Sitting of 23 April 1980

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

  TRANSPORT M25
  Mr. Archie Hamiltonasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for the M25 motorway.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Its completion retains the highest priority in the trunk road programme.
  Mr Hamilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that at the recent inquiry in my constituency into the link between Reigate and Wisley, the greatest criticisms came from people who were worried about atmospheric lead from petrol? The recent Lawther report has recommended a reduction of lead in petrol. Would my hon. and learned Friend like to comment on that?
  Mr. Clarke: We are, of course, very concerned about the Lawther report and are considering it anxiously. The Government intend to produce a reaction on behalf of all Government Departments, and it is hoped that that will be available by the summer of this year. Meanwhile, we are considering all our road programmes, and when the decision comes to be made on the Leatherhead interchange, we shall consider the problem of lead pollution and the levels of lead in the atmosphere on those congested urban roads which the M25 is designed to relieve.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the public inquiry into the Swanley Sevcnoaks section of the
  430
  M25 took place nearly a year ago but we still have not had the inspector's report?
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the inspector's report is now to hand. However, it is a substantial document about a controversial proposal. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that my right hon. Friends will need some time to consider it before they can come up with the right conclusions.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is full weight being given to the views of such organisations as the Friends of Epping Forest regarding the route in that part of the country?
  Mr. Clarke: We have always given the fullest consideration to the views of that organisation, because it is always difficult when a road programme encroaches on an area such as Epping Forest. Of course, parliamentary approval was specifically needed for that part of the route. I hope that we shall continue to treat the forest with the greatest sensitivity when dealing with road problems near it.
  Several Hon. Members——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot call every hon. Member whose constituency is affected by the road.

  TRANSPORT M25

    British Railways
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Transport when he intends to meet the chairman of British Railways.
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways.
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Transport when he intends meeting the chairman of British Railways; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to meet Sir Peter Parker.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I plan to meet him soon.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, what will he say to him about the recent 20 per cent. pay settlement for British Railways employees, which was claimed to be

    431
    a major commitment to change, not least in regard to productivity, upon which the future of British Railways depends? What is my right hon. Friend's view about productivity in British Railways in view of the recent wage settlement.
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that productivity is basic to the whole question. What has been offered is a basic increase of 16 per cent., and 4 per cent. once—and only once—productivity improvements have been achieved. Such productivity improvements must be achieved because it simply cannot be a question of loading further fare increases on to the commuters.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Shepherd: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Railways, will he discuss the subject of further railway electrification? Does not he agree that it is vital that there should be a continuous programme of investment so that the United Kingdom traction industry can maintain its position in the United Kingdom market as well as develop its position in the wider and more important overseas markets? Will he encourage British Railways in that respect?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, we shall try to give British Railways as much encouragment as we can. A report of a joint working party between British Railways and the Department will become available later this year. Yesterday, I met the Railway Industry Association. We shall bear in mind the importance of exports in any decision that we make.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that more than 90 per cent. of the freight entering and leaving Cornwall is china clay? Can he give an assurance that the application which is now being made jointly by British Railways and the companies concerned for financial assistance for new rolling stock will be given sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, I can give an assurance to my hon. Friend that we shall give the application every consideration. Clearly, it is part of our policy to try to get as much freight of that kind
    432
    as we conceivably can on to the railways.
    Mr. Townsend: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Railways will he raise with him British Railways' support for the pressure group " Transport 2000 " which is campaigning against the roads programme decided by this Parliament? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it appropriate that taxpayers' money should be used in this way?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend tempts me into a general essay on the question of pressure groups in transport. I sometimes wish that the common interests of more groups were recognised but I am sure that the chairman of British Railways will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us remember the pledge that he gave to the House that there would be not cuts in rural transport while he was Secretary of State? Will he renew that pledge today?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I am not prepared to see any substantial cuts in the passenger network. I have made that clear in this House and in a letter to the chairman of British Railways. No Minister of Transport has ever said that there would be no closures of any kind, but I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to see wholesale closures of local services. Our position is exactly the same as the position of the previous Government, which is that there will be no further round of Beeching cuts. Opposition Members should accept that assurance and not look for mischief where there is none.
    Mr. Bagier: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Peter Parker says in the annual report of British Railways published today, that, in spite of the operating surplus achieved by British Railways, unless the stringent cash limits are lifted his industry will not, in the long term, be able to provide the kind of service provided by railways in Europe? What action is the Secretary of State taking to lift those cash limits?
    Mr. Fowler: We hope that the chairman of British Railways will be able to manage the railways within the external

    433
    finance limits. I have had talks with him and he has given me assurance that it will be possible to operate within those limits. The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider in detail what the chairman of British Railways said.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the annual report of British Railways published today indicates that—[HON. MEMBERS: " Reading ".] Of course I am reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Though that confession is an admission of guilt, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) must at least look as though he is not reading his question.
    Mr. Dunn: In the annual report of British Railways for 1979 it is made quite clear that a deterioration in rail services took place in 1979 compared with 1978. As most of the decline in service seems to have taken place on the Dartford loop line, will my right hon. Friend express urgent concern to the chairman of British Railways, when he next meets him, about the level of service provided in the South-East area?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that all the late arrivals can be affecting my hon. Friend's constituency but I shall certainly take up the question of the quality of service with the chairman of British Railways when I next meet him.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: In view of what the Secretary of State has just said about railway closures, will he give an assurance to the people of Wales that no further lines will be closed in the Principality during the next five years?
    Mr. Fowler: I can certainly give an assurance that there is absolutely nothing in front of me at the moment proposing that any lines in Wales should be closed. Nor, may I add, is there any report in the Ministry of Transport—as was alleged by one newspaper recently—saying that further lines should be closed. It is all a myth and I ask the House to accept my assurance on that.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British railways the extent to which the cash limits which he has set for British Railways have led to British Railways replacing their assets more slowly than any other railway service in Europe at a time when
    434
    there is a big increase in passenger mileage and to British Railways having to turn away £10 million to £15 million worth of profitable freight traffic due to the lack of locomotive power?
    Mr. Fowler: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the PSO grant for 1980–81 was reduced by £22 million of which £13 million was decided on by the previous Government? Investment in British Railways is being maintained at exactly the level decided upon by the previous Government. As for freight locomotives, permission was given for 25 such locomotives to be built though 16 only were built. That is not a matter for Government, it is a matter for British Railways.

    British Rail (Financial Objectives)
    Mr. Trippierasked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to make a further statement on the financial objectives for British Rail.
    Mr. Fowler: I announced financial objectives and interim financial targets for the Railways Board's freight and Inter-City businesses on 17 March. Work is proceeding on financial objectives for the board's other commercial businesses.
    Mr. Trippier: Will the Secretary of State say what the position is on British Railways freight operations? Will those operations cover their costs in future?
    Mr. Fowler: It is the position of the Government—as it was that of the previous Labour Government—that we want to see British Railways' freight business running commercially and covering its costs. That is one of the reasons why we have set the financial objectives. Clearly, the annual report of British Railways is not encouraging in that respect. However, our aim remains as I have stated.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware that the too rigid application of cash limits to the railway industry is causing a rapid deterioration in rail services throughout the country? For instance, on the London to Birmingham service—starting with the May 1980 timetable—there will be a 10-minute slow down in services? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that he is the first Minister of Transport for over 30 years

    435
    to move Birmingham further away from London, in rail terms?
    Mr. Fowler: I ask the hon. Gentleman also to study the reality of the situation and refer him to what I have just said to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). The position is, of course, that British Railways have had to make economies in line with the Government's general programme. But. if the hon. Gentleman consults the chairman of British Railways he will not find that British Railways have been treated in any way unfairly in that programme.
    Mr. Higgins: Given the general concern about financial objectives, I believe that the House will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement that the 4 per cent. payment for productivity will not be made until productivity has increased. Can my right hon. Friend say how that productivity is to be measured?
    Mr. Fowler: I understand that the chairman of British Railways is negotiating on this issue with the trade unions. Sir Peter Parker has made it absolutely clear that the productivity payment will not be made until an agreement has been signed.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I press the Secretary of State further on the question asked by my hon. Friend for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier)? Is it not a fact that comparative studies of British Railways and European railways are extremely favourable to British Railways? Is it not further a fact that, if British Railways had anything like the amount of money that is poured into their railway systems by the Governments of France and Germany, the problems of British Railways would be greatly eased? Does not productivity in British Railways stand excellent comparison with our much-vaunted European counterparts?
    Mr. Fowler: It is not realistic now, nor was it realistic a few years ago, to talk in those terms. It is true—and I pay tribute to British Railways—that compared with other European railway systems, our system is cost-effective. There is no question about it. However, I do not think that it follows from that that we should continue to pour more money into British Railways. What we surely need is a balance between the
    436
    passenger on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other. I believe that we have achieved that.

    British Railways Board (Subsidiary Businesses)
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the results of the joint examination by his Department and the British Railways Board about the setting up of a holding company for its subsidiary businesses.
    Mr. Moateasked the Minister when he expects to announce his proposals for certain British Railways subsidiaries.
    Mr. Fowler: I expect to receive the results within the next month and shall make an announcement as soon after that as possible.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the holding company proposal is fiercely resisted both by British Railways and the railway trade unions since that proposal will deprive them of the finance that is urgently needed for British Railways' passenger services? Is this not another example of a Tory Government bowing to private enterprise?
    Mr. Fowler: It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that this Conservative Government are in favour of private enterprise. May I say to him that there is no difference in objectives between what I am doing and what the chairman of British Railways wishes to do. The chairman of British Railways wants private investment in the subsidiary companies. We are now disscusing the method. My mind is not closed on the method, but on the objective I remain absolutely firm.
    Mr. Moate: Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures which indicate that the 29 hotels of British Railways produced a profit of £328,000, which will not do very much to help their investment programme? Does he agree that if there is true concern about the expansion of the subsidiary companies and employment in them, there will be a wish to see them separated from the public sector to allow new investment to come in and to allow the expansion to take place that has been constrained under successive Governments in the past?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Last year the hotels made a surplus of £328,000 on a turnover of £38 million. That is the sort of performance that we are seeking to improve. I believe that the opportunity to grow free from the restraint of the public sector is good for those organisations and will be good for the creation of jobs within them.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that if finance from the subsidiaries is not available for the capital funding of British Railways the taxpayer, about whom he is always mouthing concern, will have to find the capital? To demonstrate that, will the right hon. Gentleman quote the equivalent figures for the British Rail Property Board?
    Mr. Fowler: The majority of the money that goes to British Railways from its property interests comes not from non-operational property but operational property. We are seeking to get private investment into the non-operational property side of British Railways. We are not saying that British Rail should not have a stake in the company—clearly it should. The hon. Gentleman's fears are regrettably misplaced.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend make a genuine attempt to point out to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and others the reality that Sir Peter Parker's plans would in all probability mean more and not less investment in the subsidiaries, and that that would mean more jobs and more secure jobs? Will he go on from that to discuss with the Chairman the financial relationship between British Railways and Her Majesty's Government in the light of the board's current views? When he has done that, will he make a statement to the House?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall try to achieve all that my hon. Friend asks of me. I emphasise that we genuinely believe that by giving the subsidiary companies greater freedom, which not only the Government but British Railways want to see for them, we shall be acting in the interests of those who work for the subsidiary companies and for employment generally.
    Mr. Prescott: The House will recognise that the profits both from hotels and shipping has increased from £2 million in 1974 to about £14 million now, despite difficult circumstances. Will the
    438
    Minister make it clear to the House whether private equity capital will have the same voting value in the determination of commercial decisions as those shares held by the British Railways Board?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, that would be the aim. I shall be making a further announcement. It is clear that the details of the scheme are now under consideration. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until that consideration has been completed. After the initial consideration we shall be talking to all the interests, including the trade unions.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister for Transport if the studies at present being carried out by Sir Alec Cairncross include any into the benefits that Great Britain might derive from a Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of Sir Alec Cairncross on the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Fowler: Sir Alec Cairncross will be advising me on the broad economic aspects of any Channel link proposal. I am discussing with him what work he should undertake following my statement in the House of 19 March.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Will that remit and that study include the possible commitment of private funds? Will it include an examination of the possibility of the commitment of funds from the EEC for this purpose?
    Mr. Fowler: The answer to both of my hon. Friend's questions is " Yes ". We have made it clear that it is basic to the scheme that it must be financed by private risk capital. As for EEC money, we welcome the initiative of the Commission in proposing infrastructure aid. Clearly the tunnel would be a chief candidate for that form of aid. At present the infrastructure aid is merely a proposal.
    Mr. Adley: In the light of current discussions on the United Kingdom contribution to the EEC budget, will my right hon. Friend consider an offer of funds from the Commission as a proper, sensible

    439
    and relevant factor to offset the current imbalance?
    Mr. Fowler: The EEC budget is a different issue. It is no part of the specific negotiations. It is the wrong time scale for immediate help. It is also wrong in terms of the amount that is under consideration. However, if an infrastructure programme comes from the EEC there is no question but that the Channel tunnel could become a candidate, and a good candidate, for that aid.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister ask Sir Alec Cairncross or someone to consider the severe dangers of terrorist activity if there were a tunnel? Is he aware that there would be nothing to stop bombs from being put on to the trains? No one seems to be able to decide what would be the result. Surely someone must consider this issue.
    Mr. Fowler: A characteristic of almost every transport system is that it is subject to some form of sabotage. The security aspects will concern the two Governments, among other things.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister ask Sir Alec Cairncross carefully to consider the industrial development implications of establishing the Channel tunnel? Does he accept that if there are to be any benefits from the creation of the Channel tunnel they might not be spread equally within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Fowler: The effect of a Channel tunnel would be generally beneficial to the United Kingdom. We shall take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Sir Ronald Bell: Will the studies take into account the serious general economic disadvantage to Britain of this project?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that there is a serious economic disadvantage in the Channel tunnel. It is one issue on which there is considerable agreement on both sides of the House. It is felt that it makes a great deal of sense to go ahead with it.

    Cyclists (Road Safety)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister of Transport what action is being taken to improve road safety for cyclists.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We give advice and encouragement to local authorities on
    440
    the provision of better and safer facilities for cyclists. We shall seek to improve machine safety, particularly braking. We shall continue to encourage cyclists to make themselves more conspicuous and other road users to treat cyclists with more care and consideration. We commend RoSPA's national cycling proficiency scheme, which last year trained 300,000 children between the ages of 9–14.
    Mr. Dormand: In spite of those facts, is not the Minister being rather complacent about this important issue in view of the great increase in the number of cyclists, which is likely further to increase because of present circumstances? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the introduction of a massive publicity scheme on do's and don'ts for cyclists? Will he consider including in that campaign the need to make car drivers more aware of the existence of cyclists? Is he satisfied with the accuracy of the present cycling accident statistics?
    Mr. Clarke: We are not complacent. The hon. Gentleman is right to observe that, with the steady increase in cycling—which on the whole we welcome—there is a tendency for the number of accidents to increase. I am satisfied with the accuracy of the statistics that we have, but my colleagues and I will always consider ways of improving them. There is scope for publicity, apart from the other features that I have described. I agree that publicity must be aimed at cyclists themselves, especially children, and to other road users, including motorists, to make them more aware of cyclists. Many accidents are not the fault of the cyclist.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. and learned Friend continue to emphasise that there are two crucial safety factors, namely, that cyclists should be seen and, if possible, separated from other road traffic? Does he agree that many cyclists now seem to be using fewer lights than some years ago, and that that is one of the reasons why there are more accidents?
    Mr. Clarke: The problem of lighting on cycles is largely one of enforcement. Cyclists should be seen, and we do everything that we can to encourage the wearing of conspicuous clothing by cyclists. The separation of cyclists from the main

    441
    traffic is a desirable aim wherever possible. We give considerable help to local authorities to bring forward schemes to try to segregate cyclists from other traffic.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister consider the Swedish and Swiss experiment of banning children under the age of 5 from cycling on public roads? Is he aware that the experiment has had a phenomenal success in reducing the casualty rate for young children? May I urge him to consider it, and to do so rather more quickly than his consideration of introducing provisions to increase motor cycle safety?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, now that it has been brought to my attention. We must weigh carefully the need for a ban on any use of the roads. Most children under the age of 5 should not be on a bicycle on any public highway that has a normal amount of traffic use. I shall deal on another occasion with the allegation that we are being slow on motor cycle safety. We are near to producing our proposals.
    Mr. Forman: Due to the rather disappointing progress throughout the nation that has been made in the provision of cycle tracks by local authorities, will my hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of making it a legislative requirement that local authorities should provide cycle tracks for reasons of safety?
    Mr. Clarke: We are limited by finance and sometimes by the physical geography of particular towns. We give financial grants to local authorities which introduce experimental schemes. There are some interesting schemes at Peterborough and Middlesbrough, and four or five other schemes are on the way. Certain towns are easier to adapt for the use of cyclists than others. We must face up to some of the practical problems.

    M63 (Stockport)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about extension to the M63 in Stockport.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Construction of the M63 Stockport east/west bypass between Cheadle Heath and Portwood is
    442
    under way and is proceeding satisfactorily.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that there have been one or two unfortunate accidents as the result of the contractor's activities along that section? Will he confirm that my constituents in the Cheadle Heath area have made a considerable number of complaints about the contractor's behaviour? Will he ensure that no more accidents take place and that there is better liaison between the contractor, his Department, the road construction unit and local residents in order that any inconvenience may be minimised?
    Mr. Clarke: The construction of any major road is bound to lead to some disruption. Although everything possible is done to avoid the possibility of accidents, occasionally they occur. There is a liaison officer on the project who is meant to handle individual complaints. I shall follow up any complaints that are passed on to me by the hon. Gentleman or by any hon. Member. We are following up every complaint that we hear about. I am led to believe that arrangements between the engineers, the liaison officer, the RCU and the local community will improve.
    Mr. McNally: Perhaps the Minister did not hear Monday's debate on the North-West—in which case he should read it. Is he aware that the completion of this road is crucial to the economic and industrial future of the whole of south Manchester? Does not he accept that his Department has prevaricated about the future of the M63? Will he assure us that he is not losing some serious debates in Cabinet about its future completion?
    Mr. Clarke: We are not prevaricating about that stretch, but building it. Indeed, that is what has given rise to complaints in Stockport. The extension from Portwood to Denton is planned, and there is no doubt that it will go ahead. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the arrival of the White Paper for exact details of its timing. In addition, we have just announced the preferred route for the remainder of the road. The motorway box round Manchester remains one of our highest priorities and should not be delayed by any financial constraint.

    Enterprise Zones (Road and Rail Systems)
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Transport what studies his Department is making of the road and rail system aspects of the proposed enterprise zones.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The transport aspects of the enterprise zones are being considered in relation to particular sites as part of the consultations now in progress with local authority and other interests.
    Mr. Lee: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the availability of good communications into the enterprise zones is a vital ingredient if those zones are to be the success that Conservative Members wish them to be?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we are paying particular regard to the problems of access to possible sites. We are, therefore, going through the present short-list of possible sites. If there is no proper access to motorways, railways and markets it will inhibit the success of those zones. We all hope that these enterprise zones will make a valuable contribution to the boosting of small businesses.
    Mr. Dubs: Who is expected to pay for the cost of access—central Government or local authorities?
    Mr. Clarke: In choosing sites we are looking at existing access. We hope to designate those sites that are best placed to give access to the markets Where improvement is required local authorities will probably have to provide it, but we shall be particularly sympathetic to requests from local authorities for grant assistance, when they improve access to those zones.
    Mr. Eastham: Does not the Minister agree that it is essential, when planning enterprise zones in Manchester, to bear in mind not only road and rail links, but the fact that the Manchester ship canal and the port of Manchester are also important factors? What proposals does he have in mind that will be in time to assist that industry?
    Mr. Clarke: The extension of the M602 to Salford is probably the most important proposal under consideration,
    444
    and we are about to go ahead with its construction.

    European Community (Council of Transport Ministers)
    Mr. John Evansasked the Minister of Transport when he last met his European Economic Community colleagues; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: At the December Transport Council, which I attended, agreement was reached on all six inland transport matters under consideration. Full details of the matters discussed are contained in my reply of 10 December 1979 to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). The most significant item from the United Kingdom point of view was an agreement to increase by 20 per cent. the Community quota on road haulage permits which marked a further step towards the liberalisation that I have always sought.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Has he put forward any projects that will take advantage of increased EEC expenditure on infrastructure projects? Will he bear in mind that any infrastructure projects that are financed by the EEC should be carried out in the assisted areas?
    Mr. Fowler: As I made clear earlier, the proposals on infrastructure policy are still under discussion. We hope that they will be discussed at the next council meeting in June. I shall certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Porter: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will seek a commitment from his European colleagues that there will be a specific infrastructure fund? At the moment any fund that might come from Europe will come out of the social and regional fund. Is he aware that this disturbs me and a number of my colleagues who have recently been in Europe?
    Mr. Fowler: We certainly favour constructive discussion on all those points. We welcome the Commission's Green Paper. We shall consult interested parties and do what we can to get a scheme that is in this country's interests.
    Mr. Anderson: Has there been any discussion about the implications of oil

    445
    price increases for the Nine and for public transport in the Nine, particularly their effect on rail electrification?
    Mr. Fowler: That specific question has not yet been raised, but I expect that it will be one of the subjects under discussion either at the Council meeting or during meetings with European Ministers of Transport during the next 12 months.
    Mr. Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend had any chance to talk with his colleagues about comparable productivity of the various European railway networks? Would it not be helpful if we could understand why some of our friends in the Common Market have a much higher degree of productivity in the railways than we do?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made an important point about productivity. There are always dangers in European comparisons and that is why I warn the House against making too many superficial statements, on the European example, to the effect that more support should be given to British Railways.

    Motorway Maintenance
    Mr Iain Millsasked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the present safety measures operating on motorways during maintenance work involving contra-flow systems.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am as satisfied as anyone can be that safety measures at motorway repair sites strike a reasonable balance between keeping traffic moving safely while completing essential repairs quickly and economically.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply, but is he aware that there is great concern, particularly in the Midlands, where tragic accidents have recently taken place on the M5 and M6 as a result of cross-overs in contra-flow situations? Is he further aware that several local private enterprise companies are considering developing innovations which may help that problem? Will he at least consider those innovations?
    Mr. Clarke: I know of one bad accident in particular, and there have been several others. Unfortunately the figures for accidents rise slightly when such repairs are carried out. However,
    446
    the motorways remain safer than the road network as a whole. The contraflow system has been considerably improved over the past two or three years. We are always happy to look at any suggested innovations, particularly those that will improve the safety of those passing such sites.
    Mr. Neale: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that considerable inconvenience was caused to holidaymakers over Easter where the M5 passes near to Taunton because the road is under repair and the flow of traffic was restricted to one lane in one direction, and two lanes in the other? Will he ensure that the four lanes capable of carrying traffic and the hard shoulder are put to use at peak times during the coming statutory holiday periods?
    Mr. Clarke: I saw the considerable traffic jams that occurred on that stretch of road. As much carriageway as possible was kept in use. I am afraid that there is bound to be some delay when major structural repairs are carried out on motorways. We are anxious to complete the work at Taunton by June so that the worst inconvenience will not occur during the height of the holiday period.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that often, following the completion of maintenance work on motorways, contra-flow systems remain in operation? Is he further aware that other obstructions are put in the motorists' way? Will he undertake to examine how long such systems remain and whether the length of time can be shortened?
    Mr. Clarke: Whenever I get reports on such delays, I try to follow them up. Obviously we do not want a contra-flow system in operation for longer than is necessary. Our policy is that there should not be any unnecessary delay. It is not as simple as it is sometimes thought to take the whole thing away and then put it back to avoid particularly congested periods.

