was that every mortal detail could be put into a leaflet and handed to every claimant. It is a question of balance."
My honourable friend went on to mention this in considerable detail.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I am not sure that I am on very safe ground, but I do not think he is entitled to quote from the proceedings of a Committee.
Lord SANDYS: I apologise to the Committee if I have quoted incorrectly. I believe it is very important on this point, and I hope that your Lordships will excuse this.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I hope the Minister will think again on this, because it is very serious. I think he underestimates considerably the number of people who are concerned about this matter. For my sins, and for quite a long time, I did the same task as the noble Lord is doing when Lord Boyd-Carpenter was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Unless you are dealing with this fairly directly, the amount of literature you have to accept is quite incredible. Every time there is a change there is a whole range of new leaflets, new pamphlets. The noble Lord spoke about the handbook on social benefits. You read that, and if you want to get any fairly detailed information from it you come across, "See leaflet number so-and-so". Then you go along and you get a whole range of leaflets. You go through them, and you discover that that one is out of date.
Can the noble Lord tell me (because I think many noble Lords would be quite staggered by it) the cost of this Yellow Book? I felt myself that my noble friend

661
was putting it a bit low when he said "£1 for a start". After all, this little thing here, the Social Security Bill, costs £3·25. The importance of it is this. Every Member of Parliament, many Members of your Lordships' House, every social worker and people in all sorts of fields require this information. Can the noble Lord tell me what is the cost to the department of, first, the handbook and, secondly, every single copy of the leaflet? He must have a mailing list. What is the extent of that mailing list? Is everyone covered by that? For my sins, I got it for years after I ceased to hold that particular post, because every time I held a surgery with constituents in Kilmarnock it was proved afresh that you get more work in relation to social insurance and social benefit now than ever before—and the amount is going to increase.
It may well be that the noble Lord does not like this particular form of amendment, but he should do something to give some kind of up-to-date and reasonably permanent information to those who are handling these cases. We always hear that many people do not apply for the benefits to which they are entitled. This is one of the reasons. It is because the thing is so complicated. For a single pensioner there is one form; for a couple there is another form, as there are for a widow and a war widow. All the forms are so different. You get a whole library of stuff, and there is not a sufficiently collated and up to date annual reference, as I would call it, in respect of social benefits, though this would be of inestimable value. To those who are dealing with these matters and indirectly to the public, and from the point of view of people actually getting what they are entitled to, the more readily this is available the better the result will be.
Lord RENTON: I think that one of the important things that we should be sure about is that the information is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has mentioned, kept up to date. In effect, that is going to mean annual changes in the information given, because it has become the habit of Governments, at the behest of Parliament, to make changes annually, not only in the amounts involved—that would be an easy matter—but also, as the law and the practice evolves, in the substance of the regulations.
662
Indeed, we are now dealing with a change within four years, which is a much longer period than the principal Act itself. Therefore, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Sandys can assist the Committee by saying whether the various seven steps, which he has mentioned as being steps which the Government propose to take in order to give information to those concerned, will, if necessary, and if changes are made, be taken annually.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I think there is another point which has not been mentioned on this occasion; namely, that if you do not comply with the rules in connection with an application for supplementary benefit you are subject to law. The recently reported case (which I have mentioned before and which seems to me totally disgraceful) of the poor old man who was sent to prison for six months because he did not reveal to the Supplementary Benefits Commission that he had savings in building societies seems to indicate the absolute necessity for those who apply to understand precisely that they do this within a legal concept; because it is even more important than not getting their rights if, having obtained supplementary benefit, they are then going to be accused of not complying with the rules.
Lord SANDYS: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I think that she makes a real point here and I shall pass that matter on to the department. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, the two items which I can price for him now are the Yellow Book, which is £20 per copy—and that reflects what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, thought it was—and the Supplementary Benefits Handbook, which at the moment is priced at £1·70 per copy. I cannot give the cost of the other publications at present. I think that the best thing I could do would be to write to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, with such information as we can determine on the present cost of the publications. I can assure the Committee that the matter is under consideration by the Government.
I cannot say that we can come forward with any new proposal, but we can certainly look at this particular amendment. I can give no definite assurance

663
now, but the Government will consider this again and will be happy to discuss it with Lord Wells-Pestell.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I would accept this. I hope that we can come to some arrangement, because I would not want the Report stage to go by without doing something about it. I think that perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to point out that the cost of the Yellow Book, now £20, includes keeping the 1972 edition up to date for the past eight years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
Local authorities. Powers to recover charges.
(". No charge shall be recovered by a local authority under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 from a person who is entitled to a supplementary pension or allowance.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. I think it is one for which your Lordships will have great sympathy, because there is nothing whatsoever political in this. I should like to feel that this amendment would be accepted either by the Government or by the Committee. Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 is headed "Home help and laundry facilities". Paragraph 3(1) reads:
"It is the duty of every local social services authority to provide on such a scale as is adequate for the needs of their area, or to arrange for the provision on such a scale as is so adequate, of home help for households where such help is required owing to the presence of—".
Then it sets out the circumstances under heads (a) and (b); and goes on in subparagraph (2):
"A local social services authority may recover from persons availing themselves of help or facilities provided under this paragraph such charges (if any) as the authority consider reasonable, having regard to the means of those persons."
The reason for the amendment is this. Local authorities, as I have already said, are not to be allowed to charge people on supplementary benefit for home helps. At present, where such charges are made,
664
the Supplementary Benefits Commission can meet them by means of an exceptional circumstances addition. The new supplementary benefits regulations will put a stop to this. In fact, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has "jumped the gun" by saying that no further additions will be made for home helps after 29th February; and I think that it has done so in advance of this Bill.
Government policy is that local authorities should not charge for home helps where a person receiving the service is on supplementary benefit. It is only those on supplementary benefit that I am concerned with. But some local authorities may continue, so I understand, to make such charges unless they are prevented by law from doing so. This is what concerns me. It has been an established fact that people on supplementary benefit who are in need of one of these services—and I am concerned with home helps—should not be charged.
There is so much pressure—and I am not concerned to raise this question of pressure on local authorities by the Government from a financial point of view—that some local authorities, because of their reduced grants and so on, are contemplating charging for the home help service notwithstanding the fact that the recipient is in receipt of supplementary benefit. All that I want to do is to add to the paragraph in Schedule 8 that I have just read out the amendment which will prevent local authorities from doing so. Of anybody in our community, those on supplementary benefit are really not in a position to meet those charges; and all Governments have accepted this until recently.
Lord SANDYS: Part of our difficulty in handling this amendment now is that it was linked with Amendments Nos. 41 and 65B. Amendment No. 41A was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. In prefacing my remarks I said at that time that I would speak to Amendment No. 72 also because it was linked. I think that it would burden your Lordships unnecessarily if I were to repeat my remarks which are in columns 608 and 609 of yesterday's Official Report. I regret to say that we are unable to accept this amendment for the reason stated. If I may refresh your Lordships' memories in regard to Amendment No. 72, it is

665
this. It will be clear that the Government agree with the principle that lies behind the amendment. However, the Government are also committed to giving local authorities as much freedom from statutory and central Government controls as possible. Therefore, we would not wish to enforce this point by statute—which is what this amendment does—although we hope and expect that local authorities will take full and proper note
of the Government's view. We regret that we are unable to accept the amendment.
3.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 120.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Plant, L.

Beswick, L.

Hayter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Blyton, L.

Hunt, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kaldor, L.

Segal, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stamp, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Leonard, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strauss, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milford, L.

Underhill, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Milverton, L.

Walston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Gosford, E.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Clwyd, L.

Garner, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cockfield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Alport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Amulree, L.

Craigavon, V.

Godber of Willington, L.

Avon, E.

Craigton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Baker, L.

Crathorne, L.

Greenway, L.

Balerno, L.

Croft, L.

Grey, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Banks, L.

Daventry, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (Lord Chancellor.)

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bellwin, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hampton, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hankey, L.

Berkeley, B.

Devonport, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Dundee, E.

Hillingdon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bradford, E.

Eccles, V.

Inglewood, L.

Brantford, V.

Effingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Byers, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Caccia, L.

Energlyn, L.

Long, V.

Camoys, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Lothian, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cathcart, E.

Foot, L.

Lyell, L.

Chelwood, L.

Forester, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Chesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mancroft, L.

Chitnis, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

Clancarty, E.

Galloway, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Rochester, L.

Swansea, L.

Northchurch, B.

Routes, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Oaslow, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trenchard, V.

Orkney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

St. Germans, E.

Vaux of Harrowden; L.

Penrhyn, L.

St. Just, L.

Vickers, B.

Piercy, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Vivian, L.

Reigate, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Wigoder, L.

Roberthall, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Rochdale, V.

Strathspey, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 9 [The Social Security Advisory Committee]:
3.58 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 13, line 38, after ("with") insert ("the provisions of and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 73 in the names of my colleagues behind me and, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 75. These two amendments would ensure that the new Social Security Advisory Committee can advise on any changes that may be needed in social security legislation and not just on the operation of the existing legislation. Clause 9(3) provides that the Secretary of State may refer to the committee:
"… for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of any of the relevant enactments as he thinks fit (including questions as to the advisability of amending any of them)".
It is clear therefore that the committee will be able to advise on legislative reforms provided that a question has been referred to it by the Secretary of State. It has to come from the Secretary of State. Those members of the committee who feel strongly about this matter will be able to say so. The Social Security Advisory Committee will also be able to take up issues on its own initiative. The words in brackets in Clause 9(1)(a) were inserted by a Government amendment at Report stage in the Commons to make this clear following lengthy debates in the Standing Committee on the Advisory Committee's functions.
It is still not clear that the Social Security Advisory Committee will be able to take up questions involving legislative changes without a referral from the
668
Secretary of State. In fact the wording of Clause 9(1)(a) says:
"… advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under the relevant enactments;".
This suggests that they will not be able to do so. This causes us some concern. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give a satisfactory explanation. If, on the other hand, the Government should agree, I wonder whether they will be prepared to accept this amendment or table an alternative amendment at the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord BANKS: I should like just to add a brief word to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said. We on these Benches attach a great deal of importance to the role which this new committee will play. I said at an earlier stage of the Committee proceedings that we supported the setting up of this committee covering the whole field of social security and not just supplementary benefit; but I also said it had to be a powerful and independent body. I think that is worth stressing and I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said about the importance of this body being able to make suggestions about future legislation without necessarily any prompting by the Secretary of State.
Lord SANDYS: I can now respond to the questions of both noble Lords. The intention of Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 is to require the Social Security Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department on the law governing those parts of the social security system for which the committee has an advisory responsibility.
I must confess I can see no case whatever for these amendments, because under Clause 9(3) specific power is already given to the Secretary of State and the Northern

669
Ireland Department to seek the new committee's views on the desirability of amending any of the relevant legislation. The point raised by both noble Lords is: What can the Committee do by itself? Does it have to refer to the Secretary of State or can it act on its own? In response to that, I should like to say this: Should the committee itself feel that a particular problem is caused by a defect in Acts or regulations, it will be free to draw attention to this, whether or not it has been specifically asked to do so.
The Social Security Advisory Committee is not restricted to questions of law referred to it by the Government. It will definitely be free to raise any questions of law which it feels it necessary to draw attention to. So the Social Security Advisory Committee may provide a useful source of advice on the need for changes in social security law, but it would not be appropriate or practicable to give the committee as one of its major tasks the interpretation of social security law. There will be no element in its composition or other functions to qualify it for such a role. If the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Department want advice on social security law, they must look to their own legal advisers for this. If such interpretations are to be challenged, that must be done in the courts. I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should like to look at the implications of what the noble Lord has said and also at the references he made, and see whether they really agree with what we have in mind. If they do not, we shall have the remedy at the Report stage. In the meantime, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.5 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 13, line 39, after ("functions") insert ("and the functions of any officers appointed by him under section 97(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 or section 27(2) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 as amended by this Act").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, like Nos. 73 and 75, seeks to clarify the powers of the advisory committee to take
670
up initiatives on its own. As we understand it, the main responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the supplementary benefits scheme will fall on the benefit officers based at local DHSS offices. They will be responsible for decisions on benefit claims just as the locally-based insurance officers hold responsibility for decisions on national insurance benefits. However, Clause 9(1)(a) only empowers the advisory committee to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions, as I mentioned earlier. The committee may well wish to advise on aspects of the supplementary benefits as well as the national insurance schemes that fall within the function of the benefit officers or insurance officers, rather than of the Secretary of State. As I understand it, there is no provision for that, and this amendment would ensure that it can do so.
I think it should be noted that in any case the committee would have this power where a question was referred to it by the Secretary of State. That I accept, since the questions that can be referred under Clause 9 (3) are not matters which fall within the functions of the Secretary of State. The amendment therefore does not introduce a new principle; nor does it extend the committee's terms of reference into areas that it would not otherwise be concerned with. I think this is important, and I should like to hear what the noble Lord the Minister has to say, because it seems that this has been an omission. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The intention of Amendment No. 74 is to give the Social Security Advisory Committee a specific duty to advise the Secretary of State on the way the insurance officers and benefit officers are setting about their job of adjudicating on claims for benefit. The independent status of insurance officers is a cardinal feature of the national insurance scheme. It is, moreover, a feature we value so highly that we are seeking to give the same status to the benefit officers who are to decide claims for supplementary benefit. I am sure that I do not need to convince your Lordships that the independence of the adjudicating authorities in our social security system is, and will be, something of which we can be justly proud. But it is also something we have to guard carefully.

671
Amendment No. 74 is unwelcome mainly because it implies a threat to the independent status of insurance officers and benefit officers. It would inevitably involve the new committee in some detailed scrutiny of the outcome of claims for benefit. This would not only be most undesirable in principle but it would also impose an intolerable burden of work on the committee. Moreover, if the committee did not like what they saw, their advice to the Secretary of State would inevitably be in terms which could tempt him to interfere in the process of adjudication.
The amendment would result in the committee being distracted from their proper functions, which must involve taking a broad view of developments in social security. If, in taking this broad view, the committee become convinced that the appeals machinery does not provide an adequate remedy for particular failings of insurance officers and benefit officers, then, of course, the committee will be free to say so. My noble friend Lady Young went into this in some detail yesterday, so I hope that her remarks and the assurance that I have given will have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am by no means convinced that the proposal is incongruous and would produce the kind of situation that the noble Lord mentioned. But this is something else on which I would not want to make a judgment at this stage, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. But I would point out that, unless I am convinced that what the noble Lord has said is in fact so, I shall want to come back.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
4.11 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 15, line 6, after ("1976") insert ("and such provisions of any other Act, Order or regulations as relate to entitlement on grounds of low income to welfare foods, assistance with transport to hospital, and exemption from or repayment or remission of charges for prescriptions, appliances and treatment under the National Health Service").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to ensure that the advisory committee will be able to advise on the whole range of means-tested benefits for which the Department of Health and Social Security is responsible, not just supplementary benefit and family income supplement. The other means-tested benefits that will be brought within the committee's terms of reference by the amendment are free milk and vitamins for expectant mothers and children under the age of five, free prescriptions, free dental treatment, dentures and glasses, exemption from other National Health Service charges—I have in mind, as examples, wigs and appliances—and assistance with fares to hospital.
These matters need looking at very carefully, and their ramifications also need to be considered, and it seems that this would be an ideal job for the advisory committee. These benefits are particularly significant for families where the head is in full-time work but the family does not qualify for family income supplement, either because its income is just too high or because there are no children.
During the Committee stage in another place the Under-Secretary, Mrs. Chalker, referred to the advisory committee's remit in relation to working families and incentives. She said, in considering the regulations, that the advisory committee will be concerned with those on benefit, and that there is no doubt that it must be concerned with working families as well as with people who rely totally upon social security. Of course, as she pointed out, some rely on family income supplement. Others gain considerable value from the premium which is paid for the first child in respect of child benefit in a single-parent family. She expected the Social Security Advisory Committee to concentrate on areas within the remit of the Department of Health and Social Security—with which I think we would all agree—but also on wider issues which particularly affect working families; and the matters which I have read out, and which are in the amendment, are ones which particularly affect working families.
The advisory committee may well think that these means-tested benefits are relevant to its general concern about the provision made for low income families, especially in the light of the increased charges which

673
the Government are so keen on introducing. But it is liable to be told that these benefits are not part of the social security system, but are part of the health service. If this is the line which the noble Lord the Minister is going to take—and I suspect that he may well take that line—then it is desirable and advisable that it should be made clear in the Bill whether or not these benefits fall within the committee's remit. I beg to move.
Baroness JEGER: I strongly support this amendment. Anyone who has had much experience of trying to help people, as I have done, both as a doctor's wife in the East End of London and as a Member of Parliament for a long time, must be concerned about the low take-up of means-tested benefits. Often, when a whole family are on supplementary benefit, they are in contact with advisers and with their local offices, and are more likely to get to know about the whole range of help available through that contact than are families in work. Therefore, we often meet families who complain that they are worse off while the husband is going to work than the man next door who is collecting the whole range of assistance and benefits.
I remember vividly trying, not long ago, to help a woman to understand that though she was at work she was entitled to help in getting her spectacles under the NHS. But I must confess that I found the form very difficult to follow and, at the end of the day, this poor woman asked: "Why do they make it so difficult?" If we are getting into a situation where we are setting up this new committee and have all kinds of new ideas to make things easier for people, I should have thought the more of this advice we could put in one place the better. It would be absurd to suggest that at one place you are told whether you are entitled to one benefit, but have to go to another official somewhere else, perhaps in another office, to be told whether you can get free glasses or help with your dentist. Therefore, in view of the widespread concern about the low take-up of means-tested benefits, I hope that the Minister will he able to tell us that this modest and, in my view, altogether helpful amendment will be acceptable.
4.17 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Amendment No. 76 seeks to extend the Social Security Advisory Committee's role to cover means-tested assistance with welfare foods, health charges and fares for travel to hospital. I am conscious that we are already asking a lot from the new committee in entrusting it with an advisory responsibility which covers the major part of the social security system. The committee will have to tackle an advisory role which is probably unique in the range and complexity of the subjects it covers. It would be wrong, and I think counter-productive, to make further mandatory extensions to the committee's task.
Naturally, I recognise that there are close connections between the means-tested benefits, which are the subject of the amendment, and social security. Indeed, they are the responsibility of the same Secretary of State. But there are close connections, too, between social security and means-tested benefits in the fields of education and housing. A line must be drawn somewhere.
We have recognised that the new committee could not reasonably be expected to cover the whole of social security; hence, we have retained the Occupational Pensions Board, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and the Attendance Allowance Board. The line has been drawn already and we must not seek to smudge it. We should recognise, too, that the Social Security Advisory Committee will be free to comment on the means tests which are the subject of this amendment, if the committee identifies aspects of relevance to the social security system. Equally, the committee may make observations on social security means tests which are relevant to other means tests such as these.
There are very few firm boundaries in the field of income support. I am confident that we can rely on the new committee, and those responsible for the benefits which come outside its purview, to identify the interconnections which are worth pursuing. However, I am happy to confirm that the new committee will be just as concerned with people partly reliant on social security benefits as with those who are wholly dependent on benefits, but the committee's formal

675
advisory role must be kept within reasonable limits.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for those comments and observations, and I find myself in precisely the same position as I found myself on a previous amendment: I should like to look at it. However, what I want to say to the Government is this: It is no good coming to your Lordships' House and asking a lot of a committee. When a committee is appointed it must be able to undertake all the work that is given to it. If it cannot do so, then let us sack it and get another one.
The Government are making a mistake when they give that as a reason for not doing more. It may well be that there are other good reasons for not giving more work to the committee in specific fields. This I am prepared to accept, if I am satisfied that it is not within their remit. All of us who sit upon committees find ourselves in the position that we have to take on an enormous volume of work which was not originally thought possible, because it is part of the job. We shall look at this matter, and if the Minister's reply seems to be reasonable then we on this side are reasonable people; otherwise we shall come back to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL moved Amendment No. 76A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Advice Bureau.
(". The Secretary of State shall not later than 30th November 1981 cause to be set up in each local security office an Advice Bureau to assist claimants.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I must ask for the indulgence of the Committee. During the Second Reading of the Bill I suggested that consideration should be given to the appointment of older staff at supplementary benefits offices or, as they are going to be, social security offices. Having thought about this, I appreciate that over the years this would be very expensive. Therefore I have looked at it again and, if I may, I should like to move the amendment that
676
in each local social security office an advice bureau should be set up to assist claimants.
This is no new idea; it was recommended in the Beveridge Report in 1942. Paragraph 397 of the report is headed "Advice to Citizens" and it reads:
"One of the serious disadvantages of the present division of security functions between so many different agencies is the difficulty experienced by insured persons in understanding their rights and duties and in finding their way through the system to the proper authority to deal with their case. This, apart from the direct loss and delay to insured persons, leads sometimes to unjustified resentment and sometimes to lack of interest."
The paragraph continues:
"There should be in every local social security office an advice bureau to which every person in doubt or difficulty can be referred and which will be able to tell him not only about the official provision for social security but about all the other organs—official, semi-official and voluntary, central or local—which may be able to help him in his difficulty."
That recommendation was made in 1942 and it was not at that time implemented.
I submit that this is the moment at which to discuss the recommendation made in the Beveridge Report, for the following reasons. First, the magnitude of the work of the new Social Services Advisory Council and the local offices is going to be enormous. There is going to be an increase in claims. I am informed that there are likely to be 100,000 more claims on the amalgamated service because of the abolition of the earnings-related benefits. Sadly, there is likely to be an ebb and flow in unemployment and movement of labour. This will give rise at any rate to temporary claimants, if not, sadly, to some permanent claimants. Secondly, I believe that the burden of interpreting and understanding the law is falling in the wrong place. I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he says that people do not know the law and will not know the regulations. I certainly support the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who says that many people who do not apply for benefits should do so.
What is happening at the moment? The service is given, but there are many local authority social services departments which are deploying a number of their staff to give advice on what benefits people should have and how they should claim them. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would agree that many

677
probation officers are spending much of their time upon interpreting to the people they are working with what are their rights and how they should go about applying.
If I could give some figures, Manchester, strangely enough, has appointed 10 welfare rights officers. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—though I am sure that he knows this figure—that Strathclyde employs no fewer than 32. In fact, I think the figure has gone up to 40. Newcastle has a team. I do not know whether very many other authorities have got those kinds of specified appointments, but I do know that when I was working as Director of Social Services in Oxford a great deal of the time of the staff in my own department was spent upon advising claimants about their rights, or comforting claimants and explaining to them that what they had been Given was correct.
I maintain that this work should be done within the social security service. I wonder under what terms of reference and under what Act local authorities are doing work for the new social security system which should by rights be done by them? Last week, I attended an extraordinarily interesting conference run by Weekend Television in partnership with Community Care, which is a well known journal. The social workers said that they were unable to carry out their statutory duties—their duties to the elderly, to the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, to the physically handicapped, to families and children and to single parent families. In fact, they went so far as to show a film which showed a case being dealt with, advising people about their supplementary benefit.
Should this work, in fact, fall on the social services at the expense of the statutory work which they ought to be doing? May I give your Lordships one example? It is estimated that in this country there are 8,000 children who have special needs and who should be either fostered or placed for adoption. If social workers in local authority social services departments and probation officers are spending much of their time interceding with the local supplementary benefits office—which they do—and persuading people to apply for rights to which they are entitled and explaining to
678
people why they have only got so much, or not so much, then they are not carrying out the statutory duties which fall to them.
I think I should tell your Lordships that, for instance, in Islington an 0 and M survey of social workers and supplementary benefit activities within the social services departments was carried out and it highlighted serious manpower deficiencies within the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The lack of emergency services, early closing of offices and apparently the manning levels of the supplementary benefits service were determined by population rather than by the quantity and type of demand. Therefore, a great deal of work fell to the local social services department and indeed the other voluntary agencies in the area.
I did not take part in the earlier debates in regard to the production of books, and so on, because I believe that if there were to be an advice bureau within each supplementary benefit office and it was known that you did not go to your local social services, you did not depend on your probation officer, but there was an office with specially qualified people within the supplementary benefits office, then a great deal of heart-rending and discomfort and unhappiness would be saved. I know that they would have to be particularly good people and I do not deny that it would be costly; but at the end of the day it would save much expense in the social services departments.
Looking at this from the claimant's point of view, I have worked in an area which is only 13 square miles across, so that if you went to your supplementary benefits office you only had 2½ miles to walk to your local social services department or your local probation department. That is not so in many offices, where the claimant will be told what his entitlement is, he will feel that it is unfair, distressing and wrong. Either he will not pursue the matter further or he will then go to the social services department, which will cost either time or money, or both. The person will then take up the time of the other department. Many of these cases are known to both departments, and it is sometimes cost-effective for the social services department to be able to help somebody already known to them in this way; but I wonder whether the time

679
has not come for advice bureaux to be set up within the social security system and in each office.
When one is really at the end of one's tether, when one (perhaps wrongly) considers that the money given to one was not what one was expecting, under certain circumstances it is reasonable to be unreasonable. When claimants are in that state of mind they need understanding, they need sympathy, they need to be—if I may put it this way—balanced, they need to be helped and they need very real time and knowledge to be given to them to explain their position. Therefore, I would ask whether in each supplementary benefit office or in each social security office in this country an advice bureau could be set up to which claimants should go, thus relieving the social services and the Probation Service and helping many voluntary organisations, but above all helping the claimants. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sure we have all listened with real interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said. If the Government accepted it, I think that this amendment would be one of the most valuable amendments to be accepted and would considerably improve the Bill. If she has done nothing else, she has established beyond all reasonable doubt the stamina of the two noble Lords on the Government Front Bench, because when she spoke about an advice bureau in each supplementary benefits office and the cost, I expected them to collapse at the very thought of the cost, but they did not do so.
I think we shall hear something about cost from the Minister who is going to reply; I think we shall certainly hear something about the staff increase. The Government are (shall I say?) committed to reducing the Civil Service and not by any stretch of the imagination adding to it. But it would make a very valuable contribution if there could be a person or persons to whom claimants could go and know that they were getting not only skilled advice and help but independent advice and help. The only doubt in my mind—and I am sure the noble Baroness will not mind my saying this—is whether the claimant would consider that
680
he or she was getting independent advice if the advice bureau was in the office of the social security benefits building. It is important that claimants should feel that they would be getting not only skilled and expert advice but independent advice.
I suspect that the Government will pay lip service to this and say that, all things being equal, it would be a desirable thing and that if we were living in a more perfect society they would do this, and I am wondering whether I might ask a question. I have not discussed this with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, but I should like to ask whether, if it cannot be done because of increasing the number of civil servants and the cost—and the noble Baroness may not like this suggestion at all—there could be some arrangement whereby the local citizens' advice bureau could be staffed by somebody competent to do this; not necessarily a member of the Supplementary Benefits Commission but somebody competent. If that is not possible because there are not enough of them, I wonder whether the neighbourhood law centres (which have come under the axe and I know that several of them have closed down) could be persuaded to have somebody to handle this. I think this amendment is of such supreme importance to the whole question that I should like to see it accepted even if it meant that ways and means would have to be found perhaps outside the local supplementary benefits office. I congratulate the noble Baroness on this amendment.
Lord HUNT: The noble Baroness kindly made a reference to myself in hopeful support of her amendment, and I am very happy to give that support, to the extent of confirming that the questions which come to probation officers on the subject of social security rights and so on do subtract considerably from the mainline work of probation officers. It takes a considerable amount of their time. I do not know enough about the proposed amendment to go along with the noble Baroness entirely in support. I confess that it had occurred to me to suggest that this could be done in the local citizens' advice bureau, which was what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, suggested. I warmly confirm that it would be highly desirable to divest and save the time of probation officers by some move to get

681
this more centrally and appropriately placed.
Lord ROBERTHALL: I do not know whether this is the best way to do it, but I hope the Government will look very sympathetically at the problem raised by the noble Baroness. The figures which have been referred to several times of the amounts not taken up from the various kinds of social security available make it absolutely clear that there is a real difficulty here which ought, I think, to be attended to.
Lord MILVERTON: I should like to support the noble Baroness and the other noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I myself, and indeed all clergy, have sent to us yearly—at least all Church of England clergy do—the pamphlet which deals with all these things. But I must admit that I am inclined to say to people that they will get expert advice if they go to an advice bureau. I know that it would not he expert advice that I would give, even with the use of the pamphlet. I support the noble Baroness's amendment wholeheartedly, and I hope the Government will be able somehow to see their way to implementing her suggestion.
Lord BANKS: I should like to express sympathy for this amendment. There is certainly a need for someone to guide claimants through the maze of benefits which our highly complicated system provides—family income supplement, child benefit, national insurance, supplementary benefits. The noble Baroness has reminded us that this is just what Lord Beveridge envisaged as long ago as 1942. It would, I am sure, relieve the pressure on social workers, which was one of the things that he wanted to achieve. I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about the question of independence. But I think this has to be an official organisation that the noble Baroness has in mind, that it cannot be confused with independent organisations outside the system. They will continue to have a completely outside and independent role to play. Therefore, it is going to he necessary for this particular service to be provided within the social security office, to enable the individual who comes in, the potential claimant, to feel that this is a section of that office to which he or she
682
can speak without commitment, not entering into any agreement or arrangement about benefits, purely to get advice, and where anything said is without prejudice to any negotiations which may go on with the rest of the office at a later stage. I think it must he in the office if it is to function.
My only fear is that introducing another element—the supplementary benefit officer who is going to make the decision about the benefit, the social worker outside who to some extent will inevitably he involved in these questions, although the noble Baroness hopes to a lesser extent, and now the advice bureau within the set-up—will just tend to bewilder the claimants. I for one would be prepared to risk that possibility in order to seek to achieve the purpose the noble Baroness has in mind in putting down this amendment.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I make one or two comments? First of all, I thank noble Lords for having spoken to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, suggested that perhaps claimants would accept help away from the office rather than within the office. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks; I think there is a very real danger at the moment of an attitude growing up in this country of "we" and "they". There are those who go to supplementary benefit offices and find themselves dissatisfied, unhappy, disturbed, then take themselves off to somebody else and want a light to ensue between them and the probation officer, the social worker, the citizens' advice bureau. I think this is a pity. It is a good service; it is a service which ought to be regarded as whole and there ought not to be a "we" and "they" system growing up, which I think is happening at the moment. Therefore, I would very much hope that this should be within the confines of the supplementary benefit office.
With regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the citizens' advice bureaux might help, I have the greatest admiration for and have often depended on citizens' advice bureaux. But the citizens' advice bureaux personnel would need to learn all the regulations; sometimes they are voluntary workers giving one or two days a week, and I wonder whether they would be able to

683
have the whole of the regulations at their finger tips. Thirdly, if the advice bureau is staffed by social security staff there is likely to be a rapport between the two, whereas I think it might be difficult for a citizens' advice bureau to negotiate on looking at the case again, which the permanent staff might not want to do. Therefore, I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made, but I still think it would be better for such a bureau to be staffed and placed within the social security office.
4.45 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Faithfull on the amendment she has proposed, acknowledged in all quarters of the Committee as being of supreme importance. As it stems from the Beveridge Report 38 years ago it will be of special interest to many of your Lordships who still remember the late Lord Beveridge, as he used to attend frequently in your Lordships' House. It is welcome for another reason, and that is that we have drawn into these discussions the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because there is a particular point in regard to the assistance which his special experience can bring to bear.
I should like to assure my noble friend, therefore, that I have a great deal of sympathy with her amendment, and I have listened most carefully to all contributions throughout the Committee. There does appear to be a very great reason for looking at the situation as it at present stands in regard to the citizens' advice bureaux and bearing in mind all the particular problems which arise in the declension between voluntary and permanent staff. Citizens' advice bureaux at present provide excellent and helpful advice services. It may not be generally known that the DHSS does in fact already make a grant to the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, as well as continuing to give advice and information on developments in social security.
Some somewhat cynical comments were made by the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, who pre-empted some of my comments by saying that the Government would pay lip service to this amendment. I think the Government can go a little further than that, because we recognize
684
entirely what the noble Baroness, with considerable experience as a director of social services, is proposing. I would say, however, that 38 years ago, in 1942, this type of service was not in view in quite the same form as it is today, for the very simple reason that the range of benefits is enormously greater and the complications attached to them are very much greater in proportion. So the expertise of the person giving advice must be based on very considerable qualifications. I am sure my noble friend will agree with that. However, I think there is a very sound reason why we should pursue this further, to examine what she has in mind.
I am sure my noble friend would not expect the staff in local offices to offer advice on matters which are outside the immediate compass of claims to social security benefits. Moreover, she will know that the department already does a great deal to offer help and advice: reception points are provided in offices, managers are alive to the need to make staff aware of the importance of telephone contact, and the department issues a whole range of leaflets on various aspects of different benefits. The staff are expected to refer claimants to other agencies—for example, local authorities for housing benefits—where it seems appropriate.
However, we are not seeking to be complacent about the quality of our service to the public. We are always looking at ways of improving our leaflets, for example, and I am sure that my noble friend will know that, in addition to using the experience of civil servants in this area, we have also employed help from outside the department. We are concerned about the general service that claimants get when they call on our local offices. My noble friend will be glad to hear that the department is currently examining the question whether there are gaps in the services we offer, and considering the possibility of research into the best ways of filling those gaps. Indeed, may I say in parenthesis that this amendment and the suggestion which it proposes will clearly be one which will interest the department very much.
I should perhaps point out that such work as has been done so far suggests that up to 800 additional staff would need to be found if advice points were to be set up in every local office. The nature

685
of the job would be such that these staff would have to be experienced officers, as I have said already, and the fact that they were being taken off other work would be bound to lead to additional pressure on the benefit-paying service.
I cannot pretend, therefore, that there are not serious problems to be overcome before the idea of my noble friend's amendment, or indeed anything like it, comes to fruition. But I trust that what I have said will reassure her that we are very much in sympathy with her objectives, well aware of the problems and actively considering solutions. I should like to say to her that we are willing to take this one back and have a look at it, if she is willing to withdraw the amendment now, on the basis that we cannot make a prior commitment at this stage in the Bill.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his reply and for his interest and sympathy. I hope that it will go a little further than interest and sympathy. Before I withdraw the amendment, I should like to say that it is very difficult in the whole field of social service not to look at matters in isolation. If social workers in
social services departments were able to carry out their duties, and carry out their statutory duties, then the amount of money spent in local authority social services departments could be diminished. For example, it costs £122 a week for a child to live in a community home and receive education, but with social work in the area in which that child lives that money could be saved. Therefore, looking at it right across the board, money could be saved if this work could be done in the social security offices. But, with the assurance of the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Jacques): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Several noble Lords: Not content.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 109.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Rhodes, L.