    M4 (Warning Lights)
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to install a modern motorway warning light system on the M4 between Chiswick and Heathrow Airport.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: This length of motorway signalling system is under consideration for renewal but no firm decisions have yet been taken.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that I am disappointed with that reply? I hope he will agree that this is a most important section of the strategic road network. In the interests of the prosperity of the country, will he not agree to look at this matter with considerable speed?
    Mr. Clarke: It is certainly important and it is the oldest section of warning light system in the country. It is still functioning quite well, but it will need replacing at some stage, and integrating into the national network. We have it under consideration, and I have no doubt that over the next two or three years a contract will be placed for its renewal with up-to-date equipment.

    Type Approval Regulations
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with Leyland Vehicles Limited concerning type approval regulations.
    Mr. Fowler: Officials of my Department are in discussion with members of the company on this and other related matters.
    Mr. Atkins: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement about taking action to improve or bring into existence type approval regulations for commercial vehicles?
    Mr. Fowler: We are discussing the possibility of a scheme that is similar to those applied in Europe for national approval for commercial vehicles. We expect a decision to be arrived at shortly and then we shall consult industry. The short answer to my hon. Friend is " very shortly."

    Heavy Lorries
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to varying the top speed at which lorries may be driven on motorways.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have no change immediately in mind, but we have submitted a memorandum on lorry speed
    448
    limits to the committee of inquiry under Sir Arthur Armitage. This memorandum, which will be published shortly, puts forward possibilities for reductions in the limits applying on motorways to certain categories of lorry-trailer combinations.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I welcome what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. Is he aware that there are no fewer than three different speed limits for commercial vehicles on motorways? As such a large number of lorries seem to flout these speed limits, is there not a case for introducing a single speed limit, strictly enforced, or for governing lorry engines down to the relevant speed limit as set out in the statute?
    Mr. Clarke: I have no doubt that everybody responsible for the management of road transport is aware of the different speed limits which are calculated on the size of the vehicle. I do not think that there is any case for altering the present system to the extent suggested by my hon. Friend. Enforcement is a matter, and no doubt a problem, for the police and the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that when these heavy lorries drive faster and faster on motorways there is greater danger in rain or wet conditions? Is he aware that these lorries spray water so that it resembles fog, making conditions on the motorway very dangerous? Will he do anything about this?
    Mr. Clarke: There is a great deal of research being done into ways of reducing lorry spray, but I am afraid that all the technical advice that I have received continues to say that the perfect solution has not yet been found. I assure the hon. Member that we shall make all the necessary changes to regulations once we have found the answer to a particularly worrying problem.
    Mr. Costain: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the problem of enforcing speed limits on lorries from the Continent, particularly those using the A28 and the A2? Will he ensure that the police are able to apprehend and prosecute them before they leave the country?
    Mr. Clarke: I am not sure that the problems are quite as grave as that. The police attempt to enforce the limits. We always look into complaints that foreign lorries are somehow exempted from

    449
    the speed limits, compared with our national lorries. If we can do anything to tighten up the procedure to ensure that a German driver obeys the law just as much as a British driver, we shall do so.
    Mr. Mylesasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Armitage committee on heavy lorries.
    Mr. Snapeasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the Armitage inquiry on heavy lorries.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the Armitage inquiry on heavy lorries.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Sir Arthur Armitage and his assessors are now considering the written and oral evidence presented to the inquiry. I understand that Sir Arthur hopes to submit his report by the autumn.
    Mr. Myles: In considering that report will my hon. and learned Friend pay due attention to the impact of heavy lorries on the A95—the road which feeds the whisky to the A9?
    Mr. Clarke: All the road maps in my Department stop at the Scottish border. North of that border the responsibility is that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure my hon. Friend that the reason for having inquiries is that we are concerned about the impact of heavy lorries on the environment generally. I am sure that the problem is not confined to England, but is just as serious in Scotland.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister make it clear to Sir Arthur Armitage that many of us feel that the road haulage industry enjoys an unfair advantage over its major competitors because working hours laid down by the EEC are normally flouted in the industry and also because log books provided by lorry drivers are regarded as a joke. If the Minister is aware of this, will he do something about it?
    Mr. Clarke: Our policy is to ensure that there is no unfair advantage enjoyed by any mode of transport dealing in freight. We want to see them on an
    450
    equal footing as far as possible, so that they can compete fairly for the traffic. I agree that the log book is easily abused, and that is why it is a good thing that we finally got round to introducing tachographs. The last Government sadly failed to introduce these for many years.
    Mr. Moate: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a matter of the utmost environmental importance? Will he consider the suggestion that, before any Government decision is taken, on maximum lorry weights, this matter should be discussed fully by the House of Commons?
    Mr. Clarke: Without a doubt. For that reason the Government have reserved their position in the EEC. We have entered into no formal consultation with the EEC about its proposals, and we have no intention of moving on this subject until we have had time to consider Sir Arthur's report, and the House has had time to consider it. Although we are not responsible for the business of the House, I would expect that the House would debate this matter once the report is to hand.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister accept that no committee on heavy lorries will make any impact at all on the lives of people living on heavily-trafficked urban roads which are used by juggernauts which have nowhere else to go? Therefore, will he go ahead and build the western bypass for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, thus relieving the misery of many thousands of my constituents?
    Mr. Clarke: One of the main priorities in the roads programme, which will be set out in the White Paper that we are about to produce, is to get heavy traffic out of residential areas and away from people, particularly in areas where there is no alternative route at present. I am aware of local pressure for the Newcastle western bypass, but I must ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper in order to get up-to-date news of where this project stands in the programme.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Armitage committee to the environmental effect of heavy lorries on roads in rural areas? I have in mind particularly the effect on buildings and on the atmosphere. One

    451
    specific example is the A350 in my constituency where the buildings of Bland-ford and other villages along that road are seriously affected by the level of heavy road traffic at present, and would be badly damaged by any increase in heavy vehicle size.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that Sir Arthur and his colleagues have been left in any doubt about feelings in many parts of the country over the impact of the heavy lorry on rural areas where roads go through villages. My Department has submitted a great deal of evidence to Sir Arthur on this aspect of the problem, along with many others. All the evidence that we have submitted to the inquiry will be published and made available to the House and to the general public.
    Mr. Cryer: Should not the Department of Transport have submitted to the Armitage inquiry a very heavily weighted view in favour of the transfer of freight from road to rail? Is it not in the country's longer-term interests, because of the increasing price of fuel, to realise the advantages of rail as opposed to road transport, and move inevitably in that direction in order to save fuel in the future?
    Mr. Clarke: All attempts at direction of traffic from one mode of transport to another are completely doomed, and no Government have ever found any way of putting that into practice. We use the arrangements of section 8 grants to those customers of the railways who need some assistance in putting in facilities for rail transport where they can demonstrate some environmental advantage by doing so. The present pattern of oil prices will improve the competitive climate in favour of the railways over the next few years. This means that the railways will need to organise their freight business in such a way that they are in a position to take advantage of that and attract customers on to the tracks.

    British Railways (Overseas Work)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to British Railways not to tender for overseas consultancy work or the supply of rolling stock or other equipment
    Mr. Fowler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that I very much welcome that answer? Will he agree that British Rail could do a lot of valuable work in Third world countries, both in the form of consultancy and by supplying equipment and rolling stock?
    Mr. Fowler: I congratulate the hon. Member on his impromtu supplementary question. I agree entirely with what he said. I have just come back from leading a small delegation to China, and one of the results of that will be that British Rail and its overseas arm, Transmark will have the opportunity to go to China and bid for important electrification work there. This kind of work is important, not just to British Rail, but to the whole of the rail industry, much of which is in the private sector.
    Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Sir Peter Parker on the great initiative that he and his colleagues in British Rail have shown in going out into the world and selling the enterprise that exists in this country?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir, I shall certainly do so. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the House would also wish to pay tribute to the real efforts and real achievements of the private railway industry. Those have also been substantial.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Manpower
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the progress being made in the Government's policy of reducing the number of civil servants.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department, (Mr. Paul Channon): No, Sir. But we have made a reasonable start.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of all the publicity and ballyhoo about this populist policy, there has been a reduction of only 4 per cent. in the number of civil servants? Will he confirm that many of those who have gone are highly qualified specialists, some of them expensively trained by the Government, and that there have been no reductions in the higher echelons of the administrative hierarchy?
    Mr. Channon: I am glad to tell the House that the numbers in the Civil Service have fallen to 705,100, a reduction of over 27,000 since we came to office. It is approximately of the order that the hon. Gentleman stated. I do not think that such an achievement is too bad for the first 10 months. We are pressing ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that there has yet been a sufficient reduction, proportionately, in the higher structure of the administrative Civil Service. I am looking at that matter.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members will be satisfied that the trend is downwards rather than upwards? It was upwards under the previous Government. Is he further aware that we are especially pleased about progress in the Department of the Environment, where staff has already been reduced by 7·4 per cent.?
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has, I agree, set a fine example. Figures are getting down to the levels of the last Conservative Government. I hope that by this time next year we shall have done even better.
    Mr. Straw: Will the Minister say whether the report in the press that the Government are planning to cut the Civil Service by a further 70,000 is correct? If so, what was the source of that report?
    Mr. Channon: Goodness knows what was the source. It was not me. I do not intend to comment on speculative press reports. The Government are naturally considering their manpower policy for future years. I am in discussions with all relevant people.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is only one way in which a 25 per cent. increase in wage costs and 14 per cent. cash limits can be reconciled, namely, by substantial reductions? Will he assure the House that, this afternoon, unlike the last time he answered questions, Sir John Herbecq will not be going along to a Committee upstairs to tell it of a projected increase in civil servants in one Government Department?
    Mr. Channon: No. I read my hon. Friend's article with great interest that
    454
    Sunday. For once and, I am sure, for the only time, he got the matter slightly wrong. It was very unusual. I assure him that there is a distinction between complement and staff in post. I have announced today new figures showing that staff in post on 1 April were 705,000. As a result of the 2½ per cent. reduction I announced on 14 March, the Civil Service will be well below 700,000 by the end of 1980–81.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Despite what the Minister has told the House, will he make clear exactly what are the Government's intentions on the cuts in Civil Service manpower? Is he aware that this House asks for certain services for the community to be provided by the Civil Service? It is not good enough to be talking in terms of 70,000 further cuts in manpower without saying which services will be affected. Will he also comment on reports that he and his Department will be abolished by the Prime Minister? Is there any truth in that report?
    Mr. Channon: If my position is to be abolished, that would, no doubt, be a great relief to everyone. The hon. Gentleman will have to put that question to the Prime Minister. Questions on the organisation of government are a matter for the Prime Minister. The figure of 70,000 is the hon. Gentleman's. It is not one I have ever used. I assure the House that when the Government come to any conclusions about future manpower policy, the House will be kept informed and the trade unions consulted, as is proper in a situation of this kind.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the changing proportion and numbers of non-industrial to industrial civil servants in recent years; and if he will make a statement on future Government policy on total numbers.
    Mr. Channon: The proportion and numbers of non-industrial to industrial staff reflects the tasks which are undertaken by Government Departments. As to the Government's policy on total numbers, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 19 March.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the last 20 years, until

    455
    recently, whereas the number of civil servants has increased by 100,000, the number of non-industrial civil servants—those most people know as civil servants—has increased by no less than 180,000? Is not one concealing a great increase in the other? When my hon. Friend gives these figures in future, will he always give the total number of non-industrial civil servants?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend is broadly right The number of non-industrial civil servants today is 547,600. The number has gone down considerably, by about 18,000 in the past year or so. Numbers of industrial civil servants have fallen by about half that number, although I am speaking from memory. My hon. Friend is broadly right. Numbers in the industrial Civil Service have fallen while those in the non-industrial have increased. That is a matter about which the Government are concerned.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: What progress has been made in the dispersal of civil servants, as recommended by the Hard-man report? What progress has been achieved in regional dispersal to the extent of placing more jobs on Merseyside?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I made a statement last July. There have been no changes in the situation since then.

    Pay
    Mr. Trippierasked the Mnister for the Civil Service, if he will make a statement on the current pay negotiation with the Civil Service staffs.
    Mr. Channon: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on 3 April. Since then the Government have decided that the settlements for the non-industrial civil servants should be staged with the new rates being paid in full from 7 May. Negotiations on the pay settlement for industrial civil servants, whose settlement date is 1 July will take place nearer the time.
    Mr. Trippier: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the pay settlement falls within the Government's cash limits policy of 14 per cent., and
    456
    that this is based not on the post-dated cheques of the previous Administration, as mentioned in the press recently?
    Mr. Channon: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Civil Service pay award for 1980–81 is contained within the cash limits allowing for only 14 per cent. increased pay costs. The difference of 4¾ per cent. will be covered by staff reductions and the staging that I have announced. That is the reality of the situation. The Government are enforcing a limit of a 14 per cent. increase in pay costs, and making manpower economies to achieve it. I hope that others will take note.
    Mr. John Evansasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the level of salary increases being obtained by civil servants.
    Mr. Channon: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the truth of the situation is that average wage increases in the Civil Service have been in excess of 20 per cent. and not the 14 per cent. to which the Minister refers? Does not this signify that the Government have no more hope of introducing a pay policy in the Civil Service sector than they have of doing so in the industrial sector? Would the Minister care to tell the House what will be the cash limits for the next wage round for civil servants?
    Mr. Channon: I will not say now what are to be the cash limits for 1981–82. It will be many months before anything has to be settled. I am not even over this pay round, let alone starting on the next. The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The position remains as I stated to my hon. Friend a few moments ago.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that there are several hundred boys and girls in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne languishing on social security who, but for the policies that he is pursuing, would have been following gainful employment? Does he feel satisfied with this situation? Is he proud of himself?
    Mr. Channon: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not think that they relate to the question of pay rates for civil servants.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Should not another hard look be taken at the role of the Pay Research Unit? Since the Government rightly set cash limits, based on their calculations on what the community can afford, is it not thoroughly unfortunate that the Pay Research Unit should come forward with solutions that can only lead directly to redundancies?
    Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's view. I must point out to him, as I did on an earlier occasion, that the Conservative Party election manifesto said that we would reconcile pay research with cash limits. That has been the Government's policy and one that I have been trying to implement. I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

    Civil Service Staff-Side
    Mr. Strawasked the Minister for the Civil Service, when next he will meet representatives of the Civil Service Staff Side.
    Mr. Channon: I met them yesterday, and I am sure that we shall meet again soon.
    Mr. Straw: If the Civil Service is reduced by 70,000 would the Minister welcome that?
    Mr. Channon: I should welcome the smallest Civil Service that the country can have which can carry out the tasks which Parliament sets it. I am certain that a smaller and even more efficient civil service would be in the national in-
    458
    terest and in the interests of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend study the replies to a series of written questions to various Government Departments which I have tabled which, while bearing out the good results that he announced this afternoon, show that some Departments are still lagging sadly behind his requirements?
    Mr. Channon: Each Department varies. I certainly do not wish to criticise any individual Department. I shall take note of what my hon. Friend says and bear it in mind when considering future policy.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister be able to assure the Civil Service Staff Side that before highly-paid jobs in industry or public corporations are offered to senior civil servants such as Mr. Ron Dearing, they will be advertised throughout the Civil Service? May we have assurances that such jobs will not be given to people in a clique working with a particular Secretary of State, but that the jobs will be brought into the open and advertised either generally or throughout the Civil Service?
    Mr. Channon: The usual practice for the appointment of the chairmen of nationalised industries will be followed by those of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for appointments. The practice has not varied under successive Governments.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make.
I reminded the House recently of my concern at the way in which Question Time is being changed by open questions. By such questions I mean questions which give no indication to the House of the real question which the hon. Gentleman seeks to ask. Examples of such questions—and we have had them today—involve asking when the Minister expects to meet the chairman of a particular nationalised industry, of a particular trade organisation, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or his colleagues in the EEC.
Questions are listed on the Order Paper so that the House itself is given notice of questions that are to be raised and so that considered answers to them can be prepared. The whole House knows that the open question is allowed for Prime Minister's questions because of the desire of Members to table questions that will not be transferred to other Ministers. I confess to the House that I feel embarrassed when I see as many as 20 or more questions on the Order Paper all asking about the Prime Minister's engagements for the day. It would be far better for us all if the hon. Members concerned tabled the actual questions which they wished to ask the Prime Minister.
Since the special problems of Prime Minister's Question Time have been considered by the House relatively recently, I do not propose any change in practice in relation to it. When it comes to other Ministers, however, I see no reason why hon. Members should not put on the Order Paper the question that they intend to ask, or at least disclose its subject matter so that the whole House may know the topic that is being raised. In all honesty I have to say to the House that very often a supplementary question to an open question turns out to be one which could not have been accepted by the Table Office and is, therefore, an abuse of our rules.
In an effort to protect the House, I propose, for an experimental period, to extend the practice that I introduced in March 1978 for questions to departmental Ministers asking them about their
460
engagements for the day. When a question about a Minister's meetings with various persons or organisations appears on the Order Paper without its purpose being stated reasonably precisely, I shall allow it to be called and for the Minister to reply but I shall not call any supplementary questions. If the subject matter is indicated in the question, supplementary questions will be confined to that subject.
If in consequence of this action I find that other open questions are being devised, I shall consider applying the same restrictions to them. The new practice will be applied to questions tabled after today.
As I see it, if such action is not taken at this stage the character of our Question Time will be changed without the House itself having consciously decided that the old system of giving notice of questions should be pushed aside. I hope that I have the support of the House in the course that I have outlined.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please examine a matter which arises as a result of your statement? The general problem arises because of the difficulty of pinning down Government Departments. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, want to protect the rights of Members to ensure that the Government are accountable.
Since you have, in effect, narrowed the opportunity of asking questions, will you also examine the way in which Government Departments narrow their opportunities to provide replies and the blocking mechanism which Government Departments put on answers by replying " No "? Such a reply means that it is impossible to table a similar question in the Table Office for three months, which eradicates the possibility of making the Government accountable for that period. All Governments use that system consciously. If we are to be inhibited to some degree, you, Mr. Speaker, should examine the matter which I have put to you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my statement if he thought that I was talking about pinning the Government down. There was no such reference in my statement. I remind the House that I am expected to be the guardian of our rules and Standing Orders. I can see a danger that the whole character of

461
Question Time will change unless this course is followed. I propose to follow it until the House instructs me otherwise.
Mr. Dykes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there will be a wide welcome for your proposal. There is a special characteristic and possible problem in respect of EEC questions after the Foreign Affairs questions slot. Specific subjects are bound to be transferred to the relevant Departments because of the way in which the constitutional relationship between the Government and the EEC operates. There is bound to be a wider aspect in EEC questions because of the Foreign Office spokesman's role in dealing with constitutional matters relating to the EEC.
Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in a moment. I welcome him back, on St. George's Day.
Whilst I am preparing myself to call the hon. Gentleman, I must tell the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that the subject of open questions about the EEC was one matter which I considered carefully. Such questions were asked last week. Neither the Minister nor the House knew what topic was coming up. The topics ranged between Afghanistan, the Olympic Games and Iraq. The House is entitled to have notice of the questions which are to be asked.
Mr. Skinner: I have left the dragon outside!
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you have not looked at the matter as closely as you should, especially in relation to the Common Market and the chairmen of nationalised industries. One of the problems is that we cannot ask relatively narrow questions about nationalised industries because of arguments about day-to-day administration. One of the reasons for questions about meetings with the chairmen of British Rail, the National Coal Board and other nationalised industries is to overcome the possibility of such questions being stopped at the Table Office. There will be difficulties if we are not allowed to table that type of question about nationalised industries. The matter needs another look.
Mr. Speaker: May 1 say, before responding to the hon. Gentleman's question, that I am glad that he is in his old forum? I mean that. I am very glad to see him. I do not say anything about hearing him, but seeing him—certainly yes.
Question No. 2 today, an open question, drew supplementary questions dealing with salaries on the railways, electrification on the railways, freight in Cornwall, " Transport 2000 ", rural transport, cash limits and the question of transport in Wales. Those questions, or some of them, could have been put on the Order Paper, and if they could not, they were out of order.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): May I, Mr. Speaker, express the gratitude of, I think, most hon. Members for your statement today, because I believe that the open question at Prime Minister's Question Time has led to abuse. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister have attempted to return to the tradition of the more specific question. The more specific a question is, the more Ministers are in fact pinned down by it. I think that there would be a great danger to the tradition of our Question Time if the open question became the norm for all questions to Ministers, and I believe that the vast majority of hon. Members will be most grateful for the early action which you have taken.
Mr. Foot: While thanking you for the ruling or suggestion which you have given to the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that some of us have some sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friends, and one of the dangers of jumping out of the frying pan is that one may land in the fire. One of the problems is that these developments have occurred precisely because of real difficulties, and I therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, since you have yourself said that there shall be an experimental period, that if you find that the alternative abuse of Ministers being able to transfer questions or to escape their responsibilities arises, we should have the matter looked at by the Procedure Committee. Indeed, perhaps the Committee ought to look at it in any case. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that while

463
we conduct the experiment which you have asked for, we shall look at the other possibilities, and I urge that that should go to the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Spriggs: I thank you for your statement, Mr. Speaker, but may I draw your attention to the other side of the coin in relation to Departments and Ministers? I have recently put down questions to Ministers and been told in reply that, because of the disproportionate costs of finding out the information which I required, they were not able to give me the answer. When I have asked the Ministers concerned to tell me what the costs were to which they referred, they still did not give me the answer. Would you have a look at that side of the coin, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the House for the way in which it has responded. I suggest that we have this experimental period at least until the spring bank holiday, which, I think, is about five weeks away. We shall then look at it again, but I hope that it will work in the interests of the House.