Balogh, L.

Gosford, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Barrington, V.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hampton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stamp, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strauss, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lee pf Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Longford, E.

Vickers, B.

David, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wade, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Milford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Devonport, V.

Milverton, L.

White, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Wigg, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Parry, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Faithfull, B.

Peart, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Plant, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Ailsa, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Allerton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Newall, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Amory, V.

Forester, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Baker, L

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Bellwin, L.

Galloway, E.

Orkney, E.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Berkeley, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Godber of Willington, L.

Redmayne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gowrie, E.

Renton, L.

Bradford, E.

Greenway, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brentford, V.

Gridley, L.

Rootes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (Lord Chancellor.)

St. Germans, E.

Camoys, L.

St. Just, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hankey, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chelwood, L.

Holderness, L.

Sharples, B.

Chesham, L.

Hunt, L.

Spens, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Cockfield, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ironside, L.

Swansea, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Teynham, L.

Croft, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tranmire, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

De Freyne, L.

Lothian, M.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 10 [Consultation with Committee on proposals for regulations]:
5.3 p.m.
Lord BLEASE Lord BLEASE moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("Department shall lay") and insert ("Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 77. If it is convenient for the Committee, at the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 84. The main purpose of Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 84 is to ensure that this Bill will continue the procedural measures and practices provided by the Northern Ireland Act 1974. As noble Lords will know, the 1974 Act enables legislation on "transferred" and "reserved" matters to be made for Northern Ireland by Orders in Council, subject to an Affirmative Resolution.
Such orders must be laid, in draft, before both Houses at Westminster for approval.
Since the Ireland Act 1920, social security has been deemed as a "transferred" matter. Since 1920 a distinct and separate body of law has existed for social security matters in Northern Ireland. In my opinion—and I have reason to believe that I express the views of a great many people of Northern Ireland, especially persons dealing directly with social security legislation and issues—the measures in the Bill do not alter the need to adhere to the 1974 constitutional procedures, and the practices concerning the placing of Orders in Council; nor the necessity for clearly defined, separate Northern Ireland administrative and executive provisions in respect of matters arising from this Bill.
When this clause was debated in another place on 19th March there was a lengthy discussion about these constitutional procedural arrangements. The noble Lord the Minister will be aware of the arguments advanced during that debate, so I do not

689
propose to repeat them here. However, I wish to emphasise that this Bill will have wide repercussions for the people of Northern Ireland. The administrative effects, as well as other effects, of the proposed changes are being critically examined by bodies directly concerned, bodies such as the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services and the Northern Ireland Supplementary Benefits Commission. I need hardly remind noble Lords that according to all the standard social and economic indicators, Northern Ireland is the most disadvantaged region of the United Kingdom. In making that statement, I am not apportioning blame; I am simply stating the facts.
Although it is directly relevant to the amendments which we are discussing, I do not intend to expand on this aspect of the argument. In any case, I understand that in this connection the views of the Northern Ireland Supplementary Benefits Commission have been made known to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Northern Ireland Office. However, I must place on record at least two examples which I believe support the need that Northern Ireland orders should be tabled for the affirmative approval of both Houses. First, in 1979 some 18.6 per cent. of the average household's income in Northern Ireland was derived from social security benefits as compared with 11.4 per cent. in Britain. In November 1978 supplementary benefits helped to support 14.4 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population as compared with around 9 per cent. in Breat Britain.
I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will accept that I support, wish to uphold and, indeed, encourage the Government's efforts to obtain, as speedily as possible, some form of devolved government which is acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. I mention this because some of the very doubtful and specious reasons advanced in another place during this debate, when these matters were being considered, were, in my view, not relevant. I am convinced that what is proposed by these amendments does not take away from that position; nor will it impede the efforts towards constitutional arrangements. In other words, I am saying that what is proposed in these amendments will not in any way impede any discussions towards a devolved government; nor will
690
it hinder in any way any subsequent arrangements.
Clause 10(7)(b) on page 17 of the Bill says:
"a copy of any report made by the Northern Ireland Department in pursuance of this subsection shall be laid by the Department before the Northern Ireland Assembly together …".
Can the Minister please explain that? There is no such place as the Northern Ireland Assembly functioning at the present time. This may appear to some to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but in the Northern Ireland context it is not. It is a weathering away of a normal, accepted constitutional procedure. It is a matter which ought not to cause any undue parliamentary, administative problems. I am not tied to the wording of the amendments. I ask the Minister whether he will kindly accept the helpful intentions of these amendments, which are in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
5.10 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The broad aim of these amendments, as I understand it, is to provide that reports of the Social Security Advisory Committee on Northern Ireland regulations, accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services, should be laid before Parliament rather than before the Northern Ireland Assembly. In fact the amendments as drafted would have some involved and rather curious effects. I am sure your Lordships would prefer to be spared a word-by-word examination of the amendments as drafted. In principle, and irrespective of the motives behind them, they are, I am afraid, quite unacceptable on Northern Ireland political and constitutional grounds.
As your Lordships will recall, the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which is subject to annual renewal by Parliament, provides for legislating for Northern Ireland during the interim period of direct rule. At the heart of the Act is the need to keep alive the prospect of the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and hence an intact corpus of law which can be readily and smoothly taken up when devolution is achieved. That is why the Bill as drafted, in common with other legislation brought forward by successive Governments, makes reference

691
to an Assembly which is not at present in being. If that reference were deleted, that would imply either that the Government did not envisage the return of the Assembly or that it would not be given responsibility for social security. Neither would be acceptable to the Government, nor I believe to the House.
Direct rule has lasted longer than many of us would wish despite the efforts of successive Governments to find an acceptable way of returning responsibilities to the locally elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. But, as your Lordships will know, the Government have made clear their intention of bringing an end to this unsatisfactory state of affairs. To that end, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland launched his initiative aimed at finding the highest level of agreement on a means of returning power back to democratically constituted bodies in Northern Ireland.
This is not the time for Parliament to be considering piecemeal constitutional amendments to the 1974 Act. On the one hand, if the present procedures for dealing with Northern Ireland matters are unsatisfactory across the board, they should he changed by a specific and cohesive Act of Parliament and not by gradual erosion as we have here. On the other hand, it would be counter-productive for Parliament to carry through a small amendment to the 1974 Act taking Northern Ireland social security regulations out of the scope of the Assembly (and social security has traditionally since 1921 been a devolved matter) and placing it in the hands of Parliament. It would be tantamount to Parliament anticipating the outcome of the consultations which are to take place. Such an action could well be taken amiss in Northern Ireland, where it is clear that the vast majority favour a return of devolved government.
In general, Northern Ireland regulations on social security follow the principle of parity. The Social Security Advisory Committee will not be reporting on regulations which correspond to those made in Great Britain. The numbers of purely Northern Ireland regulations, if I might so describe them, and of reports on such regulations by the Social Security Advisory Committee, will be small. Even so, the Government recognise the anxiety under-
692
lying these amendments that some way should be found of ensuring, while direct rule lasts, that these reports and regulations should be readily accessible to Parliament. We propose therefore to deposit the reports and the regulations in the Library of each House. I hope your Lordships will accept this as a solution which preserves the complex constitutional requirements of the Northern Ireland situation. The noble Lord asked whether these resolutions were affirmative or negative. Regulations for Northern Ireland are subject to negative resolution under existing arrangements. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord BLEASE: I was a little happier with the latter part of the statement made by the noble Lord the Minister, that reports of the Commission would be lodged in the Library. That would be an easement of the situation. But he has repeated a number of the matters that were mentioned in the other place. His use of the terms that this is political, and an erosion of the constitutional situation, is completely out of keeping with the whole tenor of the remarks I made. Indeed, what I say is that what is put down in this Bill is an erosion of the situation. If orders, instead of having an affirmative resolution by which they can be debated in both Houses, are relegated to a negative resolution, then that is an erosion of the rights and duties and democratic procedures relating to Northern Ireland. That is what I and other persons are worried about when we see this legislation in its present form.
I am disappointed. I have not intervened in this debate at all, although in practically every clause of this Bill there is reference to Northern Ireland. I left aspects which related to Northern Ireland to the good sense and the strength of views put forward by my noble friends on these Benches. But I want to put two questions to the Minister before I sit down. Is it a fact that the only way a negative resolution can be debated, either in this House or the other House, is by a prayer; that is, a Motion to annul? If that is so, it will mean that Northern Ireland matters are to be heard in respect of carbon copy legislation, if that is the way it is being deemed, and Northern Ireland matters will not be considered.

693
On the other hand, if Northern Ireland matters are included in the Orders in Council for Great Britain, there ought to be a right that Northern Ireland matters should be debated, and there should be provision for them to be debated, and that should be clearly understood. If the Orders in Council are to provide for Northern Ireland matters, there ought to be a provision for those Northern Ireland matters to be debated. I believe that the Bill will lead to considerable confusion. Therefore, rather than say that there is an erosion of constitutional matters in Northern Ireland so far as these amendments are concerned, I allege that there is an erosion so far as the Bill is concerned.
I am afraid I must repeat my reasons, and this is not the way I want to come to this Box to deal with matters concerning Northern Ireland. I must say that since June of last year there has been a growing impression that Northern Ireland affairs are being swept under the carpet so far as Westminster is concerned. I am afraid that this goes much further because it shows Northern Ireland affairs going down the drain. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.18 p.m.
Lord BLEASE Lord BLEASE moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 17, line 7, leave out ("the Northern Ireland Assembly") and insert ("each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps the Minister will indicate his reply in respect of this amendment about the Assembly and the Negative and Affirmative Resolution procedure. Perhaps he could now indicate the situation as he sees it.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I confirm that negative resolutions can only be prayed against. I quite appreciate that the whole supplementary benefit system and the whole of this Bill is important to Northern Ireland. I can only say that we take all that very much into account. I am afraid I am not any sort of an expert on Northern Ireland and I cannot really explain to the noble Lord the reasons for what I said earlier. However, I am informed that there can be no doubt that a change of the kind suggested
694
by these amendments, however well intentioned, would have far-reaching and most definite political implications well beyond social security considerations. I am not sure that I have satisfied the noble Lord with that answer, but I am afraid that it is the best that I can give him.
Lord BLEASE: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Social Security Advisory Committee]:
5.22 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 69, line 17, after ("a") insert ("full-time").
The noble Lord said: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81 together, since they are connected, and the matter in question concerns the chairman, the committee, and the secretary. I believe that it would be advisable and helpful to deal with these three amendments together. Therefore I beg to move Amendment No. 79, and I wish to speak to all three amendments. Amendment No. 79 is quite straightforward and simple. It calls for a full-time chairman of the committee. Anyone who realises the immense amount of work involved, will fully appreciate that a full-time chairman is absolutely essential.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are designed to enable the new Social Security Advisory Committee to function effectively, given the very wide remit that it will have. There is a strong case for giving the committee 12 to 15 members, plus the chairman, rather than eight to 11 members, as proposed in the Bill. The only way in which the committee will conceivably be able to deal with the very wide range of questions referred to it, as well as issues that it may want to take up on its own initiative, will be by setting up subgroups of members specialising in particular aspects of the social security system; but that will be possible only if the committee has a large enough membership.
At present the Supplementary Benefits Commission has a chairman, a deputy chairman, and up to six other members, and the National Insurance Advisory Committee has a chairman, and six to 10 other members, making a combined membership of up to 19, including the chairmen. It should be noted also that of the new committee's maximum of 12 members, including the chairman, one will represent Northern Ireland.
The question of the rank of the secretary of the committee is important, if the committee is to have real influence within the department. The Minister, Mr. Prentice, confirmed in another place, at the 20th Sitting of the Standing Committee, as reported at column 1502 of the Official Report that the secretary was to be a principal. He argued that this was above the grade of the present clerk to the SBC, but the comparison is irrelevant because the SBC clerk's job is purely administrative, though may I say that she does it superbly. He admitted that the SBC has a chief adviser of deputy secretary rank, with other senior people working under him, and that those posts would disappear, but he argued that the new committee would still get advice from officers of that rank. However, those officers will owe allegiance only to the Secretary of State; they will not in any sense be officers of the advisory committee, which, if it does its job properly, they will probably regard as a thorough nuisance.
Therefore, it is essential that the advisory committee should have senior officers on its staff. Given the size of the job, it does not seem excessive to ask for one assistant secretary, as suggested in the amendment. Noble Lords will appreciate that there is a mammoth task facing the new set-up, and I put the amendment to the Government Benches in the hope that at last we shall receive a very pleasant, Yes. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: The intention of Amendment No. 79 is to require the Secretary of State to appoint a full-time chairman for the Social Security Advisory Committee. Assurances have already been given in another place that a substantial commitment is envisaged for the chairman, but that this will probably not be a full-time appointment. The amount
696
of time to be demanded from the chairman is a question which will have to be discussed with the individual concerned. It is fair to remind your Lordships, though, that not one of the major bodies presently responsible for advising the Secretary of State has a full-time chairman; and I think that this is a point worth noting. For instance, Professor Donnison's appointment is for four days a week, so as to leave him time to devote to his other interests and activities, over and above, and beyond, the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
We think it is important to retain the freedom that Schedule 3 now gives the Secretary of State to vary the conditions of appointment of the new chairman. As has been made clear in another place, these must depend on three considerations. To begin with, an assessment will have to be made of the amount of time needed for the chairman to help the committee fulfill its statutory duties, including the tasks it sets itself. Next, account must be taken of the availability of the individuals concerned. It would be a great pity to lose a good candidate for the chairmanship because he or she wished to maintain some kind of commitment elsewhere. Lastly, it is fair to acknowledge that different individuals work at different paces; I am sure that this is common ground. One person may achieve as much in one day as another would in three days. Until the chairman-designate has been identified, this kind of consideration remains an unknown factor.
The noble Lord also referred to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. Amendment No. 81 seeks to make two fundamental changes to staffing arrangements for the Social Security Advisory Committee, as now set out in paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 3. The first is to seek to specify that the committee's secretary should be at least of the Civil Service rank of assistant secretary. The second is, in effect, to require the Secretary of State to appoint to the committee whatever staff it wants. I must point out, too, that another effect of the amendment is to remove any reference to payment for the committee's staff; I rather doubt whether they will work for love!
It has been acknowledged in another place that it is proposed to appoint as

697
the first secretary of the new committee a person with the Civil Service rank of principal. This is a rank one down from that of assistant secretary. I am sure that those of your Lordships who are familiar with the higher Civil Service ranks will know that the principal grade is a senior one. A fair indication of this is given by the new salary scale which has just been agreed by the Government. A person at the top of the principal scale is to receive £14,000 per annum.
In putting down this amendment noble Lords opposite may have been inspired by the fear that the secretary will be the most senior official to whom the new committee will have access. Nothing could be further from the truth. The committee will be free to seek and, may on occasions be offered, advice from much more senior officials. There will be no attempt to isolate the committee from the department; indeed, the relationship will be very like that between the Supplementary Benefits Commission, in its advisory capacity, and departmental officials—a relationship which, I am assured, all concerned agree has worked out very well indeed.
So far as numbers of staff for the committee is concerned, I am happy to give an assurance that the committee will have the help it needs to do a thorough and effective job; but we cannot give a blank cheque. Only the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament for the use of his department's staff. He, not the committee, must have the final say in the allocation of all of them. I hope that following those comments the noble Lord will feel ready to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: The noble Lord who has replied has been so kind and charming that I hate having to put these questions to him. Is it really seriously suggested that you should determine by interview whether one person would put more into three days than some people put into five, as was suggested in the brief?
Secondly, why is a four-day week part-time? Is this professor working a seven-day week so he has three days for something else? I find that brief full of very strange and contradictory statements. We all know there are people who put more into one day than some people put into seven, but I would have thought it is extremely difficult to discover. How you determine
698
that until they have actually worked for you, I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord could at some stage get his department to let us know the answers to some of these mysteries.
Lord SANDYS: I am sure the noble Baroness is quite right. It is extremely difficult, as she will know from her vast experience of interviewing candidates for a number of posts, and this cannot be determined. Nevertheless, I think it is fairly stated by the department as a fact of life that there are those who do work at a faster pace but do not necessarily achieve greater results. I think it was a view which was expressed in general terms which she has fastened on to with great agility.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: This is a question of simple arithmetic. Two into one will not go, but it is a question of two going into one so far as the two bodies are concerned, the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the National Advisory Committee, both of whom have part-time chairmen. Amalgamate it into one body, give it greater responsibilities and worries with plenty of regulations, two part-time chairmen added together equals one part-time chairman. That is the position. I think the Government will be forced in the end to do something, because I cannot see anybody taking up a job of such immense magnitude part-time unless—and here is the danger—the whole outfit will be ruled by paid senior officials carrying out rules and regulations to the letter. That is not what we want in social security.
With reference to the other comment made by the noble Lord about Amendment No. 18, no reference was made to payment of staff but could they work for love? I do not think they would do that. When I spoke on the amendment, I referred to questions of senior grade and so on and that people who work for love are not given gradings; they just accept it joyfully in any voluntary organisation. But this is not a voluntary organisation. I would say that that remark is really beside the point; it does not follow at all.
I am not inclined to press this at the moment, but I have a point of substance; there is no argument about that. If a logical person looks at the two set-ups as

699
they are at the moment, and then thinks of the new one, it is obvious that there must be a full-time chairman and a high standard of staff. Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I give a clear indication that this matter must be referred to again at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
5.33 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 71, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: This would delete from the list of regulations that need not be submitted to the advisory committee those dealing with the adjustments of national insurance benefits following an increase in child benefit. Regulations adjusting. national insurance benefits following an increase in child benefit would be referred to an advisory committee. Part II of Schedule 3, pages 70 to 72 of the Bill, are a category of regulations which will not be submitted to the advisory committee. The list was greatly shortened when the Government accepted a number of Opposition amendments during the Committee stage in another place, but one amendment they refused to accept was to delete paragraph 14(2). The grounds for this refusal were that the adjustments would be part of the up-rating and up-rating orders would not be referred to the SSAC—Official Report of Commons Committee, columns 1507–08.
Since then, however, the post-Budget up-rating announcement has made it clear that the Government are adjusting national insurance benefits in relation to this year's child benefit up-rating in a way which can only be described as a blatant swindle—I am sorry to use that phrase, but that is the point—and there will be a note on this, I understand, in a magazine; but, as far as I am concerned, I have no more detail on this. This is a very complicated matter on which it would have been helpful for Parliament to have a report from an expert body like the SSAC. I hope, therefore, that we can get some reasonable reply from the noble Lord, because this is quite an important matter. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The intention of this amendment is to require the Government to refer regulations which specify the rates of child benefit to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Child benefit would then become the only benefit to be subject to this type of scrutiny by the committee. It would not be appropriate to seek the new committee's advice on benefit rates. It would certainly be wrong to single out child benefit for this treatment. Benefit rates must remain the clear and final responsibility of Parliament acting on the decisions of the Government of the day. There is no case or need for an intermediary in this matter. Full scrutiny of up-rating regulations by Parliament is already assured because they are all subject to Affirmative Resolution; so I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I am not prepared to get into detailed discussion at this stage. I will withdraw the amendment, subject to further discussion at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 72, line 19, leave out paragraph 17.
The noble Lord said: This amendment deletes from the list of exclusions regulations made within six months of the Royal Assent. This is an important issue. The Government are virtually introducing a new supplementary benefit scheme by regulation. The regulations will cover not only matters that are at present decided by the Supplementary Benefit Commission under its discretionary powers but also matters that are now in the Supplementary Benefits Act; for example, the method of calculating rent additions, the treatment of earnings, savings and other resources and the penalties for voluntary unemployment. It will be impossible for Parliament to scrutinise these regulations adequately, though the Government might give us an opportunity; we do not know. The advisory committee could do so even if it cannot get down to the job until the regulations are already in force.
Its report would be laid before Parliament which could be of great value.
Regulations made within six months of Royal Assent should be referred to the SSAC. These are excluded from a referral by paragraph 17 of Schedule 3. Since they will include the main body of supplementary benefit regulations, it is essential that they should be properly scrutinised. Attempts during the Committee stage in another place to find a way of ensuring this, by getting them referred to the Social Services Select Committee, failed.
The objection to referring them to the SSAC is that the SSAC will not be set up for some time and will be overloaded by having to report on this mass of regulations; but they could take several months over it and their report would form the basis of amending regulation which are bound to be needed when the new scheme has been in operation for a time. An amendment was put down at Report stage in another place and I understand that Mrs. Chalker, the Minister responsible, undertook to reconsider the problem. I refer to Hansard, 19th March, column 555. If she has reconsidered the problem, perhaps the noble Lord will now be able to tell us the favourable result of her considerations. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: The intention of Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, of course, is to delete paragraph 17 from Part II of Schedule 3, and the result of that would be that in the six months following Royal Assent the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department would be required to refer proposals for supplementary benefit, child benefit and family income supplement regulations to the new Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee will take over from the three bodies it replaces in November. In practice, therefore, paragraph 17 can be effective for only a relatively short time; that is, for the "fag end" of the six months after Royal Assent. But that will be the very time at which the committee will be (if I might put it in this way) entering the water. It would he folly to drown it straight away with a great wave of urgent regulations.
It has been a long-standing practice to exclude regulations made within six months of the passing of a social security Bill. This is simply on the grounds of urgency. Taking supplementary benefit
702
as an example, it is the intention that the revised scheme should come into operation at the same time as the up-rating in November. This would have very important effects. It would mean that there will be some 3 million weekly benefit payments which will need to be recalculated to give effect to the detailed changes, most of which will be prescribed in regulations. It is therefore essential that the main regulations be made as soon as possible after Royal Assent. These will be subject to Affirmative Resolution, and therefore debated in both Houses. Other regulations will follow as soon as possible thereafter.
So your Lordships will appreciate that it is necessary that these regulations are made quickly because of the need to print the necessary leaflets and to train and equip local officers to operate the new rules. All of this must be completed in time for the revised scheme to become fully operational from November. There will clearly be no time for consultations with the new committee. These considerations are so important so far as the timetable is concerned, and the administrative arrangements, that I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The noble Lord referred to the committee entering the water, and said he did not want them to be sunk at an early stage.
Lord SANDYS: Not the guillotine. I said "the committee", not "the guillotine".
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The noble Lord referred to the committee entering the water, and said he hoped they would not be sunk in the early days. The trouble is that the committee will not be sunk: it is the poor people who are claiming benefit who will get sunk—and taken for a ride at the same time. The other interesting point is that when you consider some of these replies from the Government they get you worried, because the noble Lord referred to all sorts of documents being prepared—leaflets and so on. I can see a mass of paper being turned out, flooding the country with all sorts of complex regulations which nobody will understand. We are getting into an even greater muddle

703
of bureaucracy than the present system. However, in response to the noble Lord's pleading, I will at this stage withdraw, with due warning that we may come back.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved].
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Tenure of office of Commissioner]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 85, which I move, deals with the appointment of deputy social security commissioners where it is necessary in order to clear a backlog of appeals. At the Committee stage in another place a new clause was moved which would have required the commissioners to dispose of appeals within six months of the date of an appeal being lodged. When the Secretary of State rejected that proposal he said that at present it is taking 16 months to decide an appeal to the commissioners. He indicated that, naturally, this procedure had to be speeded up, but he thought the way to secure that improvement was by the practical steps of appointing sufficient commissioners, rather than writing into the statute the wording which had been suggested. Accordingly, at the Report stage a different amendment was proposed, which is identical to Amendment No. 85 which is before your Lordships today.
On that occasion the Secretary of State argued it would be meaningless to add the word "shall" to Clause 13, subsection (5), because he said the Lord Chancellor will make the appointment if he thinks it necessary, subject to the availability of suitable appointees. As it stands, this subsection of Clause 13 makes the appointment of deputy commissioners entirely discretionary, and the effect of the amendment will be that, while it would still be for the Lord Chancellor to decide whether there was a need to appoint deputy commissioners, having decided there was a need he would
704
be obliged to make the appointments. It should be mentioned that when the amendment was withdrawn in the other place the comment was made that "in another place" (referring to your Lordships' House) concern would be shown for appeals to be heard quickly, and that is the primary reason for this amendment coming before your Lordships today.
It has to be kept in mind that from this November, for the first time, supplementary benefit cases will be appealable to the commissioners. Therefore, the backlog of appeals is likely to get worse unless emergency measures are taken to speed up the hearings. Appointing deputy commissioners for a minimum period is a way in which this could be done, and we should like this to be mandatory rather than just discretionary. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I would ask noble Lords to reject this amendment for two reasons. First, it is misconceived in that this subsection applies only when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor considers that, in order to help the disposal of the business of the commissioners, he should appoint a deputy commissioner for such period or on such occasions as he thinks fit. It would therefore be meaningless to introduce a requirement to appoint a deputy by substituting the word "shall" for the more general power of "may". Subject to the availability of suitable appointees, my noble and learned friend will naturally make appointments if he considers them necessary—and here I know I am echoing what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place. Secondly, the subsection follows in its wording that of the Courts Act 1971. This provides that the Lord Chancellor may appoint deputy circuit judges. Since the deputy commissioner would be appointed on the same basis as these deputy judges, it is eminently suitable that the same language should be used.
The commissioners are the third tier in the social security adjudication system, which consists of insurance officers, national insurance local tribunals and commissioners. There is also a right of appeal to the commissioner on points of law from decisions of medical appeal

705
tribunals. Currently they are the final authority under social security law, but Clause 14 of the Bill introduces a further right of appeal on points of law to the Court of Appeal. They are of equal status to High Court judges. I trust that, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: The noble Lord says that this amendment is misconceived and endeavoured to argue a logical case. I may be an ignorant man, but I could not follow the logic. It seemed to be that merely because something is done somewhere else, we must do it in this case. In view of the facts of the delay and the backlog of appeals that I outlined, I hope that this matter will be given consideration. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will act as he thinks fit and in the best interests, but equally, this Committee has a right to decide what it will do. Nevertheless, we will give the matter further consideration and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 18 agreed to.
5.51 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 85A:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Costs due to sickness
.—(1) For the purposes of paragraph 2 (1) of Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 as amended by this Act, the Secretary of State shall investigate the extent to which households are necessarily subjected to extra costs of daily living by reason of the chronic sickness or disability of a member of the household, having due regard to the position of that member in the household and the nature of his impairment.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament not later than 1st May 1981 a report setting out the results of his investigation and making appropriate recommendations for determining the requirements of such households.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and myself. The Committee will be aware that for some considerable time the Disablement Income Group and others interested in the disabled have argued that provision for the disabled should be in two parts:
706
first, an income maintenance part, subject to tax and designed to compensate for inability to earn or impaired ability to earn; and, secondly, an expenses allowance, not taxable, as a contribution towards the special extra costs which disablement imposes. This amendment is concerned with the second of these benefits, the expenses allowance. I understand that under the last Government plans were afoot for a Green Paper on the subject of a disablement costs allowances. I should like to ask the Government whether they have plans for proceeding with this.
The Conservative Party manifesto referred to:
"a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives".
The manifesto went on:
"We shall work towards this as swiftly as the strength of the economy allows".
This Bill seeks to simplify the supplementary benefit system on a new cost basis, and the danger is that some disabled people will be simplified out of the system. This makes discussion of what financial provisions will take the place of supplementary benefit for these severely disabled people all the more urgent.
I am aware that the phrase "as the strength of the economy allows" may be used by the Government as an argument for delay. But this amendment is very modest, it does not call for a Green Paper or for any commitment at this stage on a disablement allowance; it calls for an investigation into the facts in order to get a clear picture of the extent to which households are subjected to extra costs of daily living by reason of the chronic sickness or disability of a member of the household. It is important that we should have these facts and since the Government are committed eventually to
"a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability".
I hope that they will accept this amendment as a first and necessary step. I beg to move.
Lord CRAWSHAW: I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because for the people that this amendment concerns, living costs do rise and earning capacity decreases. You do not have to be a senior wrangler to work

707
out that a real problem exists. I think that Hitler had rather a drastic solution to some of these difficulties and recently the Russians refused to have the Disabled Olympic Games in Moscow because they maintain that they do not have disabled people. I do not know what they have done with them, but, apparently, they do not exist; so that I do not see much hope in a communist or Left-Wing solution to this problem. I would say straight away that I am sure that for most disabled people this country is much the best place to live in.
I am aware of the Government's intentions and hopes to beat the present inflation, and also that inflation is the worst enemy of all pensions and other help that can be given. As a taxpayer, I do not want to see the people of this country over-taxed or to drive out the wealth creators of the community, but, as Lord Banks has said, this new clause is not asking for an increase in benefit at the moment. It is simply attempting to identify and analyse the problem so that when the economy improves (as we hope it may) something can be done speedily. This may be done partly by the Government and partly by the voluntary sector. You cannot really put a price in cash terms on an Englishman's freedom, and there is no doubt that part of that is sacrificed through disablement. But you can help to ensure that people can live in dignity and free from distress. Let us this evening just show some concern for the problem. That is all that the amendment amounts to. I hope, in supporting it, that we shall have a constructive debate.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: From these Benches, I should like strongly to support this amendment which does not call for any expenditure but for an investigation into a subject which is something that quite a number of Members here know plenty about. The noble Lord who has just spoken has practical experience to the greatest extent. Others have experience also, not only of severe disablement but of partial disablement even for periods of perhaps two or three years. I strongly press the Government to accept this amendment, which is well intentioned, and, I am sure, supported on every side of the Committee.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: As vice-president of the Disabled Drivers' Associa-
708
tion, I am happy to support this new clause.
Lord SANDYS: I rise to reply to this amendment, first of all in the knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has asked a particular question in regard to the plans which he said were afoot for a disablement cost allowance. I think that this subject was very fully dealt with by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security, Mr. Prentice at the Report stage in the House of Commons. I can do no better than to quote what my right honourable friend, in his traditional robust style, said, as reported in col. 504 of the Commons Official Report of 19th March:
"If I am asked whether I am in favour of a general disability income, I give the emphatic answer "Yes", for the reasons given by many hon. Members. That objective was stated in the Conservative Party's manifesto and it remains the objective. The question is: how and when?"
My right honourable friend went on to say:
"The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) accused the Government of stopping work which he said was going on in this area, as though in some way or another the change of Government had made a difference."
I should explain here the situation over Green Papers because I think it would assist the Committee. There is a longstanding convention that Ministers cannot be told of discussions between previous Ministers and their officials and that they must be guided solely by public statements on the matter. If we altered this, it would be varying a long-held convention. I think further that I ought to quote my right honourable friend from a little further on in that debate because it is something which affects a large number of people—and the Government have great sympathy with this group. When my right honourable friend was asked whether work had stopped on the Green Paper, he said, at column 505:
"With respect, it was not a setback for the disabled. Green Papers butter no parsnips. There was and would have been no disability income at this stage, nor for some years to come.".
Study which may or may not have been in hand—and we do not know the full details of what took place—is something of a matter of conjecture.
I will now turn to the substance of the amendment. The effect of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to

709
investigate the extra costs of daily living imposed upon households with a chronically sick or disabled member and to lay a report before Parliament not later than 1st May 1981. The department have already sponsored research by the Social Policy Research Unit at York University into the income and expenditure of families with handicapped children. That study began in 1977 and is due to be completed late this year. The work carried out so far has already indicated one or two specific areas where further investigation appears desirable, and it is hoped that further research on these aspects will be carried out during 1981.
Although predominantly concerned with families of handicapped children, this is a major study which will take over three years to complete and it would be premature to sponsor further research or to take further action in the same field until the findings of this work have been assimilated. I believe that we are concerning ourselves with that matter and that is the principal matter referred to in the amendment. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, whether at this stage they will be willing to withdraw the amendment and await the result of this Social Policy Research Unit study at York University.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Banks, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Rochester, L.