IRAN
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on yesterday's decision by the Foreign Ministers of the members of the European Community concerning Iran. I am arranging for a copy of the text of the approved communiqué to be published in the Official Report.
As the House will recall, my right hon. and noble Friend and his colleagues had adopted a decision in Lisbon on 10 April which was, in effect, a last appeal to the authorities in Iran to release the hostages in conformity with international law. Our ambassadors in Tehran were instructed to convey this appeal to the Iranian President and to request him to name the date and method by which the hostages would be released. They did so on 12 April. Mr. Bani-Sadr's reply was unsatisfactory. The most he would say was that he hoped that a decision on the future of the hostages would be taken by the new Iranian Parliament when it had been elected and established. While holding out the prospect that visits to the hostages might be arranged, he could give no firm assurance about when the Parliament might meet, or whether it could be relied upon to act as he hoped.
When this matter came up in this House and in another place on 14 April, the mood of the House was unmistakable, and the phrase " the utmost solidarity with the United States " was used from the Benches on both sides. There was a general feeling that diplomatic methods had, for the time being at least, been exhausted and that the time had come to find some more concrete and far-reaching way of expressing our abhorrence at the continued defiance of the rules of international behaviour and the opinions of the civilised world.
The House will I hope, find this mood reflected in the decision adopted yesterday in Luxembourg. In accordance with a suggestion made last week by the United Kingdom, it was decided to proceed in two stages. In the first stage, the Nine will put into effect to the extent that they are not in force already certain measures mainly of a political nature. We shall reduce still further our embassy staffs in

465
Tehran. We shall insist on a parallel reduction in the Iranian embassies in our own capitals. We shall reintroduce a visa system for Iranian citizens, after giving due notice, and we shall formally ban the export of defence equipment to Iran.
The measures to be adopted in stage 2 are much more far-reaching, and it was this paragraph which occupied most of the time yesterday. If I may, I shall read the key sentences. Ministers decided to seek immediate legislation where necessary in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Security Council resolution on Iran, dated 10 January 1980, which was vetoed, and in accordance with the rules of international law. They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17 May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples. In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions.
These are decisions of great gravity. If it becomes necessary to implement them, a wide range of commercial activities will be affected. It is, of course, our hope that, at this eleventh hour, the Iranian authorities will draw the inescapable conclusion that the continued detention of the hostages is not in Iran's own interest and should be brought to an end without delay.
If that does not happen, we shall face the situation which we contemplated when we cast our vote for the resolution presented to the Security Council in January except that now the action taken must be on the basis of national measures and not on the basis of a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. The necessary measures will be laid before the House, and I believe that the Government can count on the co-operation of the House in handling them with the least possible delay.
The customary statement on the other business taken yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Council is being made separately in answer to a written question.
Mr. Shore: We are embarking upon a serious and inevitably uncertain course, but the Opposition have already made clear their view that the unlawful six months' detention of United States diplomats in Tehran is unacceptable and that
466
the international community should join in diplomatic, political and economic, but not military, measures to bring about their early release. We reaffirm that view now. We shall, of course, give proper consideration to any legislation which the Government bring forward, and we shall expect the Government to keep the House fully informed as developments unfold.
In the light of the unsatisfactory response of the Iranian President to the European ambassadors last week, has the Minister any real reason to believe that the very modest diplomatic measures now to be taken—which we certainly hope will be successful—will have an effect? Secondly, can he affirm that the Nine have all agreed that, if no effective Iranian response is made, they will on 17 May introduce measures to prohibit direct exports, the movement of goods, credits and loans and new service contracts—in other words, the same measures as were supported by Britain and France and eight other members of the Security Council on 13 January? Is it also the intention to ban oil imports on the same date?
Is it not plain that if economic sanctions are to have a reasonable prospect of success there will need to be much wider support for them than that of the Nine alone? Is not the OECD the obvious forum in which to pursue these matters, both because it includes the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EFTA as well as the EEC countries, and because it is only through the OECD's international energy programme that emergency measures can be taken to pool oil supplies should that unfortunately prove necessary?
With regard to international political action, is it not a fact that the Soviet Union, along with all other members of the Security Council, voted on 4 December for a resolution calling for the immediate release of the United States hostages? Is there not, therefore, a strong case—in spite of their subsequent veto on 13 January—for seeking renewed Soviet co-operation in the matter? The issue of the hostages should not be seen primarily as an issue of East and West. It is in fact the lowest common denominator of serious and sane international conduct.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's statement of support.

467
We shall, of course, keep the House fully informed.
The political situation in Tehran and throughout Iran remains confused and fluid, and it is, therefore, right to make a further effort during the next three weeks—a little more than three weeks—to try to show those Iranians who are genuinely concerned with Iran's position in the world that that position will be undermined and put at risk so long as the hostages are held.
I confirm that there was complete agreement among the Foreign Ministers of the Nine on the measures that were announced. That is a satisfactory state of affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the subject of oil was not mentioned in the communiqué that was issued yesterday. No request has been received from the United States that we should forgo imports of oil. We received a request that companies should not buy from Iran at prices sharply different from the reigning OPEC prices. As it happens, the new price that was announced recently for Iranian oil is very high, and therefore British companies have not bought Iranian oil, and are not now lifting Iranian oil at the increased prices. I understand that the same is true of Japanese companies.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in pointing out that this is not simply a matter of the United States and the Nine, and that other countries are closely involved. The Japanese Foreign Minister was in Luxembourg yesterday, and my right hon. and noble Friend had a long talk with him. We understand that the Japanese are associating themselves with the measures announced—which is important. Other countries are also involved, some of which are members of OECD. Britain and her partners are in touch with them so as to bring about the maximum solidarity.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in recalling that, initially, the Soviet Union went along with the demand that the hostages should be released. Later, it fell into the temptation of fishing in troubled waters, and it vetoed the second resolution in the Security Council. Nevertheless, we note, and we shall think carefully about, the right hon. Gentleman's
468
suggestion for a further approach to the Soviet Union on this matter.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Have the Government overlooked the notorious and proven ineffectiveness and counter-productiveness of economic sanctions? Are not the Government aware of the widespread and rising dislike in this country at seeing Britain dragged at the chariot wheels of the United States, which would not act in this way if the roles were reversed?
Mr. Hurd: No one can be happy about treading the path to sanctions, or be in any way dogmatic about the result. That is one reason why the European Ministers have given the Iranians more than three further weeks before sanctions come into effect. We very much hope that decisive progress towards the release of the hostages will be made within that time so that sanctions do not have to be implemented.
The right hon. Gentleman must take into account that yesterday the European Ministers were not considering a blank sheet of paper. They were considering a request from the President of the United States of America for help in a desperate situation in which, by universal consent, he has shown immense patience and restraint for five months.
Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend accept that his statement today is welcome as a demonstration that, faced with difficult circumstances, the Foreign Ministers of the Community can provide positive and joint action, which will be most welcome? Will he also accept that in the present delicate international situation a demonstration of solidarity with the United States is of paramount importance?
Mr. Hurd: It is satisfactory that throughout the Iranian crisis the Governments of the Nine and the embassies of the Nine in Tehran have worked together more solidly than on any other issue that I can remember. This solidarity survived a difficult test at Luxembourg yesterday.
I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. If the Foreign Ministers had returned a plain " No " yesterday to the request by the United States, the consequences for the Western Alliance would without doubt have been very serious.
Mr. Stephen Ross: May we on the Liberal Benches assure the Minister that we welcome the decisions that were taken yesterday? We consider that the maintenance of good relations with and support for the United States are of vital importance to Western European unity.
Will the Minister tell us how many British citizens are still living in Iran, and will he give us an assurance that they will be given every assistance to leave the country if they so wish?
One of my constituents and a constituent of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) have been detained for over 10 weeks without any charges being brought against them. My constituent has now been released to the care of a British company but has not been allowed to leave Iran. Will the Minister tell us what is happening in those circumstances?
Mr. Hurd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his promise of support. There are still about 350 British subjects left in Iran. Of course, many of them had an opportunity to leave, but they have preferred to stay. That is one reason why we propose to keep a small diplomatic staff in Tehran, so that they can continue to give what help they can in difficult circumstances.
Regarding the specific matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and in which several of my hon. Friends have constituency interests, I received this morning two conflicting messages as to the exact position of the two Britons to whom he referred. I shall certainly keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he receives the latest information. Our embassy staff are doing everything that they can, in difficult circumstances, to bring about the safe return to Britain of those two people.
Mr. Dalyell: In his statement, the Minister referred to the importance of the position of those Iranians who are genuinely concerned about their country's position in the world. Does he believe that the threat of sanctions will make their position easier or more difficult? If he were an ascetic Iranian mullah—the mullahs are the people with whom we are dealing—given these threats, would it be more or less likely that he would release the hostages?
Mr. Hurd: We are dealing with a fluid and swiftly changing situation in which different groups in Iran are jostling for power. As I said previously, he would be a rash man who would be dogmatic about the effect of particular sanctions. However, it is necessary, not simply for the United States but for her friends and allies, to show emphatically to the Iranians that their position as a major country in the Middle East, and as a major member of the international community, depends on compliance with this basic point of international law—that diplomats should be accorded the protection that international law guarantees. That is a major point, although secondary perhaps to the primary need for maximum unity within the Western Alliance.
Mr. Walters: The taking and holding of hostages is intolerable, and it is right that we should show our sympathy and solidarity with the Americans. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the British and European Governments will also make clear to the United States Government that foreign policy in the Middle East—in Iran and elsewhere—should be conducted in the interests of the West and not only in the interests of internal American politics, as too often it is?
Mr. Hurd: It is certainly the duty of the allies of the United States to make sure that all these decisions are taken against the general background in the Middle East and, in particular, the overwhelming need to stem the threat from Soviet expansionism. It would be wrong and unfair to attribute American concern over the hostages to the fact that it is an election year. As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said, if we this year—not an election year in Britain—had 50 British diplomats, or indeed any Britons, held as hostages for five months in Iran, there would be a very high level of emotion, anxiety and frustration in this country as well.
Mr. Faulds: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Americans pay such regard to the sensitivities of the British electorate? Does he agree that a one-term presidency in the United States would enormously enhance international relations? Will he understand and accept that if any form of military

471
action is undertaken by United States forces the utmost solidarity of which he spoke will very quickly evaporate?
Mr. Hurd: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
On the second part, certainly we would regard any suggestion of military action—no such suggestion has yet been made—as having very dangerous implications.
Sir Walter Clegg: Is my hon. Friend aware that many British firms in Iran which undertook contracts before the revolution are now being threatened by the Iranian Government with the cashing in of bonds which were given at that time and which are now made impossible of performance by the Iranian Government? Will the Government look at this matter and ensure that, if we are to impose sanctions against Iran, British firms are not made to pay out on those bonds?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We understand its importance. Ministers will have to consider its implications very carefully and urgently. Many of the contracts and performance bonds entered into before February 1979 are covered by the ECGD. Cover was withdrawn in February 1979 by the ECGD. Since then there obviously has been an element of risk in any new business.
Mr Winnick: While deploring the holding of the hostages, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is little enthusiasm in this country for economic sanctions and that some of us at least will vote against sanctions whenever the opportunity is provided in this House? As these sanctions are likely to be counter-productive in the situation prevailing in Iran, would it not be wise for Britain and the EEC countries alike to reconsider and recognise that sanctions will not work and that certainly they will not release the hostages?
Mr. Hard: I agree that there will be little enthusiasm for sanctions in this country. I think that there would have been even less enthusiasm for returning a refusal to the President of the United States and allowing the United States to
472
draw the conclusion that we were only fair-weather friends.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Government have agreed to the request made by President Carter on this issue—and I agree with their agreeing—is it not time that they put pressure on President Carter to release the guns for the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are being shot dead—not held as hostages. It is time that we had these guns for use against the IRA.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. The question that he raised was answered yesterday in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Some of the equipment requested has been delivered. A decision on the rest is awaited.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Whilst supporting completely the backing that the European Community has given to the United States, may I ask my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Anglo-Iranian group in the House, which has support on both sides, to take every opportunity of expressing the sense of sadness that many of us feel that there should be a parting of the ways with the Iranian people rather than with a regime that all of us may find objectionable? We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. Will my hon. Friend also tell us why, after all these months, nothing has yet been done to safeguard the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil from the Gulf is carried?
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. [An HON. MEMBER: " Why? "] Because, as he rightly said, it is important to emphasise that our dispute and accusations lie against the detention of the hostages and those who are responsible for that detention. We are not seeking to influence or determine the way in which the people of Iran decide their own future, and I think that that is perfectly right.
My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the importance of the Straits of Hormuz. As he knows, we are in close and, I hope, constructive touch with the United States and the Gulf Governments on this question.
Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Labour Members have the gravest reservation about both the wisdom and the manner in which the decision was taken? Is it not time that

473
such decisions were taken in this House before being decided by EEC Ministers?
Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman considered the consequence of his action on many groups of workers in this country? For example, does he accept that the nation, not those workers, should bear the cost? Will there be any compensation for the workers of Talbot if the Iranian order there is stopped?
Mr. Hurd: On the first point, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we had gone ahead with sanctions, resolutions or measures without knowing that our main competitors—the Germans and the French, for example—were willing to do the same. The hon. Gentleman would have been in a great state of indignation and excitement at our soft-headedness in that regard. It is an excellent thing that the countries of Europe have come together and taken this stand collectively. The hon. Gentleman is right, as I made clear in my statement, that it is a matter for national measures, and these will have to be approved by the House in the usual way.
I have already dealt with the question of compensation. Ministers will need to look at this matter very carefully. I made the point that much of the business entered into before February 1979 is covered by the ECGD and that business entered into after ECGD cover was withdrawn was obviously entered into with some element of risk.
Mr. Warren: I welcome the initiative of approaching the Government of the Soviet Union to find out what, if anything, they are prepared to do to ease the situation inside Iran, but will EEC Ministers take the opportunity to make clear once again to the Soviet Union that adventures around the frontiers of Iran will not reduce the tension inside that country?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right to stress that point, and we take every opportunity to act on it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four Members from either side before we move on.
Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that the political instability of Iran is due in
474
part to the rejection by sections of Iranian society of Western economic influence in Iran and that certain sections took the initiative in respect of the hostages? Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that sanctions of the type that he has outlined will influence those who wish to retain those hostages? Is it not even more likely to do the opposite?
Mr. Hurd: We have given the Iranians three weeks to ponder the consequences of the holding of the hostages. We know that people in positions of influence in Iran—I should not put it higher than that—are conscious of the dangers of the path that they are treading. We hope that they will use those three weeks to secure " decisive progress "—that is the phrase in the communiqué—towards the release of the hostages.
Mr. Crouch: I welcome Europe's demonstration of solidarity with our friends in the United States. My hon. Friend described their attitude to the Iranian crisis as " desperate ". That word frightens me somewhat. I hope that our voice and the voice of Europe will not be unheard and go unheeded in Washington if the situation is as desperate as he thinks it is.
Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point. One of the advantages of the decision taken yesterday in Luxembourg is that it enables us, in a way that would not be possible if the other decision had been reached, to continue to pass to the United States the British analyses and consideration of what is wisest.
Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that, regrettably, it appears that sanctions will have to be applied if we wish to obtain the release of the hostages being held in the United States embassy in Iran? In the event of sanctions being applied against Iran, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to consider compensation for all firms who have business connections with Iran? If employment is seriously affected as a result of sanctions, will he take special measures to deal with any unemployment problems?
Mr. Hurd: I have tried to answer that question twice already. Obviously it is an aspect of the matter that Ministers will need carefully to consider.
Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that although there is wide support for his statesmanlike and moderate approach to these matters—and support for the decision of the EEC—there may come a time when sterner measures will have to be contemplated? Unless the Iranian Government are aware of that, they are unlikely to take seriously what is now being suggested.
Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hope that he will forgive me if I am not drawn further down the track than 17 May.
Mr. McNally: Does the Minister appreciate that many of us fear that deadlines have an unhappy aptitude for being reached and then the ante is automatically up? Is escalating belligerency really the solution to the problem? May I urge the Minister to consider the calling of the Iranian Parliament? We are dealing with a region where face is still important, and where a way out, rather than abject surrender, is likely to be the real solution. I urge the hon. Gentleman to give wise counsel to the Americans; that is a service that we can undertake. Of all the proposals that have been put forward, the proposal that the convened, elected, Iranian Parliament should release the hostages appears to be the way out for those people of good will in Iran mentioned by the Minister.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right on the question of wise counsel, but it will not be received by the Americans unless it is accompanied by some effort on our part. He is right to underline the importance of the newly elected Iranian Parliament. The timetable worked out in Luxembourg yesterday is designed to enable it to get to work quickly on that aspect before the Foreign Ministers meet again on 17 May.
Mr. Aitken: As international economic sanctions have a proven record of failure, should we not face the fact that a third stage of measures against Iran is likely to be necessary and that it will involve military force? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that contingency plans are being considered to support such a third stage by the United States?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has a wide and long experience of the Middle East.
476
I think that he will understand the immense and manifold dangers throughout the Islamic world of attempting to treat the matter in a military way.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the role of his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary in obtaining a common approach by the European Community in support of the United States is warmly welcomed? What action will be taken by the European Community to ensure that the issue comes before the General Assembly of the United Nations? The taking of diplomatic hostages affects every country in the United Nations?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. The question of further action by the United Nations is something that we keep in mind at all times. The United Nations peace procedures following the veto of a resolution in the Security Council are somewhat complicated. Neither we nor the Americans have excluded the possibility of further action in the United Nations. We have a resolution of the security council, which was not vetoed, and the Americans also have obtained a judgment in the International Court of Justice.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If the Government are to announce the imposition of sanctions, will they announce yet again that there will be an amnesty for all those who break them?
Mr. Hurd: No, Sir.
Following is the full text of communiqué issued by EC Foreign Ministers today, 22 April:
Decision by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine on Iran
1. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine member States of the European Community meeting in Luxembourg on 22 April discussed the implications of the recent events in Iran in the light of the reports by their ambassadors following the demarche to the President of Iran decided upon by the Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Lisbon on 10 April.
2. The Foreign Ministers expressed the solidarity of the Nine with the Government and people of the United States at this time of trial.
3. While welcoming the visit by the ICRC to the hostages on 14 April and noting the assurance given by President Bani-Sadr as to the living conditions of the hostages the Foreign Ministers expressed their profound regret that the Iranian Government has been unable to give precise assurances about the date and methods by which the hostages would be

477
released. The Iranian Government continues to ignore the clear call of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice to bring to an end a flagrant violation of international law and release the hostages.
4. Since the hostages were first detained, the Nine, in full respect of the independence of Iran and the right of the Iranian people to determine their own future, have insisted that they must be released. The fact that after six months they are still detained, despite the efforts of the Nine and the clear condemnation by the community of nations, is intolerable from a humanitarian and legal point of view.
5. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, deeply concerned that a continuation of this situation may endanger international peace and security, have decided to seek immediate legislation where necessary in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Security Council resolution on Iran dated 10 January 1980, which was vetoed and in accordance with the tenets of international law.
They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17 May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples. In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions.
Ministers consider that, pending the entering into force of the measures mentioned above, no new export or services contract with persons and organisations in Iran should be concluded as of from now.
Steps will be taken within the Community in order that the implementation of the measures decided upon should not obstruct the proper functioning of the Common Market.
6. The Foreign Ministers decided meanwhile to put into effect without delay the following measures to the extent that they are not already in force:

(I) Reduction in embassy staffs in Tehran.

(II) A reduction in the number of diplomats accredited by the Government of Iran in their countries.

(III) The reintroduction of a visa system for Iranian nationals travelling to member countries of the Nine.

(IV) The withholding of permission for the sale or export of arms or defence-related equipment to Iran.

7. The Foreign Ministers decided immediately to contact the Government of the United States through the Presidency and to inform it of the decisions taken by them.
8. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, believing that this situation should be a matter of concern to the whole international community, call upon other Governments to associate themselves with these decisions.
9. The Foreign Ministers instructed their ambassadors to return to Tehran in the interval in order to convey the present decision to the Iranian Government, to follow the situation,
478
and to undertake all possible efforts to alleviate and improve the living conditions of the hostages pending their release.
They express the hope that the Iranian authorities will take action accordingly.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 14 April the Prime Minister made a statement on Iran. In reply to a question of mine she said:
" I think that the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that before any further action on economic sanctions could become effective, we would have to come back to the House."
Earlier she had said:
" A Government have no powers under international law just to break contracts that are valid in international law ".—[Official Report, 14 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 798.]
The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that a decision has already been taken contrary to that clear statement——
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, it appears that the hon. Gentleman is making the point that he would have made had I called him to ask a question. It is not a point of order on which I can rule.
Mr. Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: I have said that it is not a point of order.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that point of order, as I have ruled that it is not one.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order; I am on my feet. I wish to tell the hon. Gentleman that I would take it very amiss if he tried to persist on a point that I have ruled is not a point of order.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise simply to ask whether the Leader of the House will tell us the timetable for the proposed sanctions order.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a question for the Leader of the House.

POWER STATION, GRAIN
Mr. Brinton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the announcement yesterday by the Central Electricity Generating Board that in June it is to close the power station at Grain, near Rochester in Kent."
I believe this matter to be most urgent because about 2,000 persons will lose their jobs as a result of that decision, in an area where unemployment is already high. There is also urgent need for a full and thorough inquiry into the events which led to that decision by the CEGB.
There is urgent need to discover what would be the intention of the CEGB and the Government as regards the future of the vast site on which it is estimated that about £550 million has already been spent.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the announcement yesterday by the Central Electricity Generating Board that in June it is to close the power station at Grain, near Rochester in Kent."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman expressing his anxieties about what is likely to happen in June, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

SCOTTISH TEACHERS (PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
Mr. Canavan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the failure of the Clegg Commission to produce a satisfactory wages settlement for Scottish
480
teachers and the resultant disruption in Scottish schools "
Not only is it important to get a fairer deal for the teachers, who are an important section of the community; what is perhaps even more important is that the matter affects the educational opportunity of thousands of children, which is a matter of great concern to their parents.
I need not dwell on the importance of the matter to you, Mr. Speaker, because, like me, you spent part of your working life in education before coming to the House.
However, I should like to say a few words about the urgency of the situation. About 58,000 Scottish teachers have been waiting patiently for about a year for a fair settlement of their wages claim. On Monday of last week, the Clegg Commission at last came out with recommendations for increases of between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. for teachers in England and Wales, but it failed lamentably to come out with a similar recommendation for teachers in Scotland and virtually told Scottish teachers that they would have to start their own comparability study from scratch.
There was understandable anger and resentment at such shabby treatment from a commission chaired by a fellow educationist, and perhaps it is not surprising that some teachers resorted to industrial action, even though the leadership of the teachers' union advised against that at this stage.
We can now see the results of the failure of the Clegg Commission. Over the past few weeks, thousands of schoolchildren in Scotland have been sent home from school or told not to come. There is the possibility of further disruption, and even threats to the important Scottish certificate of Education examinations which are due to begin on Friday and which are of vital importance to the future of many young people.
On Monday of this week, the Scottish teachers' salaries committee failed to reach an amicable settlement, but reports suggest that it came within £1½ million of a settlement. If the Government will express support in principle for the extra public expenditure involved, some of the heat could be taken out of the situation and a solution arrived at more speedily.

481
I have tried several times to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I told the Leader of the House to try to get the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about the matter as soon as possible. As usual, the Secretary of State is conspicuous by his absence and his silence, and that is why I am appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that this matter gets the parliamentary attention that it deserves by your allowing it to be the subject of an emergency debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the failure of the Clegg Commission to produce a satisfactory wages settlement for Scottish teachers and the resultant disruption in Scottish schools ".
The House will have listened with deep concern to the hon. Gentleman's statement. I have no doubt that he has raised a matter which is important north of the border. He is aware, despite what he said in the latter part of his speech, that I decide not whether the matter is to be discussed in the House but merely whether it should be discussed tonight or tomorrow night.
The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the expulsion of the British ambassador from Saudi Arabia ".
I have only just been able to give you notice of my application in manuscript form, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be brief.
The matter is specific, in that the ambassador returned suddenly from leave
482
and, with the assistance of the Foreign Secretary, sought to allay the anxieties of the Saudi Government over a television film. Plainly, those efforts have not succeeded and the ambassador is now to be expelled.
The matter is important, because our relations with Saudi Arabia touch upon contracts worth billions of pounds to this country, not least in defence and construction, and touch upon the jobs of tens of thousands of British workers. They also touch upon the holding in Britain of large sums of Saudi assets which, if they were to be removed, could affect the position of sterling.
The matter is urgent, because a Select Committee of the House intends on Monday to proceed to Saudi Arabia, with the agreement of the House of Commons Commission and yourself, Mr. Speaker. It is an important consideration for the House that one of its Select Committees, in proceeding to Saudi Arabia, may not have the protection of the British ambassador.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the expulsion of the British ambassador from Saudi Arabia ".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
The hon. Gentleman has obviously brought to our notice a matter of considerable significance to the House, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions that would require me to order an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow night, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you received a request from a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement on this obviously grave development, would you accept that request?
Mr. Speaker: I shall wait to see what is forthcoming. Obviously, the House will realise that we have not heard the last of that matter. I think that it is

483
wiser for the House to leave the matter for the time being.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I do not think that we can just leave the matter for the time being. Members of a Select Committee may be put at serious risk and the matter should have immediate priority.
Mr. Speaker: I propose to look at the question of the delegation going to Saudi Arabia and to invite members of the House of Commons Commission to do so. I hope that the House will not press me further. I think that it would be unfair to ask a Foreign Office Minister to speak off the cuff on such a serious matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 9 MAY
Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Peter Fry.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.
Mr. William van Straubenzee.

CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING)
4.28 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the weekly rate of child benefit for any child with effect from November 1980 shall be not less than £5·00; to provide that the rate of child benefit thereafter shall be adjusted not less than once per annum to correspond with changes in the index of retail prices; and to provide that the additional cost of the foregoing provisions shall be borne by the National Insurance Fund
On 26 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a logical and popular Budget, but it contained two surprises. One was that the alcohol and tobacco taxes were increased by only half or in some cases by less than half the amount which might have been expected by reference to the change which has taken place in the value of money since the last increases. The second was that the Chancellor announced an increase in child benefit to bring it up to 4·75 although the change in the value of money by November this year would have indicated a rise to over £5·00. I recognise that by the increase of 75p in the child benefit the Chancellor broadly met the indexation requirement of the Finance Act 1977 after allowing for the withdrawal of the 25 per cent. band—which, incidentally, is a step which I entirely support.
The cost of maintaining the real value of child benefit however would not have been very large. I understand that it would have been £50 million this year and £140 million in a full year. I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend did not therefore proceed to increase child benefit by that amount. It would have been equivalent to 1p a pint on beer, plus corresponding additions to the duties on wines and spirits, or 3½p on a packet of cigarettes plus parallel increases in other types of tobacco. I believe that a combination of these increases would not have caused resentment in the country—indeed, it was generally expected.
In effect, by his proposals the Chancellor seems likely to bring about, through the effect of market forces, a significant reduction in the amount the public spends on children's food and clothing, and an increase in spending on tobacco—which

485
at present is static when many hon. Members think that it should be declining—or on alcohol, consumption of which appears to be rising alarmingly.
My first object, therefore, in seeking to introduce the Bill is to ask the Chancellor to think again about this aspect of his Budget. I am sure that it would be generally welcomed in the House and popular in the country if he did so. But, more important, I am convinced that it would be right.
In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor said:
" Any civilised society has a special obligation to those who have completed their working life."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1458.]
But if the concept of " One Nation " has any meaning, all of us who have come through our childhood adequately fed and cared for must also want to see that a reasonable minimum income is guaranteed to the children of our own time who will constitute the nation of the future.
The second object of the Bill is to deal with the question of future upratings of child benefit. The House must recognise that this raises serious issues which are not a matter of party politics. The first question that divides hon. Members on both sides of the House is how far it is proper to tax the breadwinner in order to transfer resources to his wife and children. Another question which gives cause for anxiety on both sides of the House is whether family support could even be undermining parental responsibility by giving some parents the feeling that they are not wholly responsible for their own children but can leave them to the social worker or the social services because society is ultimately responsible and they no longer have the primary responsibility for their own children. And another question which concerns the House is the extent to which family benefits are destroying the incentive to work.
It is important to put all those points in perspective. The combined value to standard rate taxpayers of child tax allowances and family allowances, even at the figure of £5 which I am seeking to recommend in my Bill, would still be less in real terms than it was in 1946 and 20 per cent. less than it was in 1955. These figures refer to a family with three children aged under 11.
486
What this means is that whereas we have brought old people along with the growth of the prosperity of the country, with child benefits we have allowed family support to fall behind, and it has not even kept pace with the real value of the shopping basket.
It is important not to confuse child benefit with the supplementary benefits addition for children which, from November, will be raised to £7.30 per week for children up to the age of 10 and to £10.90 per week for children aged from 11 to 15. That is substantially more than the child benefit figure which either the Chancellor or I myself am recommending.
I am indebted to the National Foster Care Association for providing me with figures of the boarding-out allowances for children aged 11 which are paid by local authorities for the most part at rates about three times as much as the basic child benefit, namely, £14, £15, £16, and in some cases substantially more, per week. Those figures may be a much fairer indication of the real cost of a child to the family.
If the Government were to make a commitment to a regular uprating of child benefit, I believe it would be advantageous and would help to take the issue out of party politics; but it would be essential to revise the composition of the retail prices index. The index is an extremely blunt and inaccurate instrument and it has two particular disadvanges. In the present make-up of the RPI, alcohol and tobacco are reckoned to amount to over one-tenth of average household expenditure. Thus if there were a 10 per cent. increase in the price of tobacco products and alcoholic drinks the index would rise a full point and the Government would be obliged to add £33 million to child benefit, although the amount of money that the mother would have to spend on the children because of the change in the price of alcohol and tobacco would obviously be negligible or nothing.
The second consideration is that the index lakes no note of family size. It is deemed to refer to an average sized household, but when we are suffering an increase in the price of bread, for example, as we are at the moment, it is a serious matter for a single person but it is four or five times as serious for a

487
breadwinner with a wife and two or three children to support. The retail prices index, therefore, should take into account the real circumstances of the family if we are to use it as a measure of the future uprating of child benefit. We need to reconsider the way we calculate the RPI to ensure that it measures real-life situations.
In the long title I also propose that the additional cost should be borne by the National Insurance Fund. That is not just to keep within the rules of order. We are now paying earnings-related contributions for national insurance, but we are moving exclusively towards the payment of flat-rate benefits. I am not necessarily opposing that reform, but it is a total break with the original concept of national insurance. It is fair to point out that, if contributions rise with incomes and some benefits rise with with prices, but child benefits do not necessarily rise at all, we shall create a system which will gradually transfer resources from children to the tax collector. This is a matter which the House should study carefully.
My third specific suggestion, which I have already discussed with the Leader of the House, is that we might set up a Select Committee, or at least a joint Sub-Committee of the relevant Select Committees, to study our whole policy for the redistribution of income and the administrative methods by which we carry it out. Such a committee could study the issues related to child benefit. It could look at the Green Paper which we are promised for the autumn on the
488
tax treatment of husband and wife. It could consider, for instance, the whole structure of housing subsidies and many other questions with a direct bearing on family policy.
By introducing the Bill I am seeking not to divide the House but rather to unite it. I have been warned that an hon. Member might seek to force a Division out of mischief. That would cheapen the whole issue and introduce a note of party opportunism which would be out of place. In that case, I would ask supporters in all parts of the House not to take part in the vote. However, I hope that the House will consider it useful for a Bill such as I propose to be brought in, and that I shall have the leave of the House to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. Frank Field.

CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING)
  CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to provide that the weekly rate of child benefit for any child with effect from November 1980 shall be not less than £5·00; to provide that the rate of child benefit thereafter shall be adjusted not less than once per annum to correspond with changes in the index of retail prices; and to provide that the additional cost of the foregoing provisions shall be borne by the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 May and to be printed [Bill 195].
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EMPLOYMENT BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  EMPLOYMENT BILL
    Clause 5

      DETERMINATION OF FAIRNESS OF DISMISSAL
      4.40 pm
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 7 leave out lines 5 to 13.
      We are grateful for the fact that Mr. Speaker has allowed us to have a debate on what is an important clause, albeit a small one, not least because it is one of those clauses which have been widely ignored as a consequence of the style and manner of the Government's presentation of their legislation and the way in which he media have responded to that. The impression has been built up that the Bill deals with some of the alleged abuses of picketing, some of the aspects of the closed shop, that it provides Government assistance for ballots, and that that is about it.
      As I said on Second Reading, that ignores the way in which, needlessly and provocatively, the Bill attacks a whole range of hard-won workers' rights which have been provided by statute in recent years.
      For example, there are women's rights such as maternity leave, the right to have time off, and so on; and there are questions relating to compensation for unfair dismissal, guaranteed payments and a whole range of matters. Not least, the Bill is an attack on workers' protections against unfair dismissal.
      In looking at the technicalities of the legislation we may overlook the human realities which it may bear upon. I make no apology for quoting, as I did in Committee, a relevant passage from the Donovan report, which, in regard to the need for statutory provision to safeguard workers against unfair dismissal, said:
      " In reality people build much of their lives around their jobs. Their incomes and prospects for the future are inevitably founded in the expectation that their jobs will continue. For workers in many situations dismissal is
      490
      a disaster. For some workers it may make inevitable the breaking up of a community and the uprooting of homes and families. Others, and particularly older workers, may be faced with the greatest difficulty in getting work at all."
      No one gave a warmer welcome than I did to the statutory provisions, when they were first introduced in 1971. Those statutory provisions have enjoyed the support of all parties in the House and have been widely regarded not only as having made a significant contribution to the necessary protections for workers but as having contributed to a much-needed improvement in the climate of industrial relations. Therefore, it is beyond comprehension that the Government should in this way deliberately seek to weaken those protections and at the same time add yet a further drop of acid into an already polluted industrial relations climate.
      The Government are doing two things in the clause. First, they are returning to the form of words that was employed in the 1971 Act about the onus of proof in relation to an alleged unfair dismissal. Those words have been recognised as being unjust to the applicant and inappropriate to the necessities of industrial relations. The Government are making the position significantly worse by including a requirement on the tribunal which deals with unfair dismissal cases to take account of the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking.
      As I understand it, that is argued to be a concession to small firms, which in recent years have understandably and properly conducted a vigorous lobby on their behalf through a number of organisations. It is right that we should take account of the special problems of small firms, but, as I said in Committee, the new words apply not merely to small firms but to a whole range of employers. They apply equally to the small employer in a back street—the building contractor with a boy, cart and ladder—and to the multi-million pound multi-national corporation which perhaps employs 100,000 people or more, as well as to the whole range in between.
      That means that instead of dispensing justice with regard to the impact of unfair dismissal on the individual, the tribunal will have to grade it according to the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking. In other

      491
      words, there will be variations in what might otherwise have been equitable treatment, and what ought to be equitable treatment.
      I should like, for a few minutes, to deal with the argument that these words were introduced in response to complaints from small firms about the burden of
      employment protection legislation and the Government's declared response to those complaints. I remind the House yet again that these complaints are not new. The previous Labour Government sought to ascertain the facts and to discover how well-founded those complaints were. Two independent surveys were commissioned from highly reputable bodies outside the Department of Employment. It was obviously necessary to seek the services of an outside agency to free the Government from the allegation of bias. For the same reason, it was equally important that reputable bodies be employed.
      I doubt whether many hon. Members would challenge the bona fides of the Opinion Research centre, which was commissioned by the Department to investigate complaints about the effects of employment legislation on small firms which employ fewer than 50 people. As I have said before, only 2 per cent. of those employers interviewed said that employment legislation was the main difficulty in running the business. ORC asked
      " What would you say have been the main difficulties you have faced in the past year in running your business? "
      I accept that that was in 1978, nearly two years ago. However, 20 per cent. of the respondents said " Lack of money ". They did not say " Unfair dismissal " or " Employment protection legislation ". Another 7 per cent. gave VAT as the reason. Of course, at that time VAT was about 8½ per cent. It is now 15 per cent.
      Mr. John Grant: The Government were not going to double it!
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend reminds me that little did employers know that VAT would be doubled and that it would go up to 15 per cent. Had they known that, I wonder how many would have complained then. Lack of money was the first reason, at a time when the interest rate was 7 per cent. The primary cause of concern for small employers was their
      492
      inability to borrow money, but the interest rate then was significantly lower than it is now.
      These employers then went on to cite high running costs. In 1978 they complained of electricity costs and such items as the rent burden. I wonder what they are saying today? It would be interesting, if we could persuade the Secretary of State to have a re-run of the ORC survey, to see what those employers are saying now.
      Inflation was a prime source of complaint among small firms in 1978, when the inflation rate was less than half the present rate. Way down the list of complaints from employers in those small businesses covered by the survey—below lack of money, electricity and rent burdens, inflation, VAT and the cost of borrowing money—employment legislation was cited by only 2 per cent. of respondents as a problem.
      The respondents to the survey were then invited to list the main difficulties that they faced. They mentioned 597 problems, and yet employment legislation was mentioned by only 6 per cent. of respondents. It ranked equal twelfth in the list. Financial difficulties were mentioned by 44 per cent. of respondents, and 35 per cent. of them referred to labour problems. Of the small firms, only 4 per cent., as compared with 9 per cent. of large firms, cited employment legislation as a problem.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: My right hon. Friend is quoting telling and valuable information from the survey. I wonder whether he noticed in the business section of The Observer of 30 March this year a long interview with Mr. Sean Mayo, the chairman of the Union of Independent Companies—the small businesses organisation. In that interview Mr. Mayo said that the two big problems facing small businesses this year were the unwillingness of banks to involve themselves in small businesses and high interest rates. In a long interview, Mr. Mayo made no mention of employment legislation.
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend's intervention confirms and reinforces my argument, and I have a suspicion that my hon. Friend may later contribute even more telling arguments to the debate.
      I was saying that employment legislation as a problem came way down the

      493
      list in the survey that I have quoted. At the top of the list were complaints about lack of money, and 16 per cent. of respondents complained about VAT. Lack of orders was cited by 21 per cent., inflation as a problem was cited by 9 per cent. of the respondents and employment legislation was a non-runner.
      The survey asked specifically whether Government measures had helped or caused difficulties to small firms. In this context, the most frequently referred to problems were VAT, regulations concerning drivers' log books and EEC regulations Other taxation problems were referred to by 9 per cent. of respondents, and 7 per cent. of them spoke of national insurance contributions. Unfair dismissal as a problem was way down the list, being cited by only 4 per cent. of the respondents.
      Evidence from the ORC survey does not stand alone. The industrial relations research unit at Warwick university carried out an investigation, and in a survey dealing specifically with unfair dismissal—among employers who had been involved in actions for unfair dismissal—it found that 25 per cent. of employers questioned said that the system was biased against them. However, only 5 per cent. of employers spoke of the onus of proof—the concept that an employer is " guilty until proven innocent "—as an unfavourable feature of the tribunal system. If there is a widespread feeling about the system among employers, it must exist among those who have experienced that system at first hand. Perhaps that is an indication of the need for education rather than for legislative change.
      I return to the survey undertaken by the unit from the University of Warwick and to the other aspect of the clause which gives strong grounds for anxiety. The reason for that anxiety is the proposed change in the onus of proof. The proposals concerning proof, as I understand them, are a response to allegations by employers that, contrary to the principles of natural justice, when they go before a tribunal they feel that they, as respondents, are regarded as guilty persons who must prove their innocence. The supposition of the law, they say, is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
      494
      What is too often overlooked is that, proceedings having reached the tribunal stage, it is the employee who has already suffered as the victim of an arbitrary action by his employer. Often the employee has had no chance to defend himself. He is the person who—often without the chance to say anything in his defence—has been declared " guilty " by his employer.
      Mr. Mikardo: He has also been sentenced.
      Mr. Walker: An employee appears before a tribunal to protest against an arbitrary act which, as I have said, may have far-reaching consequences for his life and career. In Committee I gave a specific example of a person in my constituency who had been a victim of such an arbitrary act. I shall resist the temptation to go over that case again, save to say that, unhappily, that individual—who was grossly and unfairly treated by his employer—has not received justice.
      We are now discussing the serious consequences of dismissal for a worker. Dismissal deprives a man of his livelihood. It also deprives his family of their livelihood. Dismissal deprives a man of his self-respect and can have a totally destructive effect on his career. It can be demoralising and leave a scar for life. This is a serious issue, to which an employer should be required to give equally serious consideration. Part of that consideration must be the likelihood that he will be required to explain his actions before an industrial tribunal.
      As I said in Committee, it is curious that the very thing that has been criticised in relation to statutory provisions for protection against unfair dismissal—which the Government now seek to change—has been present as an integral part of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. There was an obligation on the employer under the provisions of that Act to prove redundancy. That concept has never been challenged, and I am glad that the Government are not seeking to challenge it now. Were they minded to do so we would fiercely resist such a change; just as we resist these provisions.
      The Government's approach is inconsistent. They are not only inconsistent, but they demonstrate an inability to recognise the seriousness of dismissal for any

      495
      employee. The attempt by the Government to weaken these provisions is not only contrary to the need for consideration to be given to workers in those circumstances, but is part of their needless attack on the fundamental rights of workers. That attack is contributing to a worsening and a souring of the industrial relations climate in this country, and the Opposition will continue to resist the Government's attempt to make this change.
      5 pm
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: The clause, together with other clauses, reduces the protection that employees have against unfair dismissal. Running through each of the clauses there is a regrettable attack upon those who work for small firms. It is an attack that is couched in terms of protection for the small employer.
      Clause 5 will make it much more difficult for an employee to claim damages for unfair dismissal against his employer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has said, the burden of proof has been altered. It will no longer be necessary for the employer to establish that he acted reasonably. Instead, the tribunal will be obliged to act in what might benevolently be called a neutral manner. None the less, it will be more difficult for the employee to claim damages for unfair dismissal—in other words, to establish his case.
      As my right hon. Friend has said, the employee has a great deal at stake. He has lost his job and he has lost his livelihood. The claim that he is trying to establish before the tribunal is important for him not only in financial terms; it is a matter of pride especially in a small community where there is a stigma attached to losing one's job.
      Mr. John Evans: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is an additional problem? In many areas there is a great deal of unemployment. If an individual loses his job through unfair dismissal in an area in which there is heavy unemployment, he will be in grave difficulty when he attempts to get another job in the same area. The prospective employer will obviously ask " Why did you leave your last job? " The individual will have to reply " I was dismissed." No
      496
      doubt he will protest that it was unfair dismissal. Nevertheless, the chances of the employer taking him on in those circumstances are remote.
      Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend is right. He has a great deal of experience in these matters. In communities where there is high unemployment, which is true of the area that I represent and true of the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), there is great difficulty in finding a job when the individual has been dismissed by another firm. The difficulties that the employer faces in establishing that his actions were reasonable are not as great or as onerous as those faced by the employee in establishing his rights. That is because they appear before the tribunal in different circumstances. There is not as much at stake for the employer as there is for the employee. I do not think that even the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), who can crush many propositions with a great deal of charm, can dismiss my proposition by claiming it to be outrageous.
      Secondly, the clause makes it more difficult for the employee because the tribunal is charged with taking account, before it comes to its decision, of
      " the size and administrative resources "
      of the firm in question. That has the effect of setting apart different employees. It provides that the legal rights of an employee who works for a small firm will be less in terms of unfair dismissal than the rights of those who work for a larger undertaking. That is creating two different sets of employee. That is bound to cause resentment, especially in a small community, between those who work for small firms and those who work for larger firms.
      If I worked for a small firm and I felt that it was more difficult for me to obtain damages to compensate for unfair dismissal—not because I worked less hard, not because the nature of my work was different, but purely because I worked for a firm with fewer employees than my neighbour—obviously I should be resentful and disgruntled. I should feel that the law was treating me less favourably than my neighbour in a larger firm. That cannot be right.

      497
      What evidence have the Government produced that it is right to establish two different sets of principles for two different sets of employee? There is no evidence that the tribunals act unfairly. All that the Government are saying is that some employees are not fully aware of the fairness of the tribunals and that they will ensure that they are made aware of it by introducing this legislation. Surely that is an argument for making the employer more aware of his legal rights and his legal obligations. If the tribunals are acting fairly, as they are at present, why should the system be altered to the detriment of the employee? The Minister evinced no evidence in Committee that the employee will benefit from the Bill. The evidence from the Low Pay Unit and from those who have engaged in research is that the clause and the Bill will harm him, hurt him and make it more difficult for him to claim his legal rights. That is why I fully support the amendments.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: I have attended a couple of unfair dismissal hearings before tribunals. The score is two-nil for me. I am especially interested in the clause and the amendments because I am left wondering whether the decisions would have gone against me rather than for me if the provisions contained in clause 5 had been operable at the time.
      One case that I remember vividly involved a waiter who worked in a small restaurant who was sacked unfairly. It did not take the tribunal long to decide that he had been sacked unfairly. It gave him a reasonable sum in compensation. However, given the inclusion of the words to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) referred—
      " the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) "—
      I do not think that a capable legal representative of an employer would have had much difficulty in arguing that a small restaurant came within that notion and, therefore, should be protected against having to pay compensation.
      My hon. and learned Friend was right when he said that the Government are deliberately inserting double standards into the Bill. The trade union movement should take serious note of these
      498
      insertions if the Bill becomes part of the new employment legislation. It will have to begin to advise its members not to take up employment in small firms if they are to be placed in a situation less favourable than that enjoyed by employees in other firms because of
      " the size and administrative resources "
      of the firm involved.
      It may be argued that clause 5 is at least consistent with the philosophy of the Government. The Government are anxious to assist small firms and that anxiety stretches to the right to exploit workers in more favourable circumstances. They believe that the provision will assist firms to pursue their activities without the fear that they may be guilty of unfair dismissal. Within our society firms such as Imperial Chemical Industries and Unilever are just as likely to be guilty of unfair dismissal as smaller firms. However, small firms will have the knowledge that this measure will protect them against the possibility of the employee seeking access to the courts and obtaining a favourable judgment.
      The provision illustrates clearly that when Conservative Members talk about freedom they are talking about a complete myth. Such employees do not have freedom of choice. The workers at Grun-wick did not have that choice. No doubt the hon. Member who assisted Grun-wick's owner would have considered this provision a tremendous advantage. The size of that undertaking would probably fit into this clause.
      I hope that some of the legal experts among the Opposition will come to my aid, because I do not understand how the individual giving judgment will interpret the words " size and administrative resources ". No example has been given. Are we talking about firms that employ one to 100 employees, or those that employ 501 to 600 employees? I can think of several small firms that appear to have inadequate administrative resources, but when we investigate them more closely we find that they are subsidiaries of other firms that have considerable resources. The Government should spell out the meaning of that phrase.
      Mr. John Grant: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Government have said that they have incorporated that phrase into the Bill for the sake of

      499
      clarity. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can help us. However, when questioned, he has said that we can leave the interpretation of that phrase to the good sense of the tribunal.
      Mr. Thorne: Many trade unions will be worried about that. They may find their future and their rights determined by a court. That reminds me of a decision about which Parliament has argued for eight or nine years. As a trade unionist I would never expect—in this type of society—to obtain justice in a court of law. Laws are made to buttress the system, and in this society the law is more favourable to the employer than the employee. It is usually class legislation, and this provision is another illustration of it.
      I am not under any illusion about what the Minister may say in reply. He will defend the legislation according to his preferences. He will find little difficulty in doing so. I have heard him speak in Committee on other issues, and he can argue an effective legal case. However, he is generally in support of the status quo and of maintaining the balance of power in favour of the employing class. Clause 5 pursues that aim and is against the interests of the majority of trade unionists. It is therefore unacceptable to the Labour Party.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. David Mellor: I am sorry that, because of other parliamentary business, I was not present when the amendment was moved. I have had considerable professional experience of working in industrial tribunals and of dealing with the burden of proof, which lies at the heart of this provision. I therefore feel that it is right for me to raise a few points.
      I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) about the ability of tribunals to determine matters, in the light of this provision. Nor do I agree with some of his observations about class-based legislation. My experience stretches over several years. I have acted for applicants and for respondent companies, and I feel that industrial tribunals do their job extremely well. One of the most useful and interesting aspects of their work is that the legally qualified chairmen work well with their two lay associates, one of whom is a trade
      500
      unionist and one of whom is an employer. Perhaps it is cruel to bring reality into the hon. Gentleman's observations. However, I do not understand how on earth he can talk about class-based justice when a member of the panel has been nominated by the TUC. Perhaps we should not expect logic when discussing such topics in the light of the observations of certain Opposition Members.
      The nub of the issue is on whom should the burden of proof lie in establishing a case of unfair dismissal? Clearly it is wrong that the burden should be placed—as at present—on the employer. That sets on one side the rule governing the whole of civil law, namely, that the plaintiff must come to court with a grievance and prove his case. If a worker is knocked down on his way to the factory and wishes to maintain a claim for negligence against the driver, he must establish that, on the balance of probabilities, the driver had been negligent. If he is in dispute with someone who has supplied him with a television set or a motor car, he must go to court and satisfy the court that, on the balance of probabilities, a breach of contract has occurred. It was wrong to reverse that situation in the first place.
      There might have been a case for arguing that the burden of proof should be placed on the applicant. Indeed, to judge from the strictures on the Government, one might have thought that that was being proposed. However, that is not so. It is being said that the burden should be neutral and that tribunals, as industrial juries and commonsense people, should be left to decide the case according to the circumstances.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the amendment contemplated by my right hon. Friend, the burden still rests on the employer to show the reason for the dismissal and that the dismissal falls within one of the designated classes? Does he further agree that if the employer is unable to discharge that burden, the dismissal will be deemed unfair?
      Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government do not seek to change dramatically the way in which tribunals operate. The measure is a piece of fine tuning and is not the dramatic change that has been suggested.