Barrington, V.

Gregson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Beswick, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Chitnis, L.

London, Bp.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Underhill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wade, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Monson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

David, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peart, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Avon, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Baker, L.

Bradford, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Balerno, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Allerton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alport, L.

Belstead, L.

Camoys, L.

Amory, V.

Blake, L

Campbell of Croy, L

Lord BANKS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I did not find it in some of its aspects very illuminating. I am not clear yet whether or not there is a Green Paper likely to be produced on this subject, which was the question that I asked. As I made clear, and as the noble Lord made clear, this particular amendment does not call for a Green Paper, though I want the information to be available. The noble Lord has told us that some research is going on in this field; but it only relates to part of the area covered by this amendment. It relates to families of handicapped children. We are concerned with the additional expenses which disabled people generally are forced to face up to in the course of their daily living. We are asking that there should be some investigation into that and a report—it need only be an interim one—presented in a year's time. I do not see why that should not be done and why that should not be included in the Bill. Because of that, I feel obliged to test the opinion of the Committee on the matter.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 85A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Non-Contents, 104.

Cathcart, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Northchurch, B.

Chelwood, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chesham, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Cockfield, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Penrhyn, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Redmayne, L.

Croft, L.

Hampden, V.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Daventry, V.

Holderness, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

de Clifford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

De Freyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Germans, E.

De La Warr, E.

Inglewood, L.

St. Just, L.

Denham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seebohm, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Falmouth, V.

Margadale, L.

Teviot, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Teynham, L.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Forester, L.

Morris, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vickers, B.

Galloway, E.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Garner, L.

Norfolk, D.

Westbury, L

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential and minor amendments of enactments]:
6.13 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 76, line 34, at end insert:
("The Housing Subsidies Act 1967
15.—(1) The provisions of section 24(1)(B) of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect where a person borrows, or two or more persons borrow jointly, from a qualifying lender on the security of a freehold or leasehold estate of the borrower, or of one or more of the borrowers (including an estate held jointly or in common by the borrower, or one or more of the borrowers and one or more other persons) in land in Great Britain, and the following conditions are satisfied:—

(a) that the loan is or was made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine tenths of the proceeds of the loan are or were applied to the purchase by the person or persons to whom it was made of an Annuity ending with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons (in this section referred to as "the Annuitants") who include the person or persons to whom the loan is made;

(b) that at the time the loan is made the person to whom it is made or each of the Annuitants had attained the age of 65 years; and

712

(c) that the person or persons to whom the loan is made or each of the Annuitants uses the land on which it is secured as his only or main residence.

(2) The borrower or borrowers may by notice in writing to the lender in such form as the Ministry may direct (in this section referred to as an Option Mortgage") elect that the loan shall be subsidised in accordance with the provisions of Part It of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 and the Option Notice shall be treated for all purposes as if it were an Option Notice made under the provisions of section 24 of the said Act.")
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and myself. This amendment deals with what is sometimes called, "the home income plan". That is a plan designed to help certain elderly people to increase their income. It aims to help elderly people with a limited income who find themselves living in a house which they own and which has an appreciable market value. Their income is small; the house is their capital asset but not of much use in helping to pay the bills. Under the home income plan they raise a mortgage on the house and use the mortgage proceeds to purchase an annuity—an income for life. Out of that income for life they pay the interest on the mortgage. The balance of the income for life provides them with a useful addition to their income.
One feature of this plan is that tax relief is allowed on the mortgage interest.
It was a specific decision of the Government to include interest on mortgages raised for this purpose for tax relief. Tax relief is not allowed on all mortgage interest, but this is one of the purposes for which it is approved. However, those who need the scheme most—those with the smallest incomes—do not pay tax and therefore receive no benefit from the tax relief. In these circumstances, the scheme is often of no help to these elderly people who are non-taxpayers.
When buying one's own house, similar tax relief on the mortgage interest is allowed—that is another approved purpose—but in this case those who do not pay tax may opt for the option mortgage scheme under which the interest is reduced by means of a Government subsidy. This option, available to those buying their houses, is not available to those raising a mortgage on their house to purchase an annuity. This amendment would extend the option mortgage scheme to elderly people raising a mortgage to purchase an annuity.
It might be argued, though I certainly would not argue it, that tax relief should not be extended to elderly people raising a mortgage to buy an annuity; but it was with all-party agreement that this was included in the Finance Act 1974 and it is quite illogical to extend tax relief, thus helping the taxpayers, but not to extend the option mortgage scheme to help the non-taxpayers. The Government are already helping elderly taxpayers in this situation, just as they help young taxpayers to buy their houses. Let them now help elderly non-taxpayers in this position, in the same way as they help young non-taxpayers who are buying their homes. This amendment is supported by a wide range of organisations such as the Life Offices Association, Help the Aged and Age Concern; and I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: I beg to support this amendment, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. In the Second Reading debate the noble Lord the Minister said on 1st April, col. 1304:
"I could not really give an idea of quite how much that would be"—
that is, needed on Government subsidy—
714
"as it is difficult to know how many people would, in fact, go in for this option mortgage scheme".
He went on to add:
"But, in the present circumstances, I doubt whether money would be made available".
He also said something with which I particularly disagreed; namely, that it would not be fair to people who pay rent. But surely people can get rent and rate rebates, which the people who are the subject of this amendment cannot.
I hope that he will not mind my reminding him again that on 9th February 1978 at col. 1230 he said:
"… the Conservative Party has a solution to this problem, but until such time as we can put it into operation it is for the Government to deal with the matter".
Now that the noble Lord is representing the Government very well, I should like to ask whether he has refreshed his mind about this statement and whether he will therefore be able to give me an adequate answer.
As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, the insurance companies provide the loan and that is repayable on death, with no capital repayments during life. I think we can agree that the heirs are protected because if the occupant should die early—say, after one year—only 25 per cent. of the loan is repayable; and if death occurs later, for example in the third year, 73 per cent. is repayable. After that, it has to be fully repaid.
The suggestion in this amendment deals with freehold and leasehold houses, though the length of the lease must be 65 years and the occupant must be a minimum age of 70. In the Standing Committee in June 1974 in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Carr (then Robert Carr), also supported this idea. He said:
"… at present pensioners have only three elements in their income."
I will give an example: a widow aged 82 years and with a house worth £20,000 received a loan of £16,000 under the scheme with which this amendment is concerned today. The woman, who was an old age pensioner, had an income of £1,545, including her pension. She also received £750, with interest relief of £349, leaving her with £2,644. Another widow with a less valuable house had an income of £1,974. If this amendment is not

715
passed, her income will drop to £1,780, but if it is passed it will rise to £2,058.
In the other place, this amendment was supported by Liberals and Conservatives. I think we are right in saying that it will not help everybody, but it might help about 1 million, so for that reason it is worth while. The Prime Minister, with whom I agree entirely, considers that people should strive to be independent and this is exactly what these home owners are struggling to do. They have lived through two world wars and increasing inflation, which is making life very difficult for them. But they are the very people who have striven to keep their independence, who are proud and who, through no fault of their own, are suffering They have no wish to be a burden on the State.
I should like to give an example of one man, a Mr. D, and to explain how the amendment would help him. He is aged 80 years and has a State pension of £13.30 a week, which is his only income. He owned his house in Surrey, which in 1974 was worth £15,000. He got a loan of £12,000 and had to pay interest at 9 per cent. He received £992, with which he bought an annuity of £147.10 a month, after deduction of the interest of £54.10 a week. Non-taxpayers cannot claim tax relief. He has no relations living in England—they are in Canada—and if the Government accept this Amendment he will be £30.49 better off each week. There was a great struggle to get a pension for the over-80s and it took Airey Neave, who led the campaign, several years to get it. It is essential to get this agreed, because there are not a great number of people involved and they really need some Government consideration.
Clause 21(5) on page 25 states that these provisions shall come into force,
"on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be appointed in pursuance of this subsection for different provisions of this Act".
I should like to suggest to the noble Lord who is to reply that he puts this into the Bill now, and then, when there is a more satisfactory financial position, he can bring in a statutory instrument to implement it.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: I have been asked by Help the Aged, a voluntary organisation with which I am, like many of your Lordships connected, to support this amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I am especially happy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. For years and years in the other place, we fought together for humanitarian causes, although we were on different sides of the House of Commons. This is just such a humanitarian cause, and one of no party significance whatever. It is like Help the Aged—a non-party body, interested in the wellbeing of old people.
In an excellent article in last Sunday's Observer, which I am sure many of your Lordships have read, Miss Joanna Slaughter showed how this amendment could benefit poorer old folk, perhaps some thousands of them—I do not think the number involved is such a great one as people may fear—who have a house, who want to live in it till they die, and who have nobody to whom to leave the house, but who cannot benefit from income tax relief, if they take out a mortgage and use the money from the mortgage to buy an annuity, because they do not pay income tax. Their income is so low that they do not pay income tax, so they cannot get the benefit which better-off old people can get. Better-off old people who do pay income tax, and who, similarly, take out a mortgage to buy an annuity, can claim tax relief on the mortgage interest and so have a larger income than the poorer old people.
I do not believe that the cost of this amendment can be a great deal—perhaps £2 million or £3 million, not much more. In the words of the writer in the Observer,
"This seems a small price to pay to provide assistance to a very hard-pressed sector of our community—assistance, moreover, which could also have the … effect of enabling more old people to continue to live in their own homes."
The Help the Aged organisation says:
"Something like the option mortgage scheme should be extended so that the elderly can take out low interest mortgages for purposes like annuities. This could enable retired people to stay in their homes as part of the community."
The scheme proposed in the amendment has recently been widely supported by writers in The Times, the Guardian, the Sunday Times, the Express, the Daily

717
Mirror, the Financial Times, the Birmingham Post and, of course, by that voluntary organisation which is kindred to the one in which I am interested Age Concern.
Age Concern says:
"… We are very concerned about the financial difficulties of elderly owner occupiers whose sole asset is their home."
In the Birmingham Post in October last year, an article by Patrick Weever said:
"All I am asking you to do is to put these poorer folk on level pegging with their rich neighbours by granting them an Option Mortgage scheme. After all, you already do this for thousands of home buyers who do not pay much income tax. Why not do the same for old folk desperately needing to turn their one major asset into a pension. Many old people in Britain will die rich but are forced to live in poverty."
That is the paradox. Joe Irving, writing in the Sunday Times in December last, said:
"But there are some areas where a little extra spending is justifiable even in times like these. This is one of them."
I hope the Minister will note that this amendment has been spoken to from all quarters of this House, from all parties and from no parties, and I trust that he will be able to accept this modest but very valuable amendment.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: As has already been said, this amendment has been moved for humanitarian reasons, with which I agree. I would, however, ask the noble Lord who moved this amendment whether he would consider removing the words "or main" from paragraph (c) of subsection (1), so that the paragraph reads:
"that the person or persons to whom the loan is made or each of the Annuitants uses the land on which it is secured as his only residence."
By omitting those words, I believe that the amendment is strengthened and I hope that the Government will agree to look into this matter.
Lord GISBOROUGH: May I, very briefly, support this amendment? It has been so well moved and explained that shall not take up the time of the Committee by doing so again. It raises in particular the issue that benefits are available if these old people up sticks "and move into a new house, and it must be an anomaly that they cannot gain the advantages by staying in situ in their own community.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: We have had eloquent speeches from many corners of this House. I rise not to make a further long speech but to point out to the Government that the Committee stage of this Bill is slowly petering out and that this is the Government's chance to redeem themselves from their "back to the wall" approach to every conceivable amendment which has come before them. If there is any amendment which needs support, and which should receive support from the Government, it is this. I hope that rising to express support from these Benches will not result in what has been my experience so far in rising to support other people's amendments—that is, the kiss of death.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I should like to support this amendment, involving my noble friend and my work with Help the Aged. I hope that the Government are not going to tell us that this amendment would cost a lot of money. For one thing, they cannot possibly estimate what it will cost; nor can they have any idea how many people will take it up. But we do know that it cannot be a large number. This is a group in the community to whom we pay tribute. They have taken the trouble to try to maintain themselves in their old age. If these elderly people are transplanted into old people's homes or special flats, they will cost the taxpaper a great deal of money. This must be not only the best way of allowing them to remain for the rest of their lives in dignity; in the end, it must also be the cheapest. I was very taken with the expression used by my noble friend: that some people die rich but live poor. It is often said, I believe, that some people are the richest men in the churchyard. Let us make it possible for them to enjoy life in their own homes. This is a group in the community which cannot, of necessity, be very large in number.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I add just one word of support? This is an extremely valuable and very important amendment, and I agree with every word of my noble friend. I am the vice-president of one of his organisations. The real point about this is that it is much the cheapest way of helping these people. If, as the noble Baroness said, you put them into old people's homes

719
or into special old people's flats, it is very costly. I have come across this many times in my experience of social work in local government. It is a splendid thing to do, but, as I say, it is extremely costly. First, you have to build all the sheltered homes, and very often you have to build the old people's homes.
This is a marvellous way of doing something which is entirely humanitarian. It is a good investment from the Government's point of view. It would cost them far less than anything else. I hope very much that at the end of the Committee stage of this Bill the Government will be able to accept this amendment. I am quite sure that it would be of enormous value to everybody, including the Government, who want to save money. And goodness knows! we all want to save money. This is one of the ways in which we can do it, and I trust that the Government will accept the amendment.
6.34 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: One certainly can get caught out in this business! It was not so very long ago that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised this subject and I came in with him, fully in support. Now I find myself having to speak from this Dispatch Box, and I cannot speak quite so naturally as I did then. May I say that personally I still retain sympathy for the intention of this amendment, but I should like to make one point which has not, I think, been made by any speaker. From what all noble Lords have said, it appears that this is a tremendously humanitarian thing—terribly helpful to everybody—but I would point out that there are professional people who are anxious to go into this business and who are not doing it for love. I make this point because it is quite important that we should keep it in mind.
There is some merit in the scheme to enable elderly people to make use of the capital value of their house, but what is happening in this case is that there is no indexation. The value of the house will, in point of fact, be rising; but the house will of course have gone to the person arranging the mortgage, and the value of the annuity received by the annuitant will, as a result of inflation, be falling.
720
So it is not necessarily, on all grounds, tremendously helpful to that person. It may be helpful in some ways but not in all. There has been so much support, though, for this amendment in the Committee that, although I am in no position to accept it, I will take it back, and perhaps it can be raised at the next stage.
Lord BANKS: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the very interesting and encouraging discussion which we have just had on this important proposition. Perhaps I could begin by referring to the point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpineon, who wanted words to be altered in subsection (1)(c). The words which are used there are the same as the words which are used in connection with mortgages for house purchase where the mortgage option also operates. I should certainly be happy, in the time between now and the next stage of the Bill, to discuss this point further with her to see whether it might be appropriate to propose any alteration in the words as we now have them.
I should like to take up two points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. He spoke about professional people being interested in this scheme. There is no secret about the fact that reputable insurance companies make this plan available; of course they do. They make it available to both taxpayers and non-taxpayers, and there are plenty of taxpayers to take it up. But they cannot very often make it available to non-taxpayers in terms which would help those non-taxpayers. It seems reasonable and equitable to put that position right. It might indeed result in extra increased business under this head for those people who provide this particular facility, just as the option mortgage itself for house purchase no doubt helps to provide additional business. However, so long as the business is perfectly legitimate and so long as the people concerned are getting advantage out of it, I cannot see any objection to it.
The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, raised, had to do with falling values. I did not follow him very clearly, but if the house increases in value then that increase in value will accrue to the owner of the

721
house. The mortgage does not increase; the mortgage stays at the level it was when it was first arranged. So any increase in value will accrue eventually to the person who sells it—that is, to the owner who has raised this mortgage. Therefore I cannot see that the owner loses in any way as a result of this. On the contrary; the owner stands to gain from capital appreciation, just as the owner would if this mortgage had never been entered into.
I should like to conclude by thanking the noble Lord, first for making it clear that he personally still has an interest in this particular proposition and secondly for saying that he is prepared to look at it again before the next stage, when those of us who have brought forward the proposition tonight will certainly be prepared to bring it forward again. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Supplemental]:
6.40 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 25, line 33, leave out ("section 6") and insert ("section 6 (except subsection (4)) and sections 7").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Government Amendment No. 22A which your Lordships considered and accepted during our first Committee sitting on 15th April. As I explained then, the Government are convinced that the family should be treated as a single unit for the purposes of supplementary benefit and, in particular, that maintenance payments to, or for, a child should be taken fully into account when assessing that family's entitlement to supplementary benefits. Amendment 22A inserted a new subsection, subsection (4), into Clause 6 of the Bill to clarify beyond doubt, in the period leading up to November this year, that this is the effect of the present law.
This amendment, No. 86A, makes corresponding changes to Clause 21 of the Bill to secure that the new subsection to Clause 6 comes into operation immediately on Royal Assent to the Bill, rather
722
than from an appointed day, as is the case with the rest of Clause 6. I ask your Lordships to accept it. I beg to move.
6.42 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 25, line 37, after ("instrument") insert ("but in the case of sections 9 and 10, not later than 28 days after the passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have the new advisory committee in operation within 28 days of the Royal Assent rather than waiting until November, when the present Benefits Commission is to be abolished. In our view there is no reason why the two bodies should not co-exist for a short time since their functions are essentially different. The new committee will have a vast amount of work to do in its early months, getting to grips with the complexities of the whole social security system and familiarising itself with the administrative machinery, both central and local.
It will also have a great number of regulations to advise on arising from the drastic effect which the Government's proposals will have on the whole social security system. For these and other reasons we believe that the sooner the committee can start work the better. It may be thought that 28 days after the Royal Assent is too short, but I am certain that the Government will be making provisional plans for the new body. I beg to move.
Baroness FAITHFULL: Would the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, not agree that the most important thing is to have the right people and that to get the right people may take some time? A panel of people may he drawn up but some of them may not be able to accept and if we were to rush this we might not get the best people.
Lord UNDERHILL: I completely agree with the noble Baroness, but I should be very surprised if the Government could not say that they have certain things in mind now. From my knowledge of how Government departments work there is a panel of persons already under consideration.
Lord SANDYS: The effect of Amendment No. 87 would be to require the setting up of the Social Security Advisory Committee, and duties associated with the committee, within 28 days. The new committee is an integral and major part of the revised structure of social security which this Bill is intended to create. In particular, the new committee's functions in relation to the supplementary benefit and family income supplement schemes make sense only when this new structure of the schemes is in being. It would be premature to establish the new committee before the demise of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. But the commission must continue to function while we still have the existing schemes. It would be quite wrong to seek to deprive the commission of its advisory voice in its last days, yet it would be absurd to have both the commission and the new committee offering advice to the Government and Parliament on the same issues.
It is reassuring to see that noble Lords opposite are, after all, sufficiently enthusiastic about the new committee to want to see it working as soon as possible. We too are enthusiastic about the potential of the new committee but would not be happy to give it the premature birth which this amendment would achieve. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I really must come in to say that when the noble Lord refers to enthusiasm on this side of the Committee he is very much misunderstanding the situation. We do not like it.
Lord UNDERHILL: In the light of the noble Lord's reply, I will withdraw, but it is our purpose to make the very best of a bad job which this Bill is making. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Enactments and instruments repealed]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 88:
724
Page 80, line 51, at end insert:

("1980 c. 9.

The Reserve Forces Act 1980.

In Schedule 9, paragraph 16.")

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. The Reserve Forces Act is a consolidating measure. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 9 to that Act amended Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 as it stands today. The Bill now before the Committee of course substitutes a new Schedule 1 for the existing Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act and, with effect from the date on which the new Schedule 1 comes into operation, the amendment made by the Reserve Forces Act to the existing Schedule 1 will become otiose. I therefore ask the Committee to accept this amendment, which will secure the necessary repeal. I beg to move.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
6.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considereed.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill [50] as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 3 and insert—
'(1) The right of any person from whom a chattel is stolen to bring an action in

725
respect of the theft shall not be subject to the time limits under sections 2(1)(a) and 3(1) of this Act, but if his title to the chattel is extinguished under section 3(2) of this Act he may not bring an action in respect of a theft preceding the loss of his title, unless the theft in question preceded the conversion from which time began to run for the purposes of section 3(2).
(2) Subsection (1) above shall apply to any conversion related to the theft of a chattel as it applies to the theft of a chattel; and, except as provided below, every conversion following the theft of a chattel before the person from whom it is stolen recovers possession of it shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as related to the theft.
If anyone purchases the stolen chattel in good faith neither the purchase nor any conversion following it shall be regarded as related to the theft.
(3) Any case of action accruing in respect of the theft or any conversion related to the theft of a chattel to any person from whom the chattel is stolen shall be disregarded for the purpose of applying section 3(1) or (2) of this Act to his case.'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. May I in doing so say that I am going to move a similar Motion in relation to each one of the Commons amendments, but I am grouping them slightly, if the House will permit me to do so. This is a Government amendment, the purpose of which is to reformulate the greater part of Clause 2 of the Bill. I am told that it does not change the law as the Bill originally made it to be when it left your Lordships' House. Therefore, in the strict sense, it is a purely drafting amendment. It has the combined merit of shortening the clause and greater elegance; otherwise it makes no difference.
I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord that the redrafting of this clause has improved it. I wondered whether what remains of the old Clause 3A, namely, subsections (10) and (11), are still necessary. I suppose they are. Assuming that that is the case, I myself am happy with what is proposed. It is an excellent thing to reduce nine subsections
726
to three, quite apart from the improved clarity of the new provision. I expect that subsections (10) and (11) are necessary. I just wondered.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my information is that they arc, subject, of course, to renumbering as necessary.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 5, page 4, line 41, at end insert—
This subsection only applies if the trustee acted honestly and reasonably in making the distribution.'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. It is a Government amendment. It is designed to ensure that a trustee-beneficiary who receives part of a trust fund as his share on a distribution of the trust property will be able to rely on the proposed new defence to claims by latecomer beneficiaries only if he acted honestly and reasonably in making the distribution. This corresponds with the Law Reform Committee's recommendation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, this is an eminently sensible suggestion, and it is good to learn that it was put forward by the Chancery Bar, which is not always famous as a great reforming organisation. At any rate on this occasion it has come to our aid, and I approve the amendment.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 6, page 5, line 11, leave out from revived' to end of line 13 and insert ' by any subsequent acknowledgement or payment.'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I am right in saying, as I rise again to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3, that this was canvassed a little in debate in your Lordships' House when we were on Committee stage. The effect of Amendment No. 3 is to give effect, at the suggestion of the Government,

727
to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was pressing for during what I think may have been the Second Reading of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I agree, my Lords, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having mentioned the fons et origo of this amendment; namely, my noble friend Lord Mishcon.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 7, page 5, line 35, at end insert—
'(aa) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or'
5 Clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out 'or the' and insert', concealment or'
6Clause 7, page 6, leave out lines 1 to 14.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and put them together en bloc. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The effect of these amendments is to remove subsection (2)(b) of the new Section 26 inserted into the 1939 Act by Clause 7. Clause 7 provided that a plaintiff who wishes to invoke the extended limitation period contained in Section 26, on the grounds that the defendant had deliberately concealed from him a fact relevant to his right of action, also had to prove that it would be unjust to allow the defendant to rely on the expiry of the limitation period. I expect the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will remember that we had a short debate on this. Therefore, I do not think I need pursue the matter, except to say that the Government agree with the view taken by the Law Society and others that this additional safeguard is unnecessary.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I agree that this should be done. The question has been raised in relation to
728
Clause 7 that the difficult question of latent defect has not yet been dealt with in this Bill. In another place, whereas there was general satisfaction, which I certainly express, that it was desirable that the judicial mind should be applied to that problem before the Government rushed in where judicial minds had feared to tread, or whatever judicial minds do, an assurance was given that this matter would be further considered, possibly by reference to the appropriate Committee—I know not. I shall be interested if the noble and learned Lord has had an opportunity to consider this already. It is not a long time since it was raised. I would, however, be interested to know whether any further steps have been taken on this interesting study.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry to say I have nothing really to add to what my honourable and learned friend said in another place in Committee stage (I think it is page 7 of the Hansard of the Committee stage of that Bill), but I certainly repeat in your Lordships' House the assurance that he was giving—that the matter is under consideration.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Schedule 1, page 11, line 14, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
'3. In section 2A—

(a) in subsection (4)(b), for the words from "(if later" to the end there shall be substituted the words "of knowledge (if later) of the person injured";

(b) in subsection (7), for the words from "this" to "plaintiff" there shall he substituted the words "subsection (6) above an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question"; and

(c) in subsection (8), for the words "the said sections" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (6) above".'

8 line 17, leave out '(4)' and insert'—
(a) in subsection (4)'
9 line 19, at end insert';
and
(b) in subsection (5), for the words from "section" to "applies" there shall be substituted the words "sections 22 and 28 of this Act apply".'
10 line 45, at end insert—
'10A. In the proviso to section 30(1), for the words from "Customs Acts" to "exercise" there shall be substituted the

729
words "customs and excise Acts (within the meaning of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979)".
10B. In section 31(1)—

(a) in the definition of "land" the words from "(except "to" sole") shall be omitted; and

(b) in the definition of "rentcharge" the words from "a modus" to "sole or" shall be omitted.'

11 Schedule 2, page 12, line 39, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 31(1), the words from "(except "to" sole") in the definition of "land" and the words from "a modus 'to "sole or" in the definition of "rent-charge".'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to do so, I will take Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 en bloc. They are all drafting amendments and consequential repeals designed to facilitate a consolidation of the law of limitation. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 11.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I agree that this should be done. It is very helpful for the work of consolidation that legislation coming through should bear in mind the benefits in tidying up the law as much as possible to ease the task of consolidation. I support these amendments.

CENSUS ORDER 1980
6.59 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE rose to move, That:
items 5, 6, 8, 10, 11(1)(d) to (j), 11(2), 12(a)(vii), 15 and 16 of Part I of Schedule 2, items 5, 6, 8, 10, 11(1)(d) to (j), 11(2) 12(a)(vii), 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 3, and items 2 and 3 of Schedule 4, to the draft order laid before the House on 20th March, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order in Council for which I am seeking your Lordships' approval has been drafted to provide for a full census of England, Scotland and Wales to be taken next year. (Northern Ireland is the subject of
730
separate legislation so far as censuses are concerned). The present draft order is the outcome of the Government's review of our predecessors' proposals for the census which they published in their White Paper The 1981 Census of Population (Cmnd. 7146, July 1978).
The draft order is laid before the House in accordance with the Census Act 1920. It prescribes the date of the census, the persons to whom and in respect of whom census returns are to be made, and the particulars to be stated in the returns. I must emphasise that the questions on the form will be set out so that they are straight forward to answer; they will not be formulated in the style of the Census Order. OPCS Monitor CEN 80/1 which is available in the Printed Paper Office illustrates how the questions could look on the form.
The Act lays down a rather unusual procedure. Although the order as a whole has to lie before the House for 40 days and is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, some of the items in the lists of particulars require approval by Affirmative Resolution. In accordance with the Act, regulations governing the conduct of the census will subsequently be made and laid before Parliament; those regulations will include facsimiles of the forms to be completed in the census and so it is at that stage that approval of the precise formulation of the questions will be sought.
The date given for the census in this draft order is 5th April 1981. That is a Sunday, following the precedents of previous censuses. We have had a regular census every 10 years since 1801 (apart from 1941 when we were at war). The 5th April is a date which is clear of holidays and local elections and which is within British Summer Time, giving an extra hour of evening daylight for those taking the census. Our census has customarily been taken in the spring, and conveniently, 5th April falls within the period which the European Community has adopted in its Directive requiring Member States to conduct general population censuses in 1981.
Your Lordships may ask why we need a census at all at this time. Only a complete census can provide basic information about the number and distribution of the population to help in deciding where new