      501
      The hon. Member for Preston, South referred to the phrase:
      " including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking "
      If he had done more than two tribunals, he might have understood them better. I cannot understand why he should think that the provision will cause problems for industrial tribunals.
      Courts up and down the land—no matter what they deal with—must always look at the decision that they make in the light of certain factors that have been set down by the court.
      Mr. John Grant: If the hon. Members' point is valid, why should the Government put in this provision? In Committee the Minister said that the tribunal would take these matters into account anyway. Therefore, it is difficult to see the reason for this provision.
      Mr. Mellor: As I understand it, the Government must respond to the pressure that they are under—quite rightly—from small firms with particular problems. The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) should not look so smug, because it is usual in any form of legislation to put in certain points that the courts are asked to bear in mind. For example, in the Matrimonial Causes Act dealing with the break-up of a marriage and the distribution of property, there is a long list of factors, such as the duration of the marriage and the standard of living that the parties enjoyed, that courts must look at specifically. That does not mean that if these provisions were not included a sensible tribunal would not look at them, but as a matter of common sense it is necessary for Parliament in its wisdom properly to direct the courts to the points that it feels they should bear in mind. Aggrieved parties can look with rather more strength to the Court of Appeal if they think that these crucial social factors have not been borne in mind.
      It is quite wrong that this clause should be deleted, it is a sensible clause, a piece of necessary fine tuning, and it will make a system that is working well work even better.
      Mr. Giles Radice: I wish to take up one or two points made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).
      502
      Legal protection from unfair dismissal is one of the essential rights of a civilised industrial society. This Bill attacks that protection at two key points: first, on the test of circumstance—and taking this clause together with clause 7 we find that employees in small firms will be far worse off than they were before—and secondly, on the change in the burden of proof. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) has just made the point that the tests of circumstances are already taken into account by industrial tribunals. Therefore, it is not necessary to change the law in this way.
      Let us look at the Government's case that this is a deterrent to small firms taking on labour. I believe that this is a very crude case, and there is very little evidence to support it. In fact, there is so little evidence that the Minister, who conducted himself extremely skilfully in Committee, found himself having to fudge the evidence on this matter. I have the Committee record with me and I have just referred to it. We tested him sharply and he revealed that there was very little evidence for the Government's case.
      What is really important to small firms is the high interest rates. Small business men are concerned about whether banks will lend them money. They are concerned about the state of the industrial markets which, as everyone knows, are extremely bad at present. In many areas small firms are facing catastrophe. They are faced with redundancies, particularly in the North and other areas of high unemployment. The Government should not be tinkering around with the fine tuning. They should be doing something about bringing down interest rates and making finance more readily available to small firms.
      If the Government are interested in doing something about the Employment Protection Act, they should tell small firms what the Act actually involves. If the Minister would tell the House that he would withdraw the clause and ensure that small firms really know the implications of the Employment Protection Act. we would go along with him. The evidence that we have indicates that small firms do not understand the Act. If the Department of Employment would at least tell them what the Act is all about we might get somewhere.

      503
      I wish to make a few comments on the change in onus of proof. We regard this as a retrograde step because in a dismissal case this factor is extremely important for employees and not so important for employers. When an employee is dismissed he is at his weakest and the employer is at his strongest. That is why the Employment Protection Act singled out dismissal cases as those where the onus of proof should be placed on the employer.
      In Committee the Minister said that this was only a small but useful change because there were other protections as well. There were four other tests which an industrial tribunal must take account of. In any case the court would be looking at the question in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. If it is such a small change, why bother with it? Why bother to upset the trade unions and make employees feel less secure?
      I know what the Minister will say because I have just refreshed my memory and looked at his speech in Committee. He will say that this is important psychologically. Small firms will rush around taking on labour because they will not be worried about the onus of proof. I agree that it is important psychologically, but in a different way. The psychological problem that will now arise is that employees will feel far less secure than they were before.
      I do not think that anyone would suggest that employees are not facing difficulties. It has been forecast that there will be 2 million unemployed and unemployment is rising all the time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman came with me to the North I could show him that redundancies are being announced almost every day. The situation is very difficult for employees, but they at least have the comfort of the Employment Protection Act. They know that they have the security provided by that Act. But suddenly they will find that their security is weakened by this clause and by clause 7, and as a result there will be two classes of employees. If employees now feel more insecure, the Government have only themselves to blame.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: This is a very short clause but it is nevertheless important. We are talking about people losing their jobs. We are talking about people being dismissed—not only dismissed but specifically unfairly dismissed.
      Last night the Conservative Benches were full of hawks and others who were worried about the possibility, in certain circumstances, of people losing their jobs as a result of the closed shop. They regarded it as an infringement of personal liberty. Today the Conservative Benches are empty. The Tories are not in the least worried about people being dismissed unfairly by their employers. That is very instructive to me.
      The purpose of this short clause is to alter the law. At the moment the determination of fairness depends on whether the employer can satisfy the tribunal that he has acted reasonably. Instead, it is proposed to amend the 1978 Act to read
      " in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) "
      5.30 pm
      A small firm gets a let-out. It has been suggested that tribunals already take this factor into account. Why is it therefore to be included in the Bill? In the words of the Under-Secretary of State, often heard in Committee, it is to give a steer to the tribunals. It means, in relation to small firms, that the provisions will be weakened and rendered nugatory. There will be a form of legal apartheid with two classes of citizens, those with one set of rights and others with lesser rights. It will be a sliding scale of justice.
      There is no evidence that small businesses are worried about this legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) quoted evidence of a couple of years ago. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) came in late, made a speech and left early. I hope that he will soon return. We are fond of him and appreciate his presence. Like other Members, including myself, the hon. Member for Putney will have received a communication from the Greater London Council that is temporarily controlled by the Conservative Party. The document is headed

      505
      " Small Businesses ". It is sent to hon. Members for their information. An accompanying letter states:
      " Early last year the Council produced a consultation document entitled ' Small Business ', which was distributed to London MPs, borough councils and relevant organisations for comments.
      " You may be interested in the enclosed copy of a report summarising the outcome of the consultation process which was considered by the Council on 11 March 1980."
      The council wrote to me on 11 April. No document could be more up to date or relevant. It lists six points relating to comments that have been received. The document reads:
      " A wide range of valuable points emerged in responses to the discussion paper. Those that seemed to be particularly worthy of note are summarised in the following paragraphs:"
      I shall not bore the Minister by quoting all of them; I shall merely give the heading. The first was
      " Taxation—The majority of respondents considered that the tax system worked against the healthy development of small businesses."
      The second issue about which respondents were worried was
      " Finance—The problems of and limited possibilities for raising finance generated considerable comment."
      I am not in the least surprised when there is a minimum lending rate of 17 per cent. What sort of profit do they need to earn with a minimum lending rate—some of them probably pay more—of that order? I am not surprised that it raised considerable comment.
      The third point about which the small businesses were concerned was
      " Information—Information, advice and training for entrepreneurs."
      I suppose that they should be directed to the Secretary of State for Industry, who has a special interest in entrepreneurs.
      The fourth issue was
      " Premises—A major difficulty identified was a lack of suitable premises the right size and at the right price and lack of information about what was available."
      The fifth concern was
      " Planning—Major simplifications of planning procedures were advocated."
      The sixth and last concern was
      " Bureaucracy and other issues—A number of suggestions were made regarding the removal of onerous form-filling."
      and other issues, including shortages of skilled labour, traffic and transport problems
      506
      and high rates. Virtually nowhere is found the onerous obligations of employment protection legislation. There is no evidence that it is necessary, in the interests of small businesses and in order to stimulate small businesses in London, to take away the rights of people to protection against unfair dismissal. No evidence was produced in Standing Committee. The GLC, after consulting small business men, finds that the business men are not concerned about employment protection legislation. They are concerned about high interest rates and other burdens that the Government have placed upon them.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) illustrate that there is no demand from small businesses for this clause. I hope, therefore, that the House can devote some attention to other aspects of the problem.
      I wish to deal with a matter that has not been discussed, namely, the reaction of trade unions to discrimination between one trade unionist and another. The Government often rush into legislation without any regard for the likely reaction of the trade union movement. The unions will obviously not allow discrimination between their members. They will endeavour to steer workers away from small industries where their members are not properly protected against unfair dismissal. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East read from a list provided by the GLC, setting out some of the problems facing small businesses. One problem is that small businesses cannot recruit skilled labour. That problem will become even more difficult if the Bill is allowed to go through unamended.
      Many trade unions keep lists in their district offices of firms that they advise their members not to join. It is a black list of firms which, in many cases, pay much below trade union rates and where conditions are not up to union standards. The unions advise their members not to seek employment with those firms. Now, further firms will be added to the list. The unions will advise their members that they will not be protected

      507
      against unfair dismissal if they seek employment with small firms, in contrast to colleagues working for larger firms who are fully protected by the Act.
      I do not know what is meant by the words
      " the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking ".
      There will be great debates at the tribunal; debates concerned not with the merits of whether a man has been unfairly dismissed, but with whether the administrative resources of the firm entitle it to special consideration.
      Mr. Mellor Mr. Mellor rose——
      Mr. Fletcher: I shall develop this argument before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to his experience in appearing on behalf of applicants and employers before industrial tribunals. Now he has another task. His job will be to plead poverty and to say that the firm that he represents does not possess the resources to meet its full obligations. There may be problems with exports to Iran, over the fact that high rate of the pound is interfering with exports, or over high interest rates and increased charges for gas and electricity. The firm will plead that it has to be considered a special case. There is no doubt that such pleadings will be made. The tribunal will not ask for audited accounts to discover a company's financial position or whether it has the resources to meet the costs or awards made by the tribunal.
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. The argument has nothing to do with the financial resources of a company. The reality of all the cases is that the question whether an employer is reasonable or unreasonable often depends on the size of the undertaking, how big its personnel department is, and whether the management knows the individual worker. A tribunal must take those aspects into account when deciding whether a dismissal is reasonable. It has nothing to do with whether a company can pay the costs.
      Mr. Fletcher: That is debatable. No cases have been heard under the new legislation. There could be a debate about what resources are. Are they financial re-
      508
      sources, or personnel resources? Many small firms do not have a personnel department. It is easy to estimate the size of a company, but it is more difficult to estimate its resources.
      The clause will make it more difficult for firms to recruit labour, because it discriminates. When employers realise—as they already have in London—that they need to recruit skilled labour and that that will be more difficult because trade unions are steering their members away from secondclass firms which do not have the same facilities regarding unfair dismissal as large firms, they will ponder whether the Conservative Government are doing them a good turn by the legislation.
      We condemn the clause. There is no demand for it, as research sponsored by the Department of Employment shows. Only 2 per cent. of small firms are anxious about this matter. It is ironic that more small firms than ever are becoming bankrupt every day because of the Government's policies. The number of bankruptcies has doubled since the Conservatives came to power, and yet they pay lip-service to small businesses and say that they will help them. If small businesses have friends in the Conservative Party, they do not need any enemies.
      The Government intend to make it more difficult to recruit labour. They are introducing legislation that will make it more difficult for small firms to operate, in addition to high interest charges and other factors, and these firms are adamant that they do not want this legislation. That is reflected in the statistics given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster.
      I hope that small businessmen will recognise where their true friends are. They are on the Opposition side of the Chamber. We are trying to protect them against irresponsible legislation. We are trying to encourage them in their desire to build up their businesses and to employ the labour that they need. We want to protect trade unionists against the discrimination between first-class citizens, entitled to all the rights of the legislation, and second-class citizens who, because they happen to work for a small firm, are deprived of protection against unfair dismissal. I hope that the amendment will be carried. I hope, too, that the Government will ponder what has been said here

      509
      and in Committee, and have second thoughts.
      5.45 pm
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): Much has been said with which all sensible people will agree. For example, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) said that an employee is at his most vulnerable when he is dismissed. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said that to be dismissed was to suffer a great disruption in one's life. He said that if dismissal takes place in unfair circumstances that can lead to a scar for life. I agree with those sentiments, as will most sensible people.
      It is right for the concept of some property in one's job to be introduced into our law in addition to the protection that the common law has always given. It is not enough for an employer to say " I have sacked you. I gave you the notice that I contracted to give you and therefore you have no complaints against me ". The employment protection legislation provides that, if someone is not sacked for one of the four justifiable reasons and an employer has not acted reasonably overall, the employer must pay compensation. We support that. It is a welcome addition to our industrial law.
      However, we part company with the Opposition in their allegation that the provision in some ways weakens the rights and protection conferred upon employees. The whole purpose of the changes that we are seeking to make to the employment legislation in this modest Bill is to strengthen the employment prospects of people who work in small businesses especially, but in businesses generally.
      It is not sensible to say that the Government are embarking on a direct attack upon working people, as the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) said uncharacteristically. I accept that it would be beyond comprehension, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster said, if the Government were seeking to weaken significantly the rights of employees.
      The purpose of the legislation is to encourage people to employ more staff. It rests upon the Government's assessment that there is a belief that the present legislation is unfairly biased against
      510
      employers. It was right for the right hon. Member for Doncaster to begin his speech by saying that human realities must always be taken into account and must never be lost sight of. That is what it is all about.
      I can explain that by summarising the effect of the amendment. It is to delete clause 5. The amendment returns the onus of proof as to the reasonableness of a dismissal to the employer. It removes the requirement that tribunals should take into account
      " the size and administrative resources "
      of a firm in determining whether the employer acted reasonably.
      The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that human realities must never be left out of account, and among the human realities to be taken into account in this context is what we believe to be the widespread feeling—it may be challenged; certainly, the basis for it can be challenged without much difficulty—that under this jurisdiction on unfair dismissal an employer is assumed to be guilty until he has proved himself to be innocent. It is widely felt that this is an unfair jurisdiction and that the results of these cases are unfairly biased against employers.
      I say at once that the tribunals have no difficulty in rebutting the charge that they are unfair in their operations. Not only is there the point already forcefully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), that the tripartite basis of the tribunals, with an independent chairman presiding over a TUC nominee and a CBI nominee, ensures their impartiality, but one has knowledge if one is in the know, if I may so put it, having to look at the outcome of these cases, that about 70 per cent. of claims for unfair dismissal are decided against the claimant. For those who are in the know, that disposes of the suggestion that the tribunals are biased against employers.
      The trouble is that so many of those who today fulfil the extremely important function of employing people in this country are not and cannot be in the know. It is therefore important, if one can do so without significantly or seriously diminishing the proper protection which the 1978 Act gives to the interests of workers, to do what one can to mitigate that which is seen, perhaps inaccurately, as being a

      511
      source of unfairness. That is exactly what is proposed in the clause.
      Mr. Leighton: Let me be sure that I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that the tribunals work on the basis of common sense, having no bias one way or the other, and we have had corroboration on that score from the Government Benches. Second, he says that the majority of claims fail.
      If, therefore, there is nothing for the employer, and especially the small employer, to worry about, the Minister's purpose ought to be to get the message across to the small employer that he will receive justice. Is there not a better way of doing that than by altering the legislation? Is it not better to do it by information instead of by changing the law, which seems to give a steer against the employee? Is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman says a rather disingenuous rationalisation for what he is doing?
      Mr. Mayhew: It is a question of doing everything one can. I should not dream of saying that the changes which we propose in the Bill are enough, any more than I should dream of saying that we ought not to do all we can to bring interest rates down, for example, to bring taxation rates down and to do all the other things which the right hon. Gentleman and various of his hon. Friends have dwelt upon as serious matters for anxiety on the part of small businesses.
      We must do everything we can, and we must do our best to educate business men about what the Employment Protection Act does. We recognise this need, and we are in the Department currently preparing a guide for employers which should more or less coincide with the enactment of the Bill. This guide will pay particular attention to the position of smaller employers.
      If I now turn to what the clause proposes and then examine what the consequences of the amendment would be, that will, I think, establish the point which I am making and which I tried to make in Committee.
      In the first place, it is not right to say that the clause reverses the burden of proof. It does not. As has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Mem-
      512
      ber for Putney, the burden of proof is fairly and squarely upon the employer to show that a dismissal was for one of what we called in Committee the OK reasons—one of the four justifiable reasons. That is put fairly and squarely on him, and it marks our recognition of the special position of an employee who has been dismissed.
      I do not quarrel with the point made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that the employee has already been sentenced and tried by his employer. It is a vivid way of putting it, but I do not quarrel with it, and we reflect that situation by putting the burden on the employer to show, first, that it was a justifiable reason which led to the dismissal.
      The trouble is that section 58 then goes on to say that the employer must show that he acted reasonably in treating that justifiable reason as a ground for dismissal, and it is this which has given rise to the belief, which reaches out very strongly, that one is guilty all the way down the line until one has proved oneself innocent.
      I say at once that there are precious few cases decided in the industrial tribunals where the formal burden of proof determines the issue. There are jolly few cases in the civil courts where the burden of proof actually decides the issue. But what we are doing by the clause—if I may put it in a rather loose way—is taking off the shoulders of the employer the burden of proving that he acted reasonably in treating the OK reason as ground for dismissal. We are certainly not putting the burden on to the employee and making him show that the employer acted unreasonably. We leave it for the tribunal to decide whether the employer acted reasonably. That is putting it into the middle, and it takes away what can be seen in the terms of the existing section to be an unfair bias in the shape of the legislation. That is all that the clause does.
      The second effect of the clause—we have already been reminded of this—is that it tells the tribunal in express terms that it must take into account the size and administrative resources of the firm when assessing the reasonableness of the employer's actions.

      513
      Perhaps I may risk wearying the House by reminding it that under section 57 of the 1978 Act the tribunal is already obliged to take the circumstances into account, and that means all the circumstances. Subsection (3) lays down that the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair
      " shall depend upon whether the employer can satisfy the tribunal that in the circumstances (having regard to equity and the substantial merits of the case) he acted reasonably"
      We are therefore not saying to the tribunal that it must take into account something which it would hitherto have been entitled to disregard. What we are doing is giving special prominence to one of the circumstances by spelling it out, and that is a perfectly proper thing to do.
      I do not altogether quarrel with the suggestion that this is a cosmetic change. No one has quite put it like that today, but it does not amount to very much more. There are very few circumstances in which one knows that the tribunal has not taken this into account, but the purpose of putting it in is that the layman reading the legislation will see that the tribunal must take into account among the circumstances the size and administrative resources of the firm.
      Mr. Radice: If it is such a small change, why bother to make it?
      Mr. Mayhew: That was a small intervention but it prevented me from coming to that very point. As I have already tried to explain, the purpose is that those who have to look at these matters as lay people, as business people, or perhaps as those in business associations giving advice, shall at least see that under this part of the legislation which deals with unfair dismissal the tribunals are enjoined to have regard to sensible every-day considerations, for example, the size and administrative resources of the undertaking.
      I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, having asked the question, would be interested in the answer, but, as he knows very well, we went round this buoy at some length in Committee. I tried to deal with the matter then.
      This clause does not empower tribunals to do something that most do not do at present. It may be asked why we are
      514
      going to the trouble of including this provision in the Bill. I shall provide an answer. Although the industrial tribunals are empowered to take all the circumstances into account in the way I have explained, they are not all seen to do so. Nor is it apparent to many people, who are not lawyers or substantial business men, that they are empowered to do so. It is because it is not widely or generally understood, particularly among smaller business, that this power exists that the Government believe that it should be spelt out.
      6 pm
      A practical example of why this may be important can be found in the guidance given by ACAS in its code of practice. The code sets out guidance on the kind of disciplinary procedures which should be followed. In paragraph 12 recommendations are given about the warnings. First, there is an oral warning, then, for a second offence, there is a written warning. A structure is built up which, in the case of a very small business, may seem to be unrealistic. We feel that it is right to make this change in order to draw attention to the fact that tribunals are not expected to apply to small businesses the kind of structure for warnings that would apply to large businesses.
      We are making it clear that smaller firms are not necessarily acting unreasonably if they adopt procedures that are appropriate to their resources. I believe that this will result in a positive response from small businesses which may feel that the present code of practice is aimed only at large firms. I recognise the need to educate. I wish to make that clear, and I repeat that the Department is in the process of producing a guide which we hope will be published at the same time that the Bill is enacted.
      Mr. Leighton: The Minister wants to reassure small business men, but is this the most effective way of doing so? Does he believe that small business men are waiting with bated breath for this legislation to be placed on the statute book, and that they will all rush to the Stationery Office to buy a copy and read it? I do not think that they will read it, or that the press will report it. Would it not be more efficacious to distribute a leaflet explaining these matters rather than to change the statute?
      Mr. Mayhew: No, I do not suppose that they are waiting with bated breath. I recognise that we must do all we can to publicise the changes that we are making, and we shall try to do so. However, we are not in a position, as a responsible Government, to turn down any proposal that we reasonably believe will have the desired effect of encouraging companies to employ more people. In view of the high unemployment—which is expected to get worse—we must not turn aside any reasonable proposal that may result in stimulating employment. I agree that the surveys show plainly that these matters are not at the forefront of small business men's anxieties. But they are there, and we must not neglect them. However, we cannot take a survey of people who have not started a business.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: Of the many circumstances that the tribunal has to take into account, why has the Minister pinpointed only two? Is there not a danger that the employee, seeing these provisions in legislation, will feel that the tribunal will give excessive weight to those circumstances over and above the others?
      Mr. Mayhew: There is less chance for employees to scrutinise the legislation than for employers to do so. Since the number of circumstances which are relevant and which should be taken into account are legion, we can hardly pinpoint all of them. Therefore, a judgment has to be formed as to what needs to be emphasised. For the reasons, I have given, we believe that these circumstances are properly emphasised.
      This is not an attack on anyone. It is an attempt to make the expression of the law relating to unfair dismissal in the employment protection legislation more reassuring to those to whom we look to provide employment today. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), who manages to bring what he perceives as a class war into every topic that he discusses, said that this was another round in the class war and that this legislation favoured the employer class. I point out to him that, by definition, unless there is an employer class there cannot be an employee class. It is because we wish to stimulate and enlarge the number of employees that we
      516
      believe that this clause is proper, and that the amendment should be rejected.
      Mr. John Grant: My right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear that the policies of the Government are putting more and more businesses—particularly small firms—into difficulty. High value added tax, the minimum lending rate, charges and rates generally, the construction of order books—not least because of the public sector squeeze—combine to make life extremely difficult for small businesses. The steeply rising unemployment figures do not simply reflect a harsh regime for workers, but for many employers also. Yet the best that the Government can do in the face of that is to bring forward these lamentable measures which undermine the Employment Protection Act, which, they claim will reduce the burden on the small firm. It is all part of a pattern which is contained within the Bill. We saw part of the pattern last night when schedule 11 was replaced. That pattern will be followed when we reach the clauses on the restriction of maternity benefits, and it is being followed on this clause now.
      Despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, this is an attempt to offer a sop to employers whom the Government are hurting in other ways. If it does not weaken employees' rights, why is every employees' organisation opposed to this change? The case on unfair dismissal is ill-founded. Unlike his efforts in Committee, at least the hon. and learned Gentleman is not now seeking to justify the changes by relying on evidence. He knows that he is totally unable to produce relevant evidence, and even if he could produce evidence that employers were seeking this change, I would still argue that this is a further disgraceful attack on individual workers' rights.
      The Government are flying in the face of their consultative document. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman read that consultative document. It said that it was generally undesirable to give special treatment to small firms because that would create a second tier of employees with reduced protection. But that is what the Government are doing. This is an extraordinary and rapid rebuttal of their views. Perhaps a funny thing happened to the Secretary of State on his way to the Cabinet, or, as is more

      517
      likely, a funny thing happened to him when he arrived. It is a very quick change of view.
      Workers in small firms most need protection. If that is not so, why are there wages councils to look after the minimum wages and conditions of about 3 million workers?
      That need has been recognised by successive Governments. Even though we know of the difficulties which are experienced—under-payment and so on—one matter which is again causing concern is the apparent intention to run down the size of the Wages Inspectorate. If that happens, protection for low-paid workers will again be reduced. It is right to point out that in that area there is a lack of trade union organisation. Low-paid workers just do not have protection.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), referred to the various surveys that have been carried out—in particular, the ORC survey. I do not intend to dwell on that. He also referred to the Warwick university industrial relations research unit's study. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) quoted the GLC document, which I too, have received. There is ample evidence to show that these are not matters of paramount importance to employers. They are very much down the list.
      There has been a great deal of criticism of the Government's proposals, particularly that the tribunals have to take into acount size and administrative resources. The Association of County Councils—a Tory-dominated body if ever there was one—is opposed to the Government's proposals. The Royal College of Nursing, the Migrants Action Group and the Equal Opportunities Commission are concerned because many women work in small firms. All these organisations have made written protests about these proposals.
      We know that the Under-Secretary of State wrote to some of the small firms' pressure groups, as it were, to whip up support for the proposals. The National Federation of the Self-Employed, for instance, said that the Employment Protection Act had damaged 50 per cent. of its members. Of course, 98 per cent. of the membership did not reply to the questionnaire. Therefore, not a very meaningful
      518
      result was produced. We had other similar unrepresentative examples, with which I shall not weary the House, but they were trotted out in Committee.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) asked the valid question: what encouragement are these changes to people to work for small firms where they know that their rights are to be lessened? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) made a similar point. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) pointed out that there will be a tendency for trade unions to steer their members away from this area of employment.
      There is also the matter of the onus of proof. It is a fact—again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster touched on this matter in his opening remarks—that only the employer is likely to know the full reason for dismissal. That is why it has always been for the employer to satisfy the tribunal that it was fair dismissal. It is the worker who gets the chop. That is the situation when it reaches the tribunal. The action has been taken by the employer, not the employee.
      We have no real evidence that the system has been working unsatisfactorily. I do not recall the Under-Secretary at any stage telling us about any advice that he had received from the members or the chairmen of tribunals on this matter. I should have thought that would have been the first place to look for advice on the satisfactory nature of the working of this feature of the legislation.
      We cannot take these proposals in isolation. They must be seen in conjunction with clause 7, to which we shall come later, which takes away the right of complaint of unfair dismissal from all new recruits to firms with 20 or fewer workers until they have worked continuously for the firm for two years. They must also be taken in conjunction with the changes introduced by the Government last July extending the qualifying period of service from six months to 12 months for all employees.
      This is a package. It is not fine tuning, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) put it. It is far from fine tuning. It is a very nasty package.

      519
      6.15 pm
      The Under-Secretary said that these latest changes were being made for psychological reasons. I think that he probably did not use the word " psychological " this afternoon—perhaps he was careful not to use it—but he used it in Committee. The implication of his remarks was that it would not have much effect in law. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not put it quite like that, but the idea was that it would make employers feel that the Government had in some way given them another boost. That is, in effect, what he said. But I wonder whether he seriously believes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East pointed out, that employers are waiting to seize on this measure and that it will influence them. If the Government think that, I can only suggest that they do not know how small firms work. I do not know of any small employers—there are many in my constituency—who are interested in the fine tuning of the legislation.
      I welcome the news that the Department is to issue a new guide—I am sure that it must do so as a consequence of the Bill—but I cannot help feeling that the guide should be a guide to where to find a lawyer. At any rate, I welcome the fact that the Department is making this additional educative effort. However, I do not think that employers will be unduly concerned about it in the sense that the Under-Secretary has put it.
      We can only assume that the Government hope that these unfair dismissal procedures will act as a sweetener for traditional Tory voters in the small firms sector—traditional voters who must be turning away in droves at the moment as a result of this and other Government policies. It is almost as crude as that.
      I want to refer to some figures that I have taken from the Employment Gazette, because they prove the case for the legislation as it is being maintained. Indeed, I think that it is fair to suggest that, if these changes are made,
      they are likely to result in increased industrial action.
      The statistics for the years 1973 to 1979 show that stoppages arising from dismissal and disciplinary matters have steadily fallen from 383 in 1973—that accounted for 7·3 per cent. of all workers directly involved in total stoppages for that year—to 197 stoppages in 1979—or 2·9per cent. of all workers directly involved in stoppages last year. That shows that the unfair dismissal procedures have been working increasingly satisfactorily. It is also a fact that just under two-thirds of unfair dismissal applicants can be regarded as low paid. The majority are certainly from the low paying industries. Once again, in tampering with this legislation, we are talking about the most vulnerable workers.
      In the end we come back to two basic points. First, dismissal is either fair or unfair. It is as simple as that. No diversionary discriminatory legislation about size and administrative resources should cut across that position. Justice should not be measured on the basis of some arbitrarily chosen yardstick to suit the convenience of either the Government or employers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster said, we are talking about the sack—people's livelihood
      Finally, the Government are clearly seeking to play footsie with the employers' organisations which, as I said, are daily becoming more disenchanted with the Government in other ways and will soon start to say that openly. The Government are hoping that, by making life more difficult for working people by restricting their rights, they will, as it were, redress the balance a little. We are talking about dirty work by the Government. Therefore, we shall certainly divide the House on the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 312.

      Division No. 262]

      AYES

      [6.20 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Adams, Allen

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Allaun, Frank

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Anderson, Donald

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Archer, Rt Hon peter

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Buchan, Norman

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Ashton, Joe

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Campbell, Ian

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

      Bradley, Tom

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Canavan, Dennis

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Parry, Robert

      Cant, R. B.

      Home Robertson, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Carmichael, Neil

      Homewood, William

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Horam, John

      Prescott, John

      Cartwright, John

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

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Huckfield, Les

      Race, Reg

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

      Radice, Giles

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Richardson, Jo

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Robertson, George

      Crowther, J. S.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kerr, Russell

      Roper, John

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sever, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lamond, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Leighton, Ronald

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

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

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Shore Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Dempsey, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dewar, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Dixon, Donald

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dobson, Frank

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Dormand, Jack

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Snape, Peter

      Douglas, Dick

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson

      Soley, Clive

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dubs, Alfred

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunnett, Jack

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Stoddart, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McKelvey, William

      Stott, Roger

      Eadie, Alex

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Strang, Gavin

      Eastham, Ken

      Maclennan, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      McMahon, Andrew

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      English, Michael

      McNally, Thomas

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McWilliam, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Ewing, Harry

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Field, Frank

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Tilley, John

      Fitt, Gerard

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Tinn, James

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

      Torney, Tom

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Ford, Ben

      Maxton, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Forrester, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Foster, Derek

      Meacher, Michael

      Watkins, David

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mikardo, Ian

      Welsh, Michael

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      George, Bruce

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ginsburg, David

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Whitlock, William

      Golding, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Graham, Ted

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Newens, Stanley

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Winnick, David

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Ogden, Eric

      Woodall, Alec

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wrigglesworth. Ian

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wright, Sheila

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Haynes, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Park, George

      Mr. Joseph Dean and

      Hotter, Eric S.

      Parker, John

      Mr. George Morton.

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bradford, Rev R.

      Alexander, Richard

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Alison, Michael

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Bright, Graham

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Best, Keith

      Brinton, Tim

      Ancram, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Brittan, Leon

      Arnold, Tom

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Blackburn, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Blaker, Peter

      Brotherton, Michael

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bowden, Andrew

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      522

      523

      Buck, Antony

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Budgen, Nick

      Heddle, John

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Henderson, Barry

      Parris, Matthew

      Burden, F. A.

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Butcher, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Pawsey, James

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Penhaligon, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hooson, Tom

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Hordern, Peter

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Channon, Paul

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Porter, George

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howells, Geraint

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Cockeram, Eric

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Raison, Timothy

      Colvin, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Cope, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Corrie, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Renton, Tim

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rhys Williams. Sir Brandon

      Critchley, Julian

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Crouch, David

      Lang, tan

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Latham, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Dover, Denshore

      Lee, John

      Rossi, Hugh

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rost, Peter

      Dunlop, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Salisbury, Hon Timothy

      Durant, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Loveridge, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Eggar, Timothy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Eyre, Reginald

      MacGregor, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Shersby, Michael

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Silvester, Fred

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Sims, Roger

      Fell, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Madel, David

      Speed, Keith

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Major, John

      Speller Tony

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Marland, Paul

      Spence, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marlow, Tony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sproat, lain

      Forman, Nigel

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Squire, Robin

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mates, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mather, Carol

      Stanley, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Freud, Clement

      Mawby, Ray

      Steen, Anthony

      Fry, Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Mellor, David

      Stokes, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Gorst, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gow, Ian

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Moate, Roger

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Gray, Hamish

      Molyneaux, James

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry

      Monro, Hector

      Thompson, Donald

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Moore, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Trippier, David

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Murphy, Christopher

      Trotter, Neville

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

      Myles, David

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Hannam, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waddington, David

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neubert, Michael

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Newton, Tony

      Wakeham, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Hawksley, Warren

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      524

      525

      Waller, Gary

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walters, Dennis

      Whitney, Raymond

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Ward, John

      Wickenden, Keith

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Watson, John

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

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

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Wheeler, John

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 6

      DISMISSAL RELATING TO TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP
      Mr. John Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 7, line 22, leave out ' unfair if ' and insert
      ' fair unless he can prove that '.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this, we may take the following amendments:
      No. 113, in page 7, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert
      ' unless the industrial tribunal is satisfied that the employees reason or if more than one, she principal reason for not being a member of the specified union or one of the specified unions or for refusing or proposing to refuse to become or remain a member of that or one of these unions, was unreasonable '.
      No. 108, in page 7, line 23, leave out from ' if to ' to ' in line 24 and insert
      on reasonable grounds he objects '.
      No. 49, in page 7, line 23, after 'he', insert
      can prove to the tribunal that he '.
      No. 50, in page 7, line 23, after 'of, insert ' long-standing',
      No. 52, in page 7, line 23, leave out '
      or other deeply-held personal conviction'.
      No. 51, in page 7, line 23, after ' other ', insert ' long-standing'.
      No. 54, in page 7, line 25, leave out
      ' whatsoever or of a particular trade union '
      and insert
      ' and can satisfy the tribunal that his objections were reasonable in all the circumstances '.
      Mr. Evans: As we had a fair run round clause 6 in Committee, I shall, in the interests of saving time, be reasonably brief, but as the clause is one of the nuttier parts of an unnecessary Bill, it is right to raise again the issues involved in it.
      It is the sort of clause that is put in to placate the wilder spirits in the Conservative Party, some of whom have unfortunately,
      526
      managed to get elected to the House. A similar provision was included in the Industrial Relations Act and employers and trade unions generally ignored the Act's attempts to outlaw the closed shop, which is the basis of the clause.
      As democrats, we recognise that the Conservatives won the election and have the right to put the legislation before the House. We have tried to point out its dangers, but the Tories have decided to go ahead with the Bill, which will cause untold harm.
      We therefore have a duty to tighten up the loose drafting in parts of the Bill, especially in clause 6. That is what the amendments are aimed at. We are concerned about the impossible task facing the tribunals that will have to consider the cases outlined in clause 6.
      Almost everyone recognises that industrial tribunals have done a first-class job in often difficult and sometimes emotional circumstances. Anything that will make their task more difficult should be avoided, and clause 6 will make their job virtually impossible.
      In Committee, we repeatedly pointed out to the Government some of the dangers involved in trying to define a " deeply-held personal conviction " and how long it had been held by an individual. One of my hon. Friends said that he visualised tribunals having to employ psychiatrists, lie detectors, truth drugs and a variety of new instruments to find out for how long an individual had held his " deeply-held personal conviction ".
      We all accept the spirit of a religious exemption and the trade union movement has managed to meet any difficulties in that area over the years. That should have been recognised by the Government, but they have tried to rewrite a section of the Industrial Relations Act to undermine the closed shop in order to placate some of their wilder spirits.
      We wish to redefine some of the words in clause 6. We discovered in Committee that when the Under-Secretary had a weak case he invariably argued it

      527
      at inordinate length. When his case was strong he was sharp and to the point, but when he was on weaker ground he took a tremendous amount of time to try to avoid our arguments. He avoided most of our arguments on clause 6.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
      " In the final analysis, it will be for a tribunal to determine on the facts of any particular case whether an individual's objections to union membership constitute grounds of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 February 1980, c. 790.]
      It remains a mystery to us how a tribunal is to do that.
      Mr. Mellor: How can the hon. Gentleman say that it is any more difficult for a tribunal to deal with that matter than it is for it to deal with the tests, to which he lends his support, in section 58 of the 1978 Act which refers to genuine objections on grounds of religious beliefs? What is the difference between the two concepts?
      Mr. Evans: It is fairly easy for an individual to prove that he is a longstanding member of the Jehovah Witnesses, Plymouth Brethren or another religious organisation, the members of which are not prepared to join a trade union. I have not met a member of any of the more mainstream religious organisations who feels that his religious beliefs debar him from membership of a trade union.
      As a convener, I have dealt with individuals who have joined the Jehovah Witnesses. We all know what sort of conversion they feel that they have had when they join such an organisation. It is relatively easy to prove that an individual is a member of such an organisation. For example, he could provide a card or take his religious leader with him to the tribunal. But let us suppose that an individual announces at the factory one morning that in bed on the previous night he had walked his road to Damascus and arrived at the " deeply-held personal conviction" that he did not want to belong to the AUEW or any other union. How can one disprove that he has arrived at that point? It will be an impossible task for a tribunal to make sense of the provisions in clause 6.
      528
      The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
      " We believe that a tribunal will not in practice have difficulty in determining whether there is a ground of conscience or a deeply held conviction in the circumstances likely to arise."
      Will the Minister tell us what circumstances would be likely to arise? He went on to say:
      " In widening the current religious exemption in the way the clause does, we do not intend that leeway should be given to any sort of spurious objection that could result in industrial disruption by the undermining of well established agreements. We believe that the intention is made clear in the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 20 February 1980, c. 791.]
      It is not made clear in the clause. The chances are that the individual who has a " road to Damascus" conversion will be the type of individual who exists in all walks of life, the person who is looking for easy money. Sums of money up to £16,000 per case are involved. The crimes of murder, rape, arson and inflicting grevious bodily harm have been committed for much less than £16,000. A number of individuals will be tempted down this road for the sake of the jackpot that lies at the end of it.
      Not every member of a trade union is a devout Socialist who believes in all the activities of the trade union movement. There are individuals who join a union because of the benefits they will derive from membership, and there are individuals who would like to enjoy those benefits without contributing to the trade union funds. This causes bitter feeling among trade union members who pay their dues. They are not willing to allow others to live off their backs. If the clause adds insult to injury by allowing an individual to make a substantial sum of money out of his union because he has had a death-bed conversion to non-unionism it is likely to cause great problems within industry and the trade union movement. We think that the clause is unnecessary and will cause problems. We have tried to make some sense of the clause by tabling our amendments.
      Amendment No. 53 is self-explanatory. It will be for the individual who is appearing before a tribunal to prove that he has this deeply held personal conviction or strong beliefs as to why he

      529
      should not be a member. That is probably the best of the amendments and one that the Minister will be able to accept. It is right that the burden of proof should be upon the individual who is seeking to make substantial sums of money out of this situation.
      In amendment No. 49, again the onus is placed on the individual to prove his case. I will not go through the amendments in detail but the thrust of the amendments is to say that it will be for the individual who has arrived at this deeply-held personal conviction to prove his case.
      6.45 pm
      We feel that we have a right to know from the Government what is meant by " deeply-held conviction " in the context of the clause. Those words will cause problems and industrial disputes. They are unhelpful to the employer, the employee and the trade union.
      Amendment No. 54 deletes words which we regard as particularly dangerous. An individual employed in a firm in which, for example, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers has negotiating rights can say that he has no objection to being a member of a trade union, but he has a deeply-held personal objection to being a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. Hon. Members will have read in the press that there has been a change in the make-up of the national committtee of my union. Someone might take the view that as the make-up of the national committee has changed he does not wish to be a member of that union but would prefer to be a member of another union, but that other union would not necessarily have negotiating rights in that establishment.
      It is significant that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in his amendments also wishes to take out the words " deeply-held personal conviction " and " grounds of conscience ". I do not know what would be the effect of his amendments. I do not imagine that he wants to go as far as we do, but he recognises the dangers that would flow from the words in clause 6. We shall be interested to see whether he will support us in the Lobby if the Government do not accept his amendments.
      I recognise that the Secretary of State has had difficulties with the Bill. He has
      530
      had more difficulties with his own side than he has with the Opposition. He had a majority of three, and four on the rare occasions when the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was present in Committee. Although the Secretary of State had a substantial majority in Committee, the situation has changed since the Bill has been discussed in the House. In the House, the Secretary of State's arguments have won the day for the Conservative Party. He contained the so-called revolt last night in a handful of 45. Now that he recognises that he has far more power and influence in the Conservative Party than he realised in Committee, I hope he will accept the helpful amendments which we are putting forward to remedy the difficulties which will arise from clause 6.
      I hope that we can rely on the Secretary of State to see the force of our arguments and to appreciate the dangers which will flow from what he is creating in this clause. I know that words are always emotive to the Tory Party, just as they are to people such as myself. However, there is no question but that clause 6 is a charter for scabs and blacklegs. It is a charter for those who seek to benefit from institutions without ever wishing to contribute a penny towards them. I am sure that Conservative Members will accept that from time to time the trade union movement deals with that sort of individual, who invariably is always on the look-out for fast money, who never contributes to anything and who simply takes whatever is given to him. This clause has been created for his benefit.
      Now that the Secretary of State recognises the changed circumstances which exist within the Tory Party, and the power which he now has—I think we are seeing a resurgence of the wets and a recognition that they are far stronger than the hawks—I hope that he will accept our helpful and useful amendments.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before I deal with the amendments standing in my name, which I shall seek to support, I should like to deal with a question which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) posed. He asked whether I would support him in the Lobby. The answer is "No, manifestly not ", because the Opposition amendments are singularly mean

      531
      and show a singularly mean attitude to human liberty.
      The undoubted effect of the Opposition amendments would be to reduce the class of people entitled to compensation. Indeed, they would make it more difficult for ordinary people to claim compensation when they are unfairly dismissed. The views expressed by Labour Members, and the views which underlie the amendments tabled by them, are wholly inconsistent with the views which they expressed in the debate that has just taken place on amendment No. 43. In that debate, the Opposition represented themselves as being anxious and determined to make it easier for ordinary people to claim compensation when they suffered injustice.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent our views. In the previous debate, we sought to retain the status quo and to resist the Government's intention to worsen the position of workers who claimed that they were unfairly dismissed.
      Mr. Hogg: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should disavow the intention that I have ascribed to him. I was saying that in the previous debate, Labour Members were trying to protect and enhance the ability of ordinary people to claim compensation when they had been unfairly treated. Yet we find a wholly different attitude in this debate.
      Mr. Mellor: I intend to make the same point myself. Does my hon. Friend recall the occasion on Second Reading, when we attacked the generality of the closed shop on the basis that it would not withstand the strictures of the European Convention on Human Rights, yet in the very week before that Labour Members attacked us because they said that our proposals on immigration offended against the European Convention on Human Rights? Surely that was a total inconsistency.
      Mr. Hogg: That is a valuable point which emphasises the main burden of what I want to say. Whenever we come to the question of trade unions and the closed shop, we see sheer, unmitigated prejudice from Labour Members. The House and the country should know that.
      532
      I turn now to the two amendments which I seek to support.
      Mr. Leighton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hogg: No, I have given way twice.
      Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman is usually very generous.
      Mr. Hogg: I have only just begun my speech, as the hon. Gentleman must know. In drafting the two amendments standing in my name, I sought to enlarge the class of people who, when dismissed by reason of their refusal to join a trade union, have a claim for compensation. I am extremely sorry that on this important matter I depart from the approach which has been adopted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On most aspects of the Bill I am in complete sympathy with his approach. He is surely right when he argues that we should adopt a conciliatory and gradualist approach to issues which are as contentious as industrial relations. That is of particular importance with regard to the closed shop. However objectionable the concept of a closed shop may be, this House should never seek to prohibit it because we could not enforce a prohibition of that kind, and this House should never seek to pass laws which cannot be enforced in practice.
      Therefore, one must ask what the appropriate approach is to problems of that kind. It is the approach which has been adopted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It has two important elements, first, to confine the circumstances in which closed shop agreements can come into existence and, secondly, and no less important, to provide a proper scheme for compensation for those relatively few people who will lose their employment because of their refusal to join a trade union.
      Mr. Nick Budgen: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the major defect in our right hon. Friend's approach to this problem is that he is not prepared to deal with existing closed shops? Because of his decision not to do that, it becomes necessary to look for second-best solutions to the problem of the man who is locked into a closed shop and who finds that he

      533
      has no way of disputing the decisions which are taken on his behalf.
      Mr. Hogg: I always hate to dissent from the views expressed by my hon. Friend because I have a great respect for his knowledge in this area. When he made that observation, I wonder whether he fully understood the provisions of clause 6, particularly the proposed subsection (3B). I think that takes account of the pre-entry closed shop problem to which my hon. Friend has just referred me. If I am wrong on that point, I am certain that he will address the House upon it and we can consider it when he does.
      The point that I am seeking to make is that in general terms I support what my right hon.. Friend has said on this issue. He is right to say that we should not try to prohibit a closed shop. Where I disagree with him is with regard to the scheme of compensation which clause 6 provides, because I personally think that it is insufficiently generous.
      The main problem to which the attention of the House is now directed arises from section 58 of the 1978 Act, which was passed by Labour Members when in Government. That is a singularly brutal and unattractive piece of legislation, because in effect it says that a man or a woman dismissed by reason of a refusal to join a trade union has no right to compensation whatever unless his or her objection to joining a trade union is, first, an objection to joining all trade unions and is, secondly, an objection founded on religious conviction. I happen to believe that that is oppressive and tyrannical. It gave rise to some quite extraordinary, and I hope unintended, anomalies.
      7 pm
      The casebooks are full of employees dismissed for larceny, immorality, violence and abuse who obtained compensation. At the same time, honourable long-serving employees were dismissed solely because they would not join a trade union; and they had no right of redress. Such a situation was, and is, unacceptable. It was for that reason that the Secretary of State brought his present proposals forward.
      The House must now seek to resolve the question whether clause 6 goes far enough. I do not believe that it does. The
      534
      effect of clause 6 is to enable a person who is dismissed for refusing to join a trade union to claim compensation provided that his refusal to join a trade union was founded
      " on the grounds of conscience or other deeply-held personal conviction."
      That is a narrow test. Perhaps more importantly those who have to interpret and construe those criteria—and in particular industrial tribunals, employment appeal tribunals and the House of Lords, if not the court of appeal—will certainly take a restrictive approach.
      The clause probably does not cover those employees who do not wish to join a trade union because they disapprove of the local or national leadership. It probably does not cover the employee who does not like the policies of affiliations of a trade union. The clause probably does not cover the employee who believes that the tactics of the union involved are disruptive of industry and the clause certainly does not cover the employee who does not choose to submerge his own personality into a collective unit.
      Yet all of these things are perfectly reasonable. They provide good reasons why a person should not wish to join a trade union. But, in the end, the test is this. Why should a person have to satisfy such stringent criteria in trying to justify what should be the exercise of free will?
      It was for that reason that I tabled the amendments which stand in my name. The effect of amendment No. 108 is to enable an employee who has lost his job because of his refusal to join a trade union to claim compensation provided only that his reasons for refusing to join were reasonable. That approach has received quite a lot of illustrious support in the past both within and without the House.
      To begin with, we had the support for such an approach by the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Donovan. The Commission's report recommended in express terms as follows:
      " Our view is that the employee should be able to succeed against the employer so long as he can show that he has reasonable grounds for refusing to join the union."
      That was an express and unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. But we do not have to look so far for such support.