731
schools, roads, hospitals and other social services are needed, and to enable Government, local authorities and other organisations to decide how to direct their spending of public money. For example, it is used in the allocation of well over £15 billion each year by way of rate support grants to local authorities and grants to health authorities. Census information is needed not only by central and local government and health authorities, but also by the public services and by industry and commerce. Many important decisions affecting the lives of everyone in the country and involving billions of pounds of expenditure each year hinge upon the decennial census.
Your Lordships may also ask why sample surveys could not replace the census. Although such surveys can give us satisfactory estimates for some purposes, we still need reliable basic information; and we need it particularly for local areas and for small groups in the population—for these only a full count will suffice. For the same reason a voluntary census will not do; the best response rates in voluntary census tests have been around 70 or 80 per cent. and this would not provide sufficiently reliable results. Moreover, where a substantial proportion of the population do not reply, we cannot be sure that the returns we do get ate truly representative of the total.
I come now to the content of the census. Your Lordships will find the particulars to be stated in the returns listed in Schedule 2 for England and Wales and Schedule 3 for Scotland. They have been set out in detail to show the nature of the information that will he required of every person; but the lists represent the shortest and simplest census since 1931. This is the result of a reduction which the Government have made in the list of questions proposed by our predecessors in their White Paper of July 1978. All the topics to which particulars relate have been covered in previous censuses. They include basic demographic topics; immigration and internal migration; higher qualifications; employment and travel to work; housing, and the Welsh and Gaelic languages. The list includes country of birth as in all previous censuses.
It is not proposed to include questions on race or ethnic origin, or on nationality
732
or year of entry to the United Kingdom. The previous Government proposed to include a question on race or ethnic origin, but were awaiting the findings from tests to see whether the questions commanded public acceptance and would give reliable results. In addition to the tests, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has consulted and received the views of very many bodies representing ethnic minorities. We have taken note of the discussion on an ethnic question in the national Press and elsewhere, and of the many letters received from individuals.
The series of tests of possible types of ethnic question culminated in a major test census in Haringey a year ago. The test aroused a great deal of controversy and only 54 per cent. of the households returned their forms, as against the 70 per cent. response that was expected. Of the ethnic minority households that returned completed forms, many did not correctly answer, or answer at all, the question on ethnic origin or the alternative question on parents' countries of birth, and the questions on nationality and year of entry were also poorly answered. Clearly none of these questions would be viable in the census itself and there is a real risk that, if an ethnic question were included in the census, the whole operation could be put in jeopardy. The public debate and consultations revealed a wide spectrum of views, particularly among the ethnic minority groups themselves, about the inclusion of questions on ethnic origin and there was concern among some of them about the use that might be made of the information; among those who favoured a census question on ethnic origin there was no concensus about the form such a question should take.
Although the Government draw the clear conclusion that the census is not the right means of obtaining proper information about ethnic origin, the need for information remains, and we shall have to rely for it on other methods such as sample surveys. Your Lordships may refer to OPCS Monitor CEN 80/3, copies of which are available in the Printed Paper Office, for more detail of the reasons why we have decided not to proceed with the proposal to include a direct question on race or ethnic origin and a list of the organisations which submitted views or were represented at consultative meetings on this subject.
There are three other topics among those proposed in the last Government's White Paper, where we have decided that the value of the statistics is insufficient justification for the inclusion of the questions in the census. They are: weekly hours usually worked; school level qualifications; and the number of cars and vans available for the use of the household.
I come now to the information which can be collected only if your Lordships assent to the Motion on the Order Paper. These are the items in italics in Schedules 2, 3 and 4. Item 5 in Schedules 2 and 3 is the relationship of each household member to the head of household or other reference person. This information is needed so that statistics of the composition of households in terms of families can be produced; these statistics are required particularly for local social services and in calculating rate support grant. In communal establishments such as hotels and hospitals, the person's position in the establishment will be recorded so that guests and patients, for example, can be counted separately from staff.
Item 6 in both schedules distinguishes between persons present on census night and the absent household members. For some purposes statistics of the people actually present in an area on census night are needed; many other statistics, including figures used in the allocation of rate support grant, are based on the population usually resident in the area.
Item 8 in both Schedules is the person's usual address one year before census day; this provides detailed information on population movements within the country, for which the census is the only source.
For local authorities, information on the number and characteristics of migrants is essential for their policies on housing, employment, the elderly and the ethnic minorities. The statistics are used in preparing local population estimates used for rate support grant and for resource allocation in the Health Service and local population projections. Some local authorities have pressed for a question asking for the address five years ago, but we have concluded that the expense and trouble to the public of two questions on population movement cannot be justified, and that there is more merit in a question on address one year ago.
Item 10, the academic, professional and vocational qualifications obtained after the age of 18, measures the nation's stock of qualified people. The census will show how this highly qualified manpower is deployed, and here again it is the only source. The information will provide a basis for studies of future demand and supply of qualified manpower; these studies in turn will influence decisions about the future provision of higher education and help students make better-informed decisions about their lives.
Item 11 in both schedules will show how people were occupied in the week before the census; your Lordships will see that some of the details are in italics and others are not. This is because the Act allows for the inclusion of particulars relating to occupation and employment without a motion of approval; the italicised items relate to the activity or circumstances of people not in employment. The object is to find out how many people are potentially available for work and how many are not—because, for example, they are students, retired or permanently disabled. Information about the working population is not available from any other source in the comprehensive way that the census provides.
In item 12, the main method of travel to work is printed in italics. Census information on journey to work is used extensively in highway planning and by the transport services; it is also used in planning the provision of new jobs and houses and is an important input to local authorities' structure plans. In Schedule 2, item 15 relates to the tenure of the household's accommodation. It will show national and local trends in the private sector and thus throw light on the effects of legislation. Statistics of households occupying council housing will help in developing local housing policies.
Item 16 is about the availability of baths and showers and of water closets; the statistics will indicate where inadequate housing is concentrated and so identify areas for improvement and special action; the information is also needed for rate support grant and housing investment programmes. In Schedule 3, item 15 is included in order to identify households which share their accommodation with other households.
Item 17 in the same schedule seeks information on the level or storey at which the household's accommodation is situated in the building and on the means of access; the information obtained will be used mainly to consider housing problems in relation to the young and the aged. The last two items (18 and 19) in Schedule 3 correspond to those on tenure and amenities in Schedule 2. In Schedule 4, which relates to communal establishments, we require to know the nature of the premises in order to distinguish between different types of establishment in the census statistics; and in the case of hotels and boarding houses we are seeking data on the number of rooms in order to provide statistics on size of establishment distinguishing especially between the larger hotels on the one hand and the small boarding houses which tend to move into and out of the private housing market. I ask your Lordships to agree that all the information I have described should form part of the census.
The House may wish me to explain briefly who are to make the returns. First, in private households we are continuing the practice of requiring the head of household to make a return for the whole household, but we recognise that this term seems rather dated to many families where husband and wife are regarded as joint heads of the household, so we have made provision for that; and for households where several unrelated people are sharing the accommodation on equal terms and none is head we have placed the responsibility on all the adult members jointly. For the sake of privacy, we make provision, as in previous censuses, for members of households to have their own census form if they do not want to disclose their personal information to the person filling in the household form; we shall also arrange for households to be able to return their form under sealed cover if they do not wish the census enumerator to see their answers. In communal establishments, we require a return from every individual, whether a member of the staff or a guest, patient, or inmate; but we have made provision for those cases in which the person may be too incapacitated to make his or her own return.
When the census forms have been completed and collected, we intend to
736
carry out voluntary sample surveys to check the accuracy of the information. To assess the quality of the answers given on the forms, a small sample of households will be interviewed to see how well they have understood and answered the questions. Checks on the completeness of coverage will also be made and these, too, may involve re-visiting a small number of households.
In England and Wales there will be no other sample surveys using, as the sampling frame, names and addresses from the census. Two post-census surveys will be undertaken in Scotland. One will cover vacant houses. There is now an excess of houses over households in Scotland and it is most desirable at both national and local levels to know why houses are empty so that efficient use of the existing housing stock can be encouraged. There will also be a voluntary survey of teachers not employed in teaching. Estimates of the numbers of such teachers who may in future seek teaching appointments are needed for the effective planning of intake to colleges and of the size and shape of the teacher-training system. The census affords the best opportunity for these surveys to be carried out and both will be undertaken on a 10 per cent. sample basis.
I have referred already to special arrangements for the confidential return of the completed forms. I wish to assure the House that the Government attach the utmost importance to the confidentiality of everybody's information given in the census and intend to see that the Census Offices' well-established record in this respect is maintained. The Census Act itself provides legal penalties for unlawful disclosure by census officials, whether on the staff of the Census Offices or members of the temporary field force of some 130,000 recruited to conduct the census locally; clear and strict instruction on confidentiality will be given to all members of the census organisation. Close attention will be paid to the physical security of the forms and the information they contain when in transit, during processing and in storage. The forms themselves will be kept locked away for 100 years, when they will be opened to public inspection at the Public Record Office. Names and addresses from the forms will not be fed into the computer that will process the census data, and the

737
computer system will have built-in safeguards preventing unauthorised access.
My Lords, that brings me to the programme for producing the results from the census. We recognise the importance of speed; the later the results come out the less useful they are. So processing procedures will be simplified and automated as far as practicable. Where the information is expensive to process and statistically satisfactory results can be achieved from a sample of the answers, then only a sample will be processed. A preliminary report giving the population of each district will be published within a few weeks of census day. Tables for districts are scheduled to start appearing early in 1982 and national tables from about mid-1982. We plan to have all the main results available by the summer of 1984. The tables will appear in a set of reports to be laid before Parliament; and there will be an abbreviated set of statistics for smaller areas and special tabulations at users' requests that will be paid for by the users. We hope to issue summaries and explanatory guides to make the results available to a wider public.
Finally, your Lordships will rightly wish to know how much this census will cost. For Great Britain, the cost is now put at £44 million at 1979 survey prices. This represents a saving of some 17½ per cent. on the cost of the proposals given in the previous Administration's White Paper. The cost works out at 81p per head of the population, or about 8p each year if spread over the decade. But this expenditure is a necessity if we are to have the basic information for determining the spending of over £15 billion annually in the form of Rate Support Grant and allocations to health authorities—and if we are to make all the other decisions that hinge upon the census. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That items 5, 6, 8, 10, 11(1)(d) to (j), 11(2), 12(a)(vii), 15 and 16 of Part I of Schedule 2, items 5, 6, 8, 10, 11(1)(d) to (j), 11(2), 12(a)(vii), 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 3, and items 2 and 3 of Schedule 4 to the draft order laid before the House on 20th March, be approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
7.20 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen
738
of Ashbourne, for the careful and detailed explanation he gave of the draft order that is before us tonight. It certainly appears to be a pretty exhaustive questionnaire, and I should think quite exhausting to fill in, although I understand that it is shorter than the last census. The noble Lord said that to assess the quality of the answers given a small sample of households would be interviewed to see how well it had been understood. It would surely be better to undertake this first before the forms are printed, otherwise it may well be that there is something which comes up throughout, because casting questions, however expert you are, can be quite a tricky job. One often notices things which could be put better and more simply. I do not expect an answer now, but I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that he will take this up with his right honourable friend. It does not seem to me to be a major point, but useful and more economical.
I saw that the main means of transport to work was included in the census, but I am puzzled that the number of cars and vans available to a household is omitted. The Government say that the statements on the reasons will be issued separately, but the only explanation so far is that the value is insufficient to justify inclusion in the census. I should have thought that this would give an invaluable piece of economic and social information, especially since we have a great deal of traffic congestion and also since the whole of our road programme, where we are going to build garages, parking spaces, how we assess social data as well, are very much tied up with this question.
Since recording my own puzzlement I have received a letter—as indeed, I think a number of other noble Lords have—from the Association of County Councils expressing in strong terms their concern at this omission. The association believes that the census is the only complete, consistent, and reliable source of small area statistics on car availability. Without this, it is difficult to understand and follow the trends of dependence of people on private transport at local level. This was included in the 1978 White Paper put out by the last Government in paragraph 29, where it says:
"The answers to this question indicate the areas where people are most dependent on public transport, and the areas where private transport makes the most demand on road space".

739
Since this draft order has started in this House rather than in the other place, I would ask the noble Lord whether he would raise this again with his right honourable friend and colleagues, so that this question can be reinstated before the order is laid before another place. I know there is quite a lot of strong feeling here, and I do not think we want to throw the order out in this House, but it is something of considerable importance.
The only other point I have to raise is the controversy on the ethnic or racial questions. In the 1971 census there was a question which asked about not only the country of origin but the country of origin of parents. The 1978 White Paper on the 1981 census in paragraph 24 states:
"There is a need for authoritative and reliable information about main ethnic minorities. This would deal with family structure, housing, education, employment and unemployment of ethnic minorities compared with conditions in the population as a whole".
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, explained why this question is now left out. He was quite right when he said that the last Government wanted to see the effect of the questions and the public response to them, so there was a test done in Haringey.
I am well aware, and appreciate very keenly, that many individuals and organisations which have distinguished themselves in the field of race relations feel strongly that a question of this sort should be included in order to be able to monitor numbers and pinpoint those people who are greatly disadvantaged because of their race. These numbers include Members of Parliament and such organisations as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Runnymede Trust.
But, as the noble Lord pointed out, the Haringey test carried out in 1978 indicated that those on the receiving end of these questions greatly resented them. The questions, frankly, were rather complicated. They were not sufficiently sensitive, and there had not been enough groundwork done before they were put out. Nevertheless, even if the question casting had been impeccable, I believe unfortunately that the present climate of fear, suspicion and insecurity rules out the inclusion of such a question now. Even if it were to be included, it would probably
740
not be answered, or deliberately incorrectly answered.
This leads us into the penalty area where the maximum fine is a penalty of £50 and an alternative of six months' imprisonment if this is not paid. So we could get ourselves into a nasty situation. I do not think it is any good pretending that the word,"ethnic", is the problem. In any case by many people it is generally understood as a description of clothes or of music. But the word cloaks what it really means—black; and people whose children were born here, or who were born here themselves, want to be considered British. By putting down, or ticking correctly, the ethnic group to which they originally belong, or their parents belonged, they believe this diminishes their standing and security in this community. A greater security, a real sense of belonging, and destroying the fear—and there is still a great fear of repatriation—are the necessary conditions for people to have if these facts are to be given readily and proudly.
When one sees such comments as in the National Front newspaper Spearhead, which said,
"… the 1981 Census MUST ask the vital question 'What is your ethnic origin?'. Only then can we get an idea of the true size of the coloured population … Our repatriation policy demands we have accurate figures of the number of people who, sooner or later, are going home",
one can understand that, although this is not the intention—it certainly was never my Government's intention, and I hope it is not the present Government's intention—nevertheless people are frightened of this.
I must say that the recent immigration rules which have been moved and put into operation by the present Government have had a devastating effect in this area. Without these questions put in—and I support the Government in their omission—there is an enormous amount of data available. We know about housing disadvantage. Local authorities can keep housing records, and it can certainly be done again in a sensible and acceptable way. Camden, Wandsworth, and the GLC do so. But they have explained carefully what they are doing before they approach the people. We know that unemployment is much higher among the black population—in particular, among

741
the younger people—and we have seen what has happened in Bristol.
I believe that the key is discrimination, and census statistics can have only a limited value until discrimination disappears far more rapidly than at present. It is race relations, not immigration, which should be the name of the game, and until affirmative action is taken on this matter, so that black and other coloured people really feel at home here, it will he hard to ask them questions of this kind without arousing the kind of resentment, fear, and anger which is aroused at the moment.
A great deal can be done in local areas where conditions vary enormously without having these questions in the census. The Government have said, in OPCS 80/3, that the census is not the only means of obtaining relevant statistics, and they
"propose within the limits of available resources to explore means of obtaining statistics relevant to the social and economic needs of the ethnic minorities through surveys of this kind".
The noble Lord has told us that the cost of the census will be £40 million at 1979 prices, and that this represents a reduction of 17½ percent. compared with the last census. I have a figure of £45 million, and a reduction representing 16 per cent., but I accept that the noble Lord's figures are probably more up to date than mine. I hope that the Government will treat this saving as a priority fund on which a claim can be made, and will put the money towards setting up surveys by voluntary bodies, seeking out and analysing the gaps in the existing central and local government services, and doing whatever can be done to reduce prejudice and improve race relations in this country.
Finally, I hope that the findings of the census will be processed rapidly, using our most sophisticated technology, so that the information which is gathered will he put to productive use as soon as possible. Information gathering appears to be one of our growth industries, but unless the information is put to good use, it is really a waste of time and money.
7.32 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, it ought not to be overlooked that a census, by definition, is a prying by the Government into the personal affairs of the citizens, and is carried out by asking questions about their private lives and by forcing
742
the citizens to answer those questions—and to answer them accurately—upon pain of a fine, or imprisonment if the fine is not paid. That is not in itself an argument against holding a census, but I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is a very strong argument for confining a census only to such questions as are absolutely essential in order to obtain information that is in the interests of good government.
It is no part of the function of a census to provide fascinating, interesting material upon which statisticians can work happily for years to come. Since I mention the matter of years to come, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact that in previous censuses the statistical material has taken many years to work out. Indeed, it was said at the time of the 1971 census that that census was taking place when the material from the previous census had still not been completely analysed. Perhaps the noble Lord can assist us by giving the information as to when the 1971 material was finally completely processed and analysed.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord say that a year or two after this census a sample will have been processed. If a sample can be processed, and can be of use, it leads one to query whether perhaps a sample is not all that needs to be taken in the first place. I was encouraged to hear from the noble Lord that the material of this census might be analysed within a period of two to three years. I am sure the Government recognise that any longer delay means that the information is so out of date as to be quite worthless.
As I have said, it is no part of the function of a census to provide interesting material for statisticians, nor indeed to provide material for academics to write the most fascinating theses. Neither is it for civil servants to prepare memoranda upon which their departments will not take any action in any event because of the restraints upon public expenditure. If I may respectfully say so to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, it is surely no part of a census to provide information for industry or commerce. I note that the noble Lord said that the information provided by this census would be of the very greatest help to industry and commerce. If that happens incidentally, so be it, but it is not part, and should not be part, of the object of a census. If

743
industry and commerce, and academic institutions, want to obtain information that will assist them in carrying out their various functions they must find a way of doing so without this form of investigation into the affairs of the citizens of this country.
If the noble Lord agrees—as I am sure he does—that therefore the census must be limited to absolutely essential information, I am sure that he will agree, too, that there are perhaps four limitations upon the questions that should be asked. First, there must be questions that do not cause grave offence or grave embarrassment to the population, and it is upon that basis that I welcome the Government's decision not to proceed with questions about ethnic or racial origin. I quite understand that there is a case for obtaining this information; and it may be important information. As the noble Lord said, it will have to be obtained by other means. It might be that it could be obtained at the same time as the census, on a supplementary form, which is not subject to the penalties attached to the census form, and the compilation of which would be entirely voluntary. If the information is asked for on a purely voluntary basis, I can certainly see no harm in the questions being raised in that way, and the information might then be of assistance. I think that the Haringey experiment proved conclusively that it would be quite wrong for the Government to embark upon including questions in the census itself.
Secondly, as a limitation upon the questions, they must surely be questions to which it is likely that the answers will be accurate and reliable. I mention that because there is a whole series of questions in paragraph 11 of Part I of Schedule 2 about full-time and part-time employment. We all know that there are very large numbers of people in the community who at the moment are engaged in moonlighting, in occupations which, for one reason or another, they are certainly not going to disclose to the taxman, and which I suspect they are not going to disclose on a census form, however politely the questions are asked. Perhaps the noble Lord can indicate whether the Government recognise that the answers to the questions in paragraph 11 will therefore have to be treated with a certain degree of suspicion, in the light of what we all know.
744
Thirdly, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that questions ought not to go into quite unnecessary detail. I should like to ask the noble Lord, in relation to paragraph 12 of the schedule, why is it necessary to ask for the name of the employer. I can understand that the employer's business has to be stated, and his address may have to be stated, but what his name has to do with it I do not know. I know that this question was asked in the corresponding debate 10 or 11 years ago in your Lordships' House. I do not think that an answer was given on that occasion, but on this occasion I have mentioned this point to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, in advance, and I am sure that we shall be more fortunate than were those of your Lordships who were here that considerable time ago.
Fourthly, it is surely only sensible that questions should not be asked where the answers are available from other sources in any event without difficulty. In paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 a series of questions is asked about professional qualifications, for example. I suppose that there is some point in asking how may people have been called to the Bar, for instance, though I am bound to say that a telephone call to the Bar Council would provide the answer much more quickly and simply. I suspect that there is much information in that question which could be obtained from other sources without going through the complication of the census form.
Having made those comments on the various questions that are proposed, I think it would be churlish not to congratulate the Government on the fact that they are asking fewer questions than were contemplated in the previous proposals. This is a tendency which is to be welcomed and very much to be encouraged. I hope that the Government will use their best endeavours to make the form as simple as possible to answer. I hope that they will use their best endeavours to explain to the general public the need for the questions and the answers which are included in the census. I hope that they will also explain to the general public, as the noble Lord explained to us today, the very great care which is taken to safeguard the confidentiality of the replies.
I think your Lordships will agree that there is no alternative but to agree to this

745
Motion before your Lordships' House today, and we on these Benches would certainly wish to do so. We will do so without having any very great confidence that in agreeing with this Motion we are taking any vast step forward in the direction of good government.
7.42 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, raised a good point when she referred to the omission from the proposed census of certain information about the availability of private cars in particular local areas. I know that the Association of County Councils—I have heard from them—feel very unhappy about this omission from the proposed census. They found the information under this heading in the previous censuses very valuable indeed over such things as the need for public rural transport and new roads and parking places, and social facilities.
I do not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in saying that only what is absolutely essential should be contained in the census. I think it could go a little wider than that. If it were a convenient way of collecting information, and if the information was of a kind that no citizen would object to the public authorities having, but, on the contrary, it would be more helpful, then I think it could go a little wider than what is absolutely essential. I agree with him on the other conditions that he made. If the census is not going to provide this information, local authorities feel, I think, that local surveys might become necessary for them which, in their opinion, would cost a great deal more.
In the White Paper of July 1978 no hint was given at that stage of the omission of this item. It was only on 20th March last, I think, that a statement was made that this item would be omitted. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned, it was said that the value of the statistics was insufficient to justify the inclusion.
In the case of three other omissions special statements were made by the Government as to the reasons, but not in this case. No consultation, therefore, has taken place with the local authorities and they feel concerned and somewhat hurt at the omission of consultation. My noble friend the Minister who is going to
746
reply may say that the order cannot be amended at this stage. I hope that, if that is so, he will ask his colleagues to consult with the local authorities on the consequentials of this omission and, if he feels they have a good case, that either by a supplementary order or an amended order in another place, or in some other way, a means will be found of restoring this information to a place in the census; or at any rate consultation with the authorities concerned will take place before it is too late.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, it is very rarely indeed that I disagree with a single word said by my noble friend Lord Wigoder. On this occasion I do not so much wish to disagree with him but rather to put a different emphasis on what he has said. I think perhaps because he has never been in the ranks of the despised academics attempting to do research, he is not fully familiar with the material provided by the census for really necessary study. If social policy is not based on accurate information, then it is based on inaccurate information, and we have suffered over and over again in this country from social legislation based on inaccurate information. So I think we can agree that the census should include what is necessary but with a rather different interpretation as to what is meant by "what is necessary".
The other point on which I should like to take a slightly different position is over the question of ethnic minorities. Along with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Runnymede Trust, with which I am associated, I regret it has not been found possible to collect this information. I regret it for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, although she was taking an opposite line. I regret it because the enemy is discrimination and discrimination in this country rests today not so much—except in very small areas—on hostility as on complacency.
Only the other day I was discussing the equal opportunities policy in relation to race with a very large public enterprise, and I was told that they did not discriminate; they have equal opportunity; they have a completely fair policy. I said: "How do you know?" They said:

747
"We have no complaints". That is evidence of absolutely nothing. That organisation could not tell us how many coloured people they had in different levels in the organisation, and the trouble today is that coloured people are not getting promotion into higher level jobs. Unless we know this, the complacency will continue. Complacency is a besetting sin in this country. We love to believe that everything we are doing is going on beautifully. This is one of the reasons why we are in the mess we are. Unless we have information to show how badly we are doing in anti-discrimination policy, how little we have done in this country in order to see that people from ethnic minorities do get into the jobs they are capable of holding—unless we have that data—the complacency will continue.
I believe I am right in saying that there is only one coloured person on all the boards of directors in this country. That is the kind of statistic which brings home to people the extent of discrimination at the present time. If we said that there are very few people in these positions we believe, it has far less effect than being able to pin-point the fact that there is only one in all the companies in this country. I believe he is a Brahamian in the Cavalry Club, but I would not be too certain of that. Being only one, I suppose, he is quite easy to identify. So the need for accurate information in this field is paramount if we are sincere about antidiscrimination policy. If the die is cast and it is impossible to have this in the census, may I, agreeing at last with my noble friend, say that every effort should be made to get this information on a voluntary basis or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, funds should be made available to carry out accurate studies and get accurate information in the areas in which it matters.
I can see an argument that in this country ethnic minorities are very unevenly distributed and there are vast areas where there are no coloured people, no blacks—because this is what we are talking about. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness said, it is unnecessary to have the question throughout the country, but I must reaffirm that in those areas where there is a problem of discrimination—and that, let us face it, is in every area where there is a concentration of blacks,
748
because wherever there is a concentration of blacks there is discrimination—all we do not know is the extent of it. There we need to have local studies carried out. May it not be possible for the money saved to be devoted to investigations in those areas?
7.50 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, who has explained this order so lucidly. Listening to remarks by people who state that a census is an infringement on liberty makes me think they are totally unaware of the great importance that is attached to it. It is the one time in a decade when, over a wide range of issues, reliable information can be obtained. Decisions can be taken on a foundation of near truth. Here I can see that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who I hope will challenge me in light of further remarks.
My Lords, there is nothing new about a decennial census. There have been censuses taken in this country since 1801. Until 1841 it was virtually a count of heads, although very useful statistics were taken; but in that year and subsequently there was a house-to-house record of inhabitants. I do not think it was taken lightly by the people living at that time. It was explained to them, and from what I read I think it was successful. Since then, more details have been called for and the format has changed, but the basis is still there.
My first point is that I am disappointed that, as in 1971, there was no question asked as to place and country of birth, except that you are required to tick the appropriate box of the relevant country in the United Kingdom or state in which foreign country you were born. Since 1851 the statisticians have seemed to think it purposeful to have this information to explain the movements of population. I must explain here that I personally consult all the time for my genealogical work the censuses for over a hundred years which are open to the public. Without this information it is doubtful whether one could trace people's ancestry with any degree of accuracy at all. This is one occasion on which I do not have

749
to declare an interest, because unless there are miraculous advances in gerontology, I shall not be here when this information is available. I know it is too late to alter anything now, but I should like this point to be considered in time for the 1991 census, not necessarily for the genealogical reason, which could be regarded as frivolous, but from the demographic and historical point of view, which has its significance.
There is little that I wish to comment on the ethnic question because I am not qualified to do so, but I understand that there have been many discussions with all the appropriate authorities. But it does seem a pity that people will not co-operate on something which is required only once in 10 years; and, here, I am absolutely certain that the confidentiality of the records made is adhered to in the excellent custody of the Director of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
The Government's intention on seeking information on ethnic minorities is apparently now to be pursued through the Family Expenditure Survey and the General Household Survey; and I cannot see why, if people will not co-operate in a census, they should do so in a survey, which is voluntary and therefore not so accurate. In any case, one doubts whether these surveys include a sufficient number of immigrants to provide a valid sample, so what sort of a survey is intended? Are the Government aware—and this is important—that they will no longer have reliable information on the immigrant community? The implications of this for policy formulation on immigration are considerable. Having said that, I wish to get away from this matter and to discuss wider issues.
I am afraid I cannot go along with the accolade that it is splendid, that it is the simplest census ever. As I said, it is a unique opportunity to glean vital information. One gathers that in terms of information collected we are falling behind the United States and other European countries, which seems a pity. There are, however, four questions that I should like to ask my noble friend. I have been unable to give him prior notice, so I shall quite understand if he prefers either to write to me or to ask me to put down Questions for Written Answer. The first, which I think he has dealt with—and I
750
followed very carefully what he was saying, but I shall read it, and perhaps what I am going to say now might be irrelevant—concerns access to census data. For instance, in the United States of America there is public use of sample tapes issues. These do not record names and addresses, and there is no danger of confidentiality being broken. If my noble friend says that it is being fed into a computer for a 100 years' time and names and addresses are not recorded, I shall regret that, but I took him to say what I think he did. At the moment, the OPCS have a virtual monopoly of access to data. They provide special tables on request, but it is a slow and costly process which prevents full use of the census. I would think that this could be done privately, and to some advantage, because I believe in social science and what have you, which I think has perhaps not been dealt with fully here.
My second question is very straightforward, and it is to ask whether the OPCS could publish their list of explanatory notes and definitions as soon as possible, and not leave it until their last volume, as they did with the 1971 census. Thirdly, I should like to ask a question concerning transport. This matter has been dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lord Amory, but I want to take a different line. They have not included the number of cars and vehicles per household, and have left it to people to state only their mode of transport for going to work. This seems a pity, because it denies operators of public transport the opportunity to plan properly to transport people for leisure and for purposes other than going to work.
As to my other question, 10 years ago the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the question of the disabled being recorded. Since 1911 they have not been included. This system of including disabled people per household was started in 1851, and that was perfectly satisfactory because in 1851 and 1861 they only asked to record them if they were deaf, dumb or blind. But in 1871 they included the insane. We in this House, I am sure, do not mind a bit about anybody being insane, but those who have relatives who are insane are sensitive about it; and apparently in 1911 they sought to drop the whole question of disability. I think that between now and 1991 the Government

751
and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and other bodies, could consider that one, so that I or Lady Masham, when we come here again in 10 years' time, could have a satisfactory answer.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to reiterate the importance of this census for the Government to keep up with national and international trends in providing information. I am delighted with two things in this census. They have kept this business about relation to the head of the household. That is one thing which was very much brought to the fore by the Social Sciences Research Council. I also think it is a very good thing (which was not done before) about members of the household being absent. Then—and this really is a rather contentious issue which I do not really want any discussion on but which I will raise—there is the possibility of the institution of a population register which could keep in touch with an individual from birth to death. Sweden and two EEC countries—namely, Belgium and Denmark—already have such a system. The census survived when society was simpler and slower, but I think we should look at a fuller system when we have a rolling record of population.
7.59 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I rise to address the House very briefly, and this I promise, on one point which may meet with some agreement, having regard to the debate which has occurred so far, and on one point which may be deemed to be highly eccentric but which, nevertheless, I must express because I believe in it very sincerely.
In regard to the question of ethnic origin, I am quite sure that the benevolence shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as her reason for wanting the question included is a very sincere expression of what she and many others would want to deduce from a question about ethnic origin. Nobody knows better than I of the wonderful work done by the Runnymede Trust and the other organisations dedicated to the improvement of race relations in this country; and they have favoured the answering of that question. But the advantage that might be so achieved is as nothing compared with the disadvan-
752
tage of sowing yet greater suspicion, unfortunately, in regard to a document of this nature when such a question is addressed at this particular time to the black racial minority in this country.
So fervently do I believe it that, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will forgive me for differing from him, I would regard it as equally objectionable if the question were being asked at the same time on a voluntary basis. I have tried to think of a procedure by which that could be done and which would be understood, and I fail to satisfy myself with any sensible answer. I believe that anybody who, vocally, at the same time as he handed in a census form, tried to get an answer to that question, even on a voluntary basis, would not be doing any good service to Her Majesty's Government in regard to an attitude to the census form generally, and would have a very suspicious reaction where the citizen himself or herself were concerned.
May I now, equally briefly, turn to a point which may be deemed by my fellow Members of this House to be eccentric? I think that it is objectionable to the whole idea of the freedom of the subject, a tradition which is valued in this country—and I say this apart from any precedents in regard to censuses in the past—for a census to go out in 1980 with a penalty attached if there is a failure to complete that census form, by way of a fine which (this was, I believe, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen), if not paid. entails, by way of the ordinary process of law, a term of imprisonment in default.
I would have said that there might have been a case for including the ethnic origin question if the census had been a question of a voluntary appeal to our citizens to do this in the national interest. We might have had a very successful response in that case and I think the percentage response might have been a good one. I can just about see the justification for saying to a citizen: "If you do not do what it is deemed to be in the national interest to do, and you have not got enough social sense of responsibility, or you have some conscientious objection, you must pay a fine as a penalty for the harm that may be done to these socially essential statistics". But I feel it is absolutely abhorent that somebody otherwise innocent of any sort of crime or any sort of moral misbehaviour

753
as a citizen should, if he has a conscientious objection to filling in that form, find himself liable to a term of imprisonment.
There will be a debate tomorrow in this House which will deal with the way in which our prisons are full, and there will be an appeal to the good sense of the House to do something in regard to remand prisons. I can see not the slightest justification, especially in view of the state of our prison population, to add to that population those who might decide, for one reason or another, that they do not wish to fill in a form which is sent to them asking for details of their private life and employment and so on. That responsible citizens should do it, I believe. That those who feel otherwise should be under the threat of imprisonment is, to me, a negation of the civic rights of our citizens to freedom; and, to me, also at this particular time, it is a dreadful thought that even a small percentage might be added to our present prison population from those who refuse to pay the mandatory fine if they do not complete the census form.
8.5 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am afraid I took a long time in moving the order. I propose to try to even things out by being very short in winding up. I think we have had an extraordinarily interesting debate, which I had not expected. I shall try to answer such questions as I can and write to noble Lords on other matters. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made an interesting and thoughtful speech and I am sure it will be read with great interest elsewhere. I am pleased that she was agreeing with the Government on the ethnic question. It is a difficult area. We should all like to have all the information; we should all like to have it without fines or imprisonment and so on. But there is no doubt that the Haringey test proved conclusively that we were not going to get the information by that method. Most people have now come round to the view that that was the right thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked one or two questions which he was kind enough to tell me about beforehand. He asked when precisely the 1971 census data finished. Strictly speaking, the answer is that it has not finished, as the
754
OPCS are still meeting demands for customers for their own tables for which they pay. The tables of local district populations were published by April 1973; the last of the series of county reports by the end of 1973 and the last volume of tables and the published series were presented to Parliament at the end of 1978.
The noble Lord also asked why one has to give one's employer's name. I gather that the reason is that it is needed to identify the industry worked in. The name and nature of the employer's business are asked for, but the bulk of coding is clone from the pre-coded list of large employers provided by the Department of Employment. This ensures consistency of coding within the census itself and with the Department of Employment surveys. The uses of these data are spelt out at Item 11, Page 12, of Monitor 80/1 which is available in the Printed Paper Office. An example that might be easier is the case of a Ford canteen worker who might state that he worked in catering but who, for census purposes, works in car manufacturing. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
I was also on several occasions asked about the omission of cars and vans in the census. I am afraid I have not got a satisfactory reply to give. The question was omitted because the Government decided to drop all the less essential questions from the census largely in order to reduce the burden on the public. The question on cars and vans was not essential for the purposes of central Government. Dropping the question also produced a modest saving in public expenditure of £50,000. It is true that, as my noble friend has said, there are local authorities who still want the information; but I am afraid we cannot include everything in the census and we have to draw the line somewhere. I am afraid that is not a very satisfactory reply.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could add to that reply just some little assurance that even at this late stage, as it has not yet gone to the other place, he would get in touch with the local authorities concerned and explain to them the reasons for this submission and let them explain to him the consequences of it.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, what I should like to do is get in touch with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and tell him exactly what has happened in this debate. I will leave it at that.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he able to tell the House on which department's or authority's advice the Government decided to drop the car and van question?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I know that the Department of
756
Transport was quite happy to have this dropped.

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.