      535
      Words similar to those I now propose were incorporated in the 1974 Act. Indeed, they remained the law until 1976 when, despite strenuous attempts by my right hon. and hon. Friends to prevent their deletion, the words were deleted. Prominent among those who tried to prevent the deletion of those words was my hon. and learned Friend who now sits on the Government Front Bench as Under-Secretary. I shall tell the House what he said because he made a truly memorable speech. He made a speech which in the context of this debate is a pleasure to read today.
      My hon. and learned Friend began by defining his general policy—a view with which I wholly agree. He said:
      " It is the policy of the Government, as I understand it, to encourage all workers to join a trade union. I agree with that policy, but I agree with no more than that. The Government encourage so long as they advocate, so long as they urge, so long as they persuade and so long as they advise, but when they provide for dismissal without compensation as the price that a workman must pay for refusing to join a trade union they have passed beyond encouragement and resorted to blackmail."
      Then my hon. and learned Friend became a little more specific. He said:
      " The Bill is designed to make blackmail lawful. As it stands at the moment, the Act says that it shall be lawful to dismiss a worker for refusing to become a member of a specific trade union. But the Bill removes the saving clause which protects a worker who genuinely objects, on any reasonable grounds to joining that union."
      Perhaps, rather uncharacteristically, my right hon. and learned Friend ended on a rather plaintive note:
      " I ask the Secretary of State why, if he is prepared to make a concession for those with religious beliefs, he will not retain the concession in favour of those who have objections based upon reasonable grounds?"—[Official Report, 9 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 342–43.]
      I say to my hon. and learned Friend, who is sitting so comfortably on the Front Bench, that the principles which were true in 1975 are as true today.
      Mr. John Gorst: I wonder if I can help my hon. Friend—since he is naming names—by referring to what my right hon. Friend said in Committee. He told us that
      "At one time I thought in terms of 'reasonable' grounds. Those were the sort of grounds that we felt we should seek to
      536
      protect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 February 1980; c. 738.]
      What my right hon. Friend never told us in Committee was the reason for his departure from that standpoint. I wonder if my hon. Friend will press him to give some reasons?
      Mr. Hogg: It is not for me to press the Secretary of State. I was going on to give the answer to that question because I feel certain that my hon. and learned Friend, with his track record, will wish to rise and give unqualified support to my amendment.
      I turn briefly from amendment No. 108 to amendment No. 113. In amendment No. 108 I intended a fairly modest change in my right hon. Friend's proposals. On that basis I hoped that the amendment might be more acceptable to my hon. Friend.
      Amendment No. 113 is intended to have a more dramatic effect. If it is accepted it will greatly enlarge the class of persons entitled to claim compensation. In such circumstances if an employee is dismissed by reason of a refusal to join a trade union he will be entitled to claim compensation unless some other party can establish that his reasons for refusing to join were unreasonable. This amendment, taken in conjunction with the various provisions in clause 6 will largely eliminate and remove the evils associated with the closed shop.
      Mr. Richard Needham: Will my hon. Friend tell the House the circumstances in which he envisages that the amendment, if written into the Bill, will be used? As I understand it, clause 6 comes into operation only for new closed shops. All existing employees are excluded. When a new closed shop agreement is made, it comes about after a ballot and in circumstances in which any existing employee is automatically excluded. We are talking not about a person's refusal to join a union. If there has been a ballot and it is a new closed shop, that closed shop could not have come into being with existing members being forced in against their will, whether on reasonable grounds, grounds of conscience or any other grounds. They would be excluded because of their being existing employees. Therefore, in what circumstances does my hon. Friend say that the amendment will be used? It seems that

      537
      those whom he seeks to protect are already protected by being existing employees.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is an ingenious man. He has raised an ingenious argument, which I have already thought about, I shall deal with it in specific terms because it is important.
      Mr. Budgen Mr. Budgen rose——
      Mr. Hogg: No. I have given way on five occasions and I do not propose to do so any more. However, I shall deal with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham).
      I deal briefly with the various arguments that have been advanced against amendments of this type. In view of the speech made in 1975 by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), who is now the Under-Secretary of State, I do not have to argue that the amendments are unworkable. If they were not unworkable in 1975, they are not unworkable now.
      It is said that the amendments are unnecessary because they do not deal with the real problem. That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. My hon. Friend suggests that no one would lose his job in the circumstances that he postulates. He is wrong. There will be a small number of employees who, after the implementation of a closed shop agreement, join the union and who subsequently decide to leave it. The class is a small one, but the law should be as quick to protect the few as it is to protect the many.
      Mr. Budgen Mr. Budgen rose——
      Mr. Hogg: No. I have given way a great deal and I do not propose to give way again.
      The second argument which is usually advanced by Labour Members is that it is morally culpable for those who derive some benefit from trade union negotiations not to join the trade union. I have always taken the view that that is an unmeritorious argument. It fails on two grounds. First, what do we say to those who suffer unemployment and poverty as a result of trade union practices? Even more to the point, what do we say about democracy itself? Democracy implies
      538
      choice. It implies the right to choose the least worthy course as well as the most worthy course. That is an essential element in democracy.
      7.15 pm
      The final objection is based on convenience. It is suggested that it is convenient to have a trade union closed shop. Convenient it may be, but it is oppressive. The amendments that I seek to support do not abolish the closed shop. They merely put a price upon it. The price is the liability to compensate those persons who lose their job as a result of it.
      We cannot assert an unqualified right to association unless we concede a right to non-association. The arguments, the logic and the principles that require the one also demand the other. To deny people the right to claim compensation when they are dismissed merely because of a refusal to join a trade union is to perpetuate an injustice to which the House should not be a party.
      Mr. George Park: From time to time every political party finds itself stuck with superficially attractive slogans that are passed on, if the party becomes the Government, to an unfortunate Minister who has to endeavour to put flesh on their bones.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been witnessing the endeavours of the Secretary of State to put some thinking into a slogan to give it reality. During the debate there has been a conflict between theory and practice. We saw it last night, and we are witnessing it again today. It is a conflict involving those who are dealing with something in theory, who are anxious, as I understand it, and if I understood the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to have justice before the law. That is a laudable objective, but one which in practice, should be dealt with long before it reaches that stage. That is what has happened for many years.
      We hear Conservative Members waxing righteous about the rights of a small minority. In the course of doing that they are prepared to ignore, or to push to one side, the views of the majority. However, we are all in this place as a result of the exercise of that operation, namely, the use of a majority.

      539
      I wonder what the reactions of Conservative Members would be if, in their anxiety to please one or possibly two out of thousands of employees in a given factory, they found that the vast majority were saying " We do not want to work with those who do not want to belong to the union ". That is precisely the reaction that one meets.
      In my experience, closed shops are not set up arbitrarily. They are set up after full consultation and with the agreement, expressed by a majority, of the employers in the establishment. There is the opportunity for individuals to advance their points of view.
      Again, in my experience, it is only on odd occasions that someone finds that he is prevented from joining a trade union because of genuine religious beliefs. I have always found that members of trade unions are willing to accommodate such a person by allowing him, for example, to pay the equivalent of his trade union dues to a charity. I have known that happen time and time again.
      Judgment is based on the observation of the members of the trade union of the depth of the individual's religious belief. They see him day after day. They notice how he acts. They notice his speech especially. If they come to the conclusion that he, or she, has deeply-held religious beliefs, they will not want to be awkward with that person. An arrangement is arrived at whereby the individual does not take on the mantle of the others, who are free-riders.
      That is what they amount to, because they are prepared to take the benefits negotiated by trade unions, but are not prepared to make a contribution towards the unions. The acceptance of people's religious views and beliefs is based on the experience of their workmates. Where they are genuine, people are prepared to accommodate them. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, it will provide a charter for those who wish to take the benefits but not to contribute.
      I have not heard many complaints from managements about closed shops. The idea that there are such complaints has been generated at Tory Party annual conferences. Managements can negotiate sensibly with their employees. Conservative Members should stop and con-
      540
      sider what would happen if managements were forced to negotiate not only with the unions but with a variety of other people about their wages and conditions. Conservative Members say that they are concerned about time wasting and about costs, yet they are cheerfully prepared for personnel departments, wages departments and works managers to spend hours and weeks negotiating with individuals. If managements were willing to go through with that charade they would end up with the same deal as had been negotiated with the trade unions. The important difference is that those individuals would not have paid their dues.
      Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend tell us, from his great industrial experience, whether he has ever come across anyone who has said that his principles would not allow him to join the appropriate trade union and that therefore he could not take advantage of the hours and conditions that the union had negotiated?
      Mr. Park: I regret that I have never found anyone who was not prepared to hold out his hand at the end of the week and accept those benefits.
      Concern has been expressed about democracy. Last night concern was expressed about secret ballots, and it was said that we should know the wishes of the workers before allowing a dispute to take place. However, Conservative Members will disregard a ballot that shows that the majority wish to have a closed shop. They think that it is all right to accept the wishes of the majority in one instance, but not in another. They should make up their minds about what they wish to do. If one aim of an employment Bill is to improve industrial relations, the Secretary of State should—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) said—give full consideration to the amendment that has been put forward in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Clause 6 will lead not to better industrial relations but to acrimony on the shop floor. If the Secretary of State is true to himself and to his softly-softly approach, he will go along with the idea that those who are genuinely religious can be accommodated on the shop floor. He will agree that there is no need to

      541
      write such provisions as these into the letter of the law.
      Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has pointed out the extraordinary way in which Opposition Members are able to forget their pronouncements on almost every other topic. It is tempting to follow my hon. Friend down that road but I do not wish to detain the House.
      The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) spoke with measured contempt about minorities. If he were to hear from a Conservative Member about a minority of sexual deviants, criminals or social security scroungers, he and his hon. Friends—who listened so complacently to his remarks—would be on their feet and foaming at the mouth in a way that is only too familiar to my hon. Friends. I am amazed that they cannot grasp the fact that one cannot pick and choose the freedoms to be allowed in a free society.
      Mr. Park: I had not wished to give the impression—if I did so, I regret it—that I was contemptuous of minorities. That is far from the truth. I was trying to convey the point that there was no need for the provision because those with genuine religious conviction could be catered for by those who knew that they held such beliefs.
      Mr. Mellor: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall return to the question of religion later, as I had intended. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) properly put the view, strongly held by some on the shop floor, that there is bitter resentment about those who will not join trade unions. I accept that. However, should the law pander to that resentment any more than to the resentment that many people feel about " easy-riders? " There are many " easy-riders " in almost every aspect of human affairs. However, is not the price of a free society the freedom of some to opt out? Is not the price that we have to pay the freedom of some to refuse to join their union and yet to take all the advantages that that membership confers? Once one starts to breach that type of freedom, one is on a slippery slope.
      The drafting of new clause 6 is a consequence of the narrowness of clause 58 of the Employment Protection Act. It allows an exemption only on the narrow
      542
      ground that the employee genuinely objects because of his religious beliefs. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) is not in the Chamberer, because he seems to believe so strongly in the class bias of judges. It is interesting that the courts have given a restrictive definition of that phrase. It affects those who seek to argue that they have a proper ground for objecting to membership of a trade union. A court will not accept the individual's perception of his religious belief. It will invite the individual to say which religion he subscribes to, and it will then consider whether that religious group prohibits trade union membership. In a free society, why should that be the only reason for not compelling someone to join a union? I can think of no logical argument to support that provision.
      I welcome two aspects of clause 6. It gets away from the belief that religion is the be-all and end-all of the issue. The grounds of objection have been widened to include conscience not restricted by religion, " or other deeply-held personal conviction ". Indeed, it goes further and deals with the question whether the test should be subjective or objective. Are we concerned with the passionate, if misguided and mistaken belief of the individual, or are we concerned with whether that belief is an objective ground and a reasonable basis for saying that one will not be a member?
      I disagree in one respect with the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. By injecting the word " reasonable " an objective test will once again be imposed on an issue that I believe should he purely subjective. There are no doubt other objections to that word and I apprehend that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will refer to them and to the difficulties which judges may experience. I am happy to support the proposal affecting subsection (2) because it will allow an individual to make up his mind.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. John Evans: It is interesting to hear Conservative barristers-at-law going through the question of the rights of individuals. Will the hon. Member concede that particularly in industrial relations, where I accept that the rights of the individual are important, the rights

      543
      of the majority are equally important? Do they not have a right to refuse to work with any individual who is not prepared to join their organisation?
      Mr. Mellor: I do not think that that is the point that we are dealing with. The question that concerns us is the basis on which a man's employment can be terminated. My right hon. and hon. Friends have dealt with that in the provisions that they have laid down for payment of compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said so effectively, it is extraordinary that thieves and people of that sort can walk off a job with compensation from an industrial tribunal, but someone whose only crime was that he did not join a trade union must leave a job that he may have held for decades empty handed. Also, the hon. Member must agree that we are all responsible for the legal consequences of our actions. If the work force refuses to work with a particular individual, there can be no objection to its union's paying, and not the employer, at the end of the day when the matter comes to the tribunal.
      Mr. Richard Page: Is it not a fact that person joins a company for employment and not to become a trade union member?
      Mr. Mellor: Yes, that is absolutely right. As someone who has two grandparents who are members of the National Union of Railwaymen, I find it most distasteful that the trade unions should pursue this wretched vendetta against individuals. When they say that these people form a tiny minority, does that not emphasise just how wretched their vendetta is? That is why I support my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Mr. David Stoddart: Some Conservative Members are chameleons. One day they talk about minorities not being allowed to persuade the majority to take industrial action, and the following day they say that minorities should be able to go against the view of the majority. That is most peculiar. Under this Bill it will require 80 per cent. of the employees to decide that there should be a closed shop. Clearly the remaining 20 per cent—if 20 per cent. vote against it—will be a minority. I cannot understand
      544
      why the Conservatives change their minds from day to day.
      Many Conservative Members and some Labour Members belong to clubs, and those clubs lay down rules, perhaps by a 50 per cent., two-thirds or 80 per cent. majority. If members will not obey the rules they are expelled from the club without compensation. Coming nearer to home, if an hon. Member refuses to obey the rules which have been laid down by a simple majority, he will be excluded for as long as he is named and he will lose his salary. There is a precedent for people having to obey the rules of the majority, and that is what happens with the closed shop.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Rubbish.
      Mr. Stoddart: It is not rubbish; it is absolutely true. In a closed shop the majority have decided how they wish to conduct their affairs vis-a-vis their employers in their place of work.
      Mr. Lawrence: If an hon. Member does not obey the rules of the House, he will still be a Member of Parliament; he is not expelled.
      Mr. Stoddart: I have no doubt that you would be able to correct the hon. Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As long as an hon. Member refuses to obey the rules of the House and continues to be named by the Speaker, he is excluded from the premises and does not receive a salary. If the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) wants to prove it he might try to get himself named. He might make more money on television to start with, but that would not go on for long.
      I have been in a trade union all my life. I have negotiated at local, regional and national level. I know well that the people who refuse to belong to a trade union—and I worked in an industry where there was not a closed shop—are not backward in coming forward for the conditions of service and the rates of pay that have been negotiated for them. My guess is that in any situation where the qualification for receiving a negotiated increase in wages or improved conditions of service is that a person should be a member of the negotiating trade union the secretary of that union would be killed in the rush to join.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Member says that it is morally reprehensible for people to derive benefits from negotiations and not to join the union. Is it not the essence of democracy that people should be free to choose, and to choose between the less worthy as well as the worthy? Is not the choice for them?
      Mr. Stoddart: That may well be. In all societies where there are rules laid down by the majority there are penalties for the minority who will not obey the rules. Take the case of the rules we make in this House by way of legislation. The penalties can be very severe. For example, we say that a person must have a driving licence. Perhaps a minority do not think that they need to have a driving licence, but because we believe that we have a majority in the country, and certainly a majority in this House, we have laid it down that they must have one and there is a penalty if they do not.
      The same situation applies in the closed shop. There is a penalty which is agreed, not only by employees, but by employers as well.
      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Perhaps the hon. Member could help me. I attended the inquiry which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hen-don, North (Mr. Gorst) when Mr. Arthur Scargill was answering questions. Mr. Scargill made it quite clear that he regarded it as a matter of personal conscience that he had the right to break and stand up against what he considered to be an unjust law. He felt that that was right in a democracy. When another of my hon. Friends referred to the deeply-held personal convictions of people who did not wish to join a closed shop, Mr. Scargill said that he did not know what " deeply-held personal convictions " meant. He was well aware what it meant when he was to take a decision on whether to obey a law of Parliament, yet he seemed unclear about its meaning when another individual wanted to disregard his rules. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to comment on that.
      Mr. Stoddart: I shall not answer for Arthur Scargill. He must answer for himself. I was explaining that rules are made. There is a penalty for not obeying those rules. That applies in the closed shop as it does in many other situations.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to dwell on the example, for instance, of lawyers, barristers and solicitors? A Birmingham barrister recently appeared before a disciplinary hearing. If the hearing had gone against him, he would have been disciplined and lost his livelihood. Does not my hon. Friend think it interesting that lawyers should be sitting comfortably in the Chamber, organising the tightest and most lucrative closed shop in the world while pontificating about workers trying to organise themselves to obtain decent working conditions that do not match up to one-tenth of the income of some parasitic lawyers?
      Mr. Stoddart: I was coming to that. It is a well-known fact that one of the tightest closed shops exists within the legal profession.
      Mr. Mellor Mr. Mellor rose——
      Mr. Stoddart: I cannot give way. Time is getting on, and other hon. Members wish to speak. I have given way a good deal. I think I should proceed to conclude my speech.
      The fact is that the legal profession operates a closed shop. If a lawyer will not belong to the requisite professional association, he can lose his livelihood.
      Mr. Mellor Mr. Mellor rose——
      Mr. Stoddart: I have said that I shall not give way. I cannot see why Conservative Members will not recognise the similarity of the situation. Chameleonlike, they support the one and oppose the other. The closed shop is recognised by employers and employees and trade unions alike to be an efficient way of conducting negotiations within a given situation. In my experience, employers are most happy when they know those with whom they are negotiating and know that they speak on behalf of all, or at least a great majority of employees. That is important both from the employer's and the employee's point of view. It is efficient. The very fact that many employers encourage the closed shop makes that point for itself.
      Mr. Peter Snape Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)rose——
      Mr. Stoddart: I have said that I shall not give way. It would be unfair if I

      547
      were to give way to one of my hon. Friends. I want to show the House that I am a fair man. On that note, I conclude my remarks.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I am provoked to do so by the deliberately misleading remarks of Conservative Members who, I suspect, wish to misrepresent the Opposition's position. Echoing the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I recall saying yesterday that there was nothing more nauseating or absurd in this House than the spectacle of lawyers denouncing the closed shop.
      Mr. Mellor Mr. Mellor rose——
      Mr. Walker: I should be allowed at least to complete my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) fulminates in a hysterical denunciation of the denial of compensation for someone dismissed for refusing to belong to a trade union. It strikes me as extraordinary that 10 years ago Conservative Members were not in the least interested in providing compensation for unfair dismissal. It was Barbara Castle who laid the basis for statutory provision for unfair dismissal. There were no expressions of concern from Conservative Members about providing compensation for people unfairly dismissed.
      7.45 pm
      I hope that I may be forgiven for echoing words that I have used in Standing Committees. I used them deliberately. They indicate that the Opposition have a different approach from that attributed to us by Conservative Members in relation to this clause. I do not regard the closed shop as an article of faith within the trade union movement. I understand the reasons why workers seek what arc now called " union membership agreements ". I use that phrase carefully and deliberately. There is a great deal of difference. The concept of the union membership agreement was intended to be much wider than that usually associated with the idea of a closed shop.
      The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 was deliberately framed in a way that enabled union membership agreements to be applied with flexibility and tolerance. As the responsible
      548
      Minister, often from the Government Dispatch Box, I appealed for closed shops and union membership agreements to be practised in a flexible and tolerant way. I can recall being especially critical on at least one occasion of a union membership agreement that I felt had not been applied in the flexible and tolerant way that I had hoped.
      I am the first to recognise—perhaps in a way that is not recognised by Conservative Members—that we are dealing with a difficult and sensitive matter. Much though some of the behaviour seen in the pursuant and practice of union membership agreements is to be regretted, I doubt whether changes in behaviour can be brought about by altering or tinkering with the law. I have referred previously to the wise views of Lord Blakenham when, as John Hare, Minister of Labour, he made the point in 1961 that Acts of Parliament seldom make men good. It is a fallacy to believe that human behaviour can be changed merely by altering the law.
      Mr. Gorst: I have always assumed that the right hon. Gentleman is a good international Socialist as well as a British Socialist. I have never understood why closed shops, or union membership agreements, that are not permitted in Europe are nevertheless supported by the right hon. Gentleman and his party in this country.
      Mr. Walker: I referred in Standing Committee to the experience of other countries. The hon. Gentleman may have been absent then. If so, he can read the record. A submission of the British Government to the European Commission of Human Rights indicated that in a number of countries where in theory, at least, the closed shop is prohibited by law, it is practised with full vigour. The example is quoted of the United States.
      I recall visiting a typical engineering factory in the United States 18 months ago. I asked the managing director what proportion of his work force was unionised. He replied that all had to be members of the UAW. He added: " That is a goddam condition of employment"—if Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will forgive the expression. I said "Do you mean that you operate a closed

      549
      shop?", and he replied " I do not know what you call it, but every guy who works here has to be in the UAW ". I said " Suppose a guy drops out of the UAW?", and he said " He drops out of employment here because it is a condition of employment and he would be in breach of that". Yet it is said that the closed shop is prohibited in the United States.
      I have visited factories in Western Europe where the closed shop is supposed to be prohibited, but where there are de facto closed shops. Even when closed shops were prohibited by the 1971 Industrial Relations Act they flourished as never before, with the connivance of some employers, many of whom see great benefit in a closed shop.
      That is not my purpose in addressing the House. My purpose is to recognise the difficulties. One must recognise the compelling strength of the arguments about the sense of solidarity, the objections to the free-rider and the group conscience of workers, which is demonstrated nowhere more than in the mining industry. I shall not mention the national trade union official's name in the coal mining industry who, when asked his view of the closed shop, said " Closed shop? I am not bothered one way or t'other. But I can tell you this. No one will go down the pit without an NUM card." Miners whose lives are at risk underground depend on the solidarity of their colleagues. They will not work with men who are not coal miners.
      It is sometimes said that people flagrantly defy the law. I recall the wise words of the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) who, in a letter to The Times on 12 February—I remember the date because it is my wife's birthday—said that to be effective the law must have the tacit acceptance of those to whom it applies. A few days later the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) said something similar in an article in The Times.
      As I said in Committee, if two-eyed people passed a law which discriminated against one-eyed people, who could blame the one-eyed if they made a rude Chur-chillian gesture to the law? That is what it boils down to. I am talking about the way in which we deal with these difficult problems and whether we pass laws in the belief that they will somehow solve
      550
      the problems. I do not believe that they will. We must keep chipping away, trying to persuade people and applying common sense. In Committee I quoted views that had been sent to the Secretary of State by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. That association said that the Government were approaching the problem in the wrong way and that they should act with more rigour.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) was asked how he would defend the right to be exempt on religious grounds and not on the ground of " deeply-held personal conviction ". The question was whether an atheist or agnostic had the right to be exempt, and whether such a person did not have as strong a conviction as a Jehovah's Witness or a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Religious belief can be tested against some external standards. One can ask an applicant " What sect do you adhere to and how long have you been a member? ", but conscience is unrelated to religious conviction. One can hold a deep conviction for many reasons. One must look into the heart and mind of an individual. How can an industrial tribunal examine what is in a person's heart and mind?
      That was the theme of the document submitted by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. It said:
      " The fundamental problem with conscience is that it is personal and not always entirely rational. This presents real difficulties in determining borderline cases. Although the onus will be upon the employee to demonstrate conscientious objections "—
      I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether that it is right and whether the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate consciencious objection—
      " if he makes a statement under oath that he has such an objection, it will presumably be up to either members of the tribunal or to the employer to question this statement.
      " This will introduce a virtually unknown element into legal proceedings. The entire thrust of English law has been to avoid questioning a man's beliefs. Even in the times of religious persecution the law was concerned with action, not thoughts."
      I shall quote from another document to which I did not refer in Committee, in spite of the temptation to do so. My argument is that we should deal with the difficulties and problems not by passing laws but by applying the common sense of ordinary people who are represented by working-class organisations. In 1977 the

      551
      General Synod of the Church of England discussed this matter. I see that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is sneering. Does he wish to intervene and discredit the Church of England?
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: No.
      Mr. Walker: I hope that the House will accept that by using selective quotations I am not misrepresenting the Synod and its document. I am trying to be fair. I wish to show that it shares the approach that I have expressed to the House. The document states:
      " In relation to closed shops in particular, we have made the point that they can only be introduced by negotiated agreement, that the parties concerned may include exemption clauses with reference to any characteristics or circumstances whatsoever and that this flexible provision could allow for objection on grounds other than religious belief, itself provided for in the Act."
      In other words, the Synod says that the Act enables union membership agreements to be drafted in such a way as to cater for, and make allowance for, the difficulties to which we have referred.
      The statement continues:
      " With the safeguards for individuals described above, we judge that closed shops may be legitimately negotiated in our society … Indeed the churches encourage positive participation in responsible social organisations. But where such exclusive groups do exist, the mainstream Christian position should be to seek to ensure that their views are respected. We therefore welcome the exemption clause present in the 1976 Act. The fact that broader tolerance is left to the parties themselves as they establish Union Membership Agreements, is, in our view, also to be approved. It places the emphasis on the parties themselves; it places responsibility where it belongs; and it allows a flexibility in arrangement that can best suit local circumstances. We urge that individual Agreements deal adequately with the local situation in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance."
      The Synod, in better and more eloquent language than I can employ, reflects the view that I put to the Committee and the House. It says:
      " It is the argument of this Paper that strong democratic institutions including trade unions, which deal tolerantly with dissenting minorities, and whose power is checked by adequate social mechanisms to ensure this tolerance"
      [Interruption]—I keep hearing gibes, sneering and noises from the Government Benches.
      Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. It is that the question would not arise if closed shops were operated responsibly by responsible unions.
      8 pm
      Mr. Walker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to or following what I have been saying. This document points out that closed shops have been in existence for many years. In fact, there has been no significant change in the law relating to the closed shop over the whole period of existence of the trade union movement.
      The Church of England document which I am quoting argues exactly the case that I put to the House, that much the most sensible way to deal with the difficulties that undeniably arise is for the parties to the agreement themselves to make such arrangements as will enable a proper response to be made to those difficulties. I quote again:
      " We urge that individual Agreements deal adequately with the local situation in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance ",
      and the conclusion is that
      " strong democratic institutions, including trade unions, which deal tolerantly with dissenting minorities, and whose power is checked by adequate social mechanisms to ensure this tolerance, are the best means of enhancing the sort of free and responsible society which we all so earnestly desire."
      I believe that the essentially voluntary stance, which is supported by the Church of England, is a wiser course than the legalistic approach adopted by the Government.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: Like the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), I had not intended to take part in this debate, and my speech will be short. I intervene principally because I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify for me what these amendments mean, even if he intends to advise the House to reject them.
      All the arguments that I have heard this evening from the official Opposition seem in some way to indicate that if the amendments were passed the closed shop would become illegal. However, as I understand them, all that the amendments do is broaden the grounds on which one could claim compensation if one lost one's job as a consequence of a closed shop, and in no way would they do away with the

      553
      closed shop principle or make the closed shop illegal.
      My views on the closed shop are well known. In Committee I moved an amendment to make the closed shop illegal, and I shall later tonight support an amendment with the object of at least trying to ensure that closed shop agreements are subjected to some sort of machinery to test the desire of employees to support them. However, whether that amendment be carried or not, it seems to me that the amendment now before us does no more than give people the opportunity on a wider basis than under the present law or under the clause as drafted to claim for unfair dismissal if they are dismissed as a consequence of a closed shop and if they refuse to join a union in that situation.
      I want the Minister to make the position clear to me, because all the argument that I have heard tonight about the closed shop, about free-riders and the rest seems not to apply at this stage. We may go into those arguments later, but I should not have thought that the present amendment was the one on which to be defending the principle of the closed shop, since it would not make the closed shop illegal.
      Mr. Mayhew: Not for the first time, I welcome what has been said by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), because although this has been an extremely interesting, valuable and wide-ranging debate, it is not about the principle of whether there should or should not be a closed shop as a legitimate institution under our industrial relations law. Many of my hon. Friends have acknowledge that the closed shop, distasteful though it may be and is to myself and, I believe, to virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] yes, on the most basic of libertarian grounds is something which it would be folly to try to legislate away. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) began his speech with that acknowledgement.
      The hon. Member for Rochdale was absolutely right to say that amendment No. 113, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, would simply widen over and above what the clause at present provides the basis upon which
      554
      somebody could claim, and be entitled to compensation for, unfair dismissal if he were sacked for not being a member of the specified trade union where there was a closed shop agreement in existence.
      It may help if I begin by saying a word or two about the structure of the clause, which deals with the closed shop and its position in our law at present, just setting the framework, moving on thereafter to explain why the amendments moved and spoken to by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) are not acceptable, in the Government's view, and also why—although it is a very different type of amendment—we do not feel able to advise the House to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
      We are talking here about section 58 of the 1978 Act. The scheme of that section—subsection (3) is the one that matters—is to make it unfair to dismiss someone because of trade union membership or activities but to make it fair to dismiss for not being a union member where a union membership, as defined, is in force. The only exception applies where the employee genuinely objects on grounds of religious belief to being a member of any trade union whatsoever. In these circumstances, it is unfair to dismiss him for non-membership of the union.
      The scheme of clause 6 is to enlarge the circumstances in which, where a closed shop agreement is in force, it shall be unfair to dismiss someone for non-membership of the specified union. The clause achieves that purpose by adding a new subsection. In fact, there are three new subsections, but we are dealing with only one at the moment, namely, new subsection (3A), which provides what one might call an expanded conscience clause.
      Therefore, the question for our concern in this debate is not whether there ought to be provision for a closed shop agreement which, in practical terms, leads to the consequence that if somebody is sacked for not being a member of the trade union, then, if there is a closed shop agreement in existence, he shall not be entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal. There are deeply held views on either side of the House about that, but it is not the subject of the present debate. We are talking simply about

      555
      whether there ought to be any let-out—whether, in other words, the right to compensation for unfair dismissal for somebody who has been sacked for not joining a union should be restored to him in any circumstances at all.
      The Employment Protection Act 1978 has, as it were, sold the pass to those who believe that there should be no exemption at all and that the will of the majority should always prevail lest free riders should get the benefits that union negotiations provide without paying the subscription.
      That pass has been sold because section 58 of the 1978 Act says that if someone has religious grounds for not wanting to join the union he is entitled to compensation if he is sacked for not joining it. Therefore, the question is not one of principle at this point. It is one of practicality or of justice. Is that exemption wide enough?
      Once one has accepted, as the previous Government accepted, that a subjective test ought to be applied—Has this person got a religious belief which makes it wrong, in his view, for him to join a union?—it seems to me that one has then to ask whether that is sufficiently wide. Is it the only subjective test which ought to be applied if we are to have a just law?
      The view which the Government have taken—we have taken it for a very long time—is that it cannot be said that the only people with, so to say, conscientious objections which ought to be respected in this context are those with religious objections. That cannot be right. It cannot be right to say that the only people with a principled objection are those who base their objection upon religion. It cannot be said that the only people who have consciences are those who believe in one religion or another. I do not believe that I should find many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who would say that, and I am sure that I should not find any on the Benches behind me.
      Therefore, it seems to us that once the pass has been sold, or, as I would choose more positively to put it, once the principle has been established that there ought to be provision for compensation for somebody who declines to join a union
      556
      notwithstanding that there is a closed shop agreement in force, one must see how it can best be done.
      The debate on that aspect has been interesting. Amendments have been put forward by the hon. Member for Newton, which dealt principally with the question of verbal proof, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham who says that reasonable grounds are sufficient. The clause states that religious objection should be expanded and that it should henceforward read:
      " On grounds of conscience or other deeply-held personal conviction."
      We have thought a great deal about that, and it has taken us longer to reach a final conclusion on that than on almost any other feature of the Bill. It is an extremely difficult matter. We have considered the question of reasonable grounds for a long time, not least because that was the formula that the 1974 Act first relied upon. I hope, since there has been substantial quotation of what was said in Committee, that I will be forgiven for mentioning two or three points that I made then, not least because it will help me to finish my speech more quickly.
      The principles on which we worked were that the objections
      " certainly ought not to extend to what is trivial or transient, insubstantial or of a passing character."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 February 1980, c. 790.]
      Therefore, the objection must be an objection of principle and not simply that a person does not like the area or district convener or that he does not like the newly increased subscription.
      Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in Committee he said that a politically, deeply-held conviction would not come within the terms of a transient conviction?
      Mr. Mayhew: I do not propose to repeat everything that I said in Committee, but I am prepared to repeat that I said that the political purpose of a trade union would, in certain circumstances, be accepted by a tribunal as a deeply-held personal conviction—but not necessarily. It must always be borne in mind that it is for the tribunal—based upon the advice of the TUC or CBI nominee or the independent chairman—to decide, in relation to the facts of each case whether the test set down by Parliament has been

      557
      established. We believe that the objections should not be transient, insubstantial or passing in character.
      The centre of our philosophy on this clause is the notion that the individual objection must always be based on personal conviction—a conviction that is deeply felt rather than one that is toyed with, or picked up or experimental. That bears upon the point made about the time for which a person must have held his conviction. No one can say that a week is too little, or that a fortnight is enough. It is for the tribunal to determine whether the test is met. Not all deeply-held convictions are religious in nature, but I have already dealt with that point.
      It might be argued that an objection on the grounds that the policy of the union would involve a member in conflict with the occupational, professional, vocational or even statutory duty binding upon him—the hon. Member for Rochdale was concerned about that in Committee—is not an objection of conscience. Yet that sort of objection should qualify for exemption. Therefore, in order to defeat that possible suggestion, conscience has to be inserted into the clause. In order to avoid uncertainty, we have added the words:
      " or other deeply-held personal conviction."
      8.15 pm
      I understand those who say that that is imprecise. We try to be precise in the language that we use in legislation, although we generally seem to fail. Where relatively simple words are used, it is generally a mistake to use less simple words to explain them. There must be faith in the tribunals which both Labour and Conservative Governments have set up, and which we support. We believe that this is one test or set of criteria that gives rise to much anxiety in the abstract, but when one is called upon to apply it in the face of individual sets of facts it does not give rise to a great deal of difficulty. That is what is likely to occur in this case.
      The amendments are grouped, but they affect different concerns. The Opposition amendments are varying in character. I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 53, 49 and 54. Taken together amendments Nos. 53 and 49, put forward by the hon. Member for Newton, seek not only to provide that the employee must prove his objections before his plea is upheld,
      558
      but that he is entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal, but that his dismissal shall be regarded as fair unless he
      " can prove to the tribunal that he "
      genuinely objects.
      That cannot have been intended, and it must be a drafting error. The guts of the amendments are that the employee must prove that which he relies upon. That is something that the employee has to do under the clause as it stands. The essence of the matter is that an employee can say that he knows that there is a closed shop agreement, but that he has a deeply-held conviction or ground of conscience which leads him not to join the union. No one can say whether he has such a conviction. He is capable of giving the best evidence, and he must do so. Therefore, there is no ground for this group of amendments. The burden of proof is, and always has to be. upon the claimant in those circumstances. I hope that the hon. Member for Newton will accept that assurance.
      We discussed in Committee the form that the conscience clause should take, and I do not think that I need to say more now. The essential point is that the burden of proof is upon the complainant, and in our view there must be a much wider statement of the exemption than the words " religious grounds " provide.
      I turn now to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham in support of reasonable grounds. I am always flattered when an hon. Member takes the trouble to look at a speech that I have made, but there are occasions when I wish that that were not done. My hon. Friend quoted from a speech that I made in 1975. We were discussing the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, which was amending the 1974 Bill so as to take out the saving clause covering " any reasonable grounds ". It was a case of all or nothing. I could hardly be expected to go along with the Government's removal of " any reasonable ground " when there was no alternative. I said then that it was far better to have " reasonable ground " as the basis for an exemption than to have nothing. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's point. However, he stopped at a significant point. He said, when quoting from my speech:
      " the Bill removes the saving clause which protects a worker who genuinely objects on any reasonable grounds to joining that union,"

      559
      But my hon. Friend stopped at a comma. I went on to say:
      " and we now know from Ferrybridge that there exist in real life workers who say ' We are not against joining any trade union. We are against joining or remaining in this one.' Alas, we also know what can happen to them if they are dismissed."—[Official Report, 9 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 342.]
      The significance of Ferrybridge, in the context of my hon. Friend's amendment, is that the tribunal had to apply the test whether those concerned had reasonable grounds for not wishing to join the relevant union. The tribunal's reasons for giving that judgment have importance and relevance to the debate because, in paragraph 62, it said:
      " The next and extremely difficult problem is as to what constitutes an objection on any reasonable grounds. There is no guidance whatsoever from Parliament on what constitutes such grounds, and we all three strongly resent being given the task of deciding this question. It is contrary to the conventions of the constitution of this country, as I understand them, for a judicial body to have to decide such a question which carries political and controversial implications. Parliament should say what are reasonable grounds—for example, religion, conscience or any other specified reason—and then a tribunal, after hearing evidence, can make their findings of fact and say whether the statutory grounds exist. Such findings would not create any doubt as to the impartiality of the tribunal who are merely applying tests laid down by the legislature."
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: If this omission is troubling my hon. and learned Friend, would he agree that under clause 2, which gives the Minister power to issue codes of practice, the contents of the codes of practice could include guidance on precisely this point?
      Mr. Mayhew: That is right. We intend that a code of practice shall give guidance on what shall be regarded as reasonable in relation to unreasonable expulsion or exclusion from a union.
      We are dealing with a much wider area. We are dealing with the grounds upon which somebody may not wish to belong to a trade union. It is important that the tribunal, which found for the Ferrybridge six, thought it right to set out the grounds for what it described as its resentment at being left without any steer. I agree that we could, through a code of practice, give a steer. However, the important point is that the concept of
      560
      reasonable grounds imports an objective test into something that is essentially subjective, because we are talking about something that is generally based upon conscience.
      Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I am following the Under-Secretary's line of argument very carefully. Would he use the same approach to a lawyer or to a doctor who refused to join his professional organisation?
      Mr. Mayhew: I would use it in relation to any closed shop. I do not want to take up the time of the House on an irrelevance, but so many hon. Members have referred to the Bar that I suppose they regard it as relevant. Curiously, I noticed that in the speech that I made in 1975 I made the point that, although I belong to my trade union—the General Council of the Bar—I do not have to do so. I can practice at the Bar if I do not belong to the General Council of the Bar. Indeed, I believe that quite a proportion of people do not belong to it.
      What hon. Members are confusing is that, in order to practice at the Bar I had to pass an examination—which, happily, was of a much lower standard than it is nowadays—but that is for the protection of the public. They are also confusing the fact that, if I put a foot wrong, I can be disciplined by the disciplinary procedures of the Bar, just as chemists, doctors and dentists can be disciplined by their organisations, and I can be sued for negligence. Lest it be said that the internal disciplinary procedures make it a closed shop, I should point out that there is always a right of appeal to the judges. [Interruption.] There are many instances where an appeal to the judges produces a more just result than applies with disciplinary proceedings in many trade unions and other bodies. I do not mind what the truth of the matter might be one way or the other, but—and I correct the record for the sake of accuracy—the Bar does not constitute a closed shop.
      We are confronted with making a difficult and serious decision. We recognise not only that the closed shop should continue as a lawful institution in our statute law, but that there has to be some conscience clause and that it must be adequately wide. It is not wide enough in the 1978 Act, and the purpose

      561
      of clause 6 is to enlarge and widen it. We must give a sufficiently clear guideline to the tribunals which will try and determine these cases.
      I ask my hon. Friends to accept that the phrase " reasonable grounds ", about which we thought quite a lot, is not sufficiently precise. That is exactly what the tribunal in the Ferrybridge case said. Therefore, acknowledging how difficult a decision this is and how impossible it is to be absolutely sure that we have it right, I invite my hon. Friends to say that, on balance, the formula in clause 6 is the best one and, accordingly, to reject the amendments and support the clause.
      Mr. John Evans: I shall be brief as I recognise that the House wants to come to a decision on this amendment.
      At the outset of my remarks, I said that in Committee we learnt that whenever the Under-Secretary of State had a weak case he tended to expand the length of his speech in direct proportion to the weakness of his argument. He has done that again tonight. He has not answered any of the questions that were posed in the debate.
      I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who made excellent speeches and whose views I share—like me, they are sponsored Members—will not expect me to repeat the points that they made. But it is interesting that, as in Committee, the Under-Secretary refused to touch with a barge pole what was involved in a " deeply-held personal conviction ". As he said in Committee, it will be left to the tribunals to evaluate what that means. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with the type of people who would be appointed to the tribunals and what aid they would need to arrive at a conclusion as to what a " deeply-held personal conviction " was.
      Listening to the extravagant and vivid language used by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), I got the impression that he would not be coming into the Lobby with us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) correctly said, it is a bit much that we have to listen to barristers and lawyers pontificating at length about industrial
      562
      relations and the freedom of the individual. It is significant also that they never tried to deal with the problem of the rights of the majority, or to understand the realities that are involved in a closed shop system. They do not understand why groups of workers want to form a closed shop. Nor did the Government deal with the free-loaders.
      A significant feature of the debate tonight is that none of the Conservative Members with some knowledge of industrial relations and industry has attempted to participate in the debate. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), who proposed a solution in Committee—he suggested that a levy should be imposed upon those who opted out of the trade union, which should then be paid to a charity—also did not participate in the debate. At least in Committee he recognised the force of the arguments of those who were deeply concerned about these matters. Yet he has not put forward his argument tonight. Of course, he received no support in Committee from his colleagues or from the Secretary of State.
      8.30 pm
      As is usual when the Minister has a weak case, tonight he put up an Aunt Sally simply to knock it down. No one had raised the Aunt Sally of the religious clauses. We made it perfectly clear that we accepted, and have always accepted, the principle that those who hold deeply-felt religious convictions need not participate in trade union activities. That has never been a difficulty in the trade union movement. It is something that has always been encompassed. The Minister spent more time putting up the Aunt Sally and knocking it down than he spent in dealing with the issues before the House.
      I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster in his quite remarkable speech. He made it clear that these are complex and difficult issues. They must be settled by human beings, one in consultation with another. To impose laws of this nature will only cause anarchy, industrial chaos and further industrial disputes. The Secretary of State, during the passage of the Bill, has suggested that he is attempting to improve industrial relations. This clause and other clauses in the Bill will harm and damage industrial relations. I

      563
      ask my hon. Friends to divide the House and support amendment No. 53 in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 304.

      Division No. 263]

      AYES

      [8.31 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Newens, Stanley

      Adams, Allen

      George, Bruce

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Allaun, Frank

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ogden, Eric

      Anderson, Donald

      Ginsburg, David

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Golding, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Gourlay, Harry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Graham, Ted

      Palmer, Arthur

      Ashton, Joe

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Park, George

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Parker, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Parry, Robert

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Race, Reg

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Haynes, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Richardson, Jo

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Home Robertson, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Homewood, William

      Robertson, George

      Buchan, Norman

      Hooley, Frank

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Horam, John

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Campbell, Ian

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

      Rooker, J. W.

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Huckfield, Les

      Roper, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Sever, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Cartwright, John

      Janner, Hon Greville

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

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Silverman, Julius

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kerr, Russell

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Kinnock, Neil

      Soley, Clive

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Crowther, J. S.

      Lamond, James

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cryer, Bob

      Leighton, Ronald

      Stallard, A. W.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Stoddart, David

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Strang, Gavin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Straw, Jack

      Davidson, Arthur

      Litherland, Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Deakins, Eric

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Dempsey, James

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Tilley, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McElhone, Frank

      Torney, Tom

      Dixon, Donald

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Dobson, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dormand, Jack

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Douglas, Dick

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watkins, David

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McMahon, Andrew

      Wellbeloved, James

      Dubs, Alfred

      McNally, Thomas

      Welsh, Michael

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      McNamara, Kevin

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Dunnett, Jack

      McWilliam, John

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Marks, Kenneth

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Eadie, Alex

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

      Whitlock, William

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      English, Michael

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

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Maxton, John

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Meacher, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Ewing, Harry

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Woodall, Alec

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Field, Frank

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wright, Sheila

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)

      Ford, Ben

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Forrester, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Foster, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Mr. James Tinn.

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Morton, George

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Adley, Robert

      Fell, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Major, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Marland, Paul

      Alison, Michael

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Marlow, Tony

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Ancram, Michael

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Arnold, Tom

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mather, Carol

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Forman, Nigel

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Fox, Marcus

      Mawby, Ray

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Freud, Clement

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fry, Peter

      Mellor, David

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Best, Keith

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moate, Roger

      Blackburn, John

      Gorst, John

      Molyneaux, James

      Blaker, Peter

      Gow, Ian

      Monro, Hector

      Body, Richard

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gray, Hamish

      Moore, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Greenway, Harry

      Morgan, Geraint

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Bradford, Rev R.

      Grist, Ian

      Murphy, Christopher

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grylls, Michael

      Myles, David

      Bright, Graham

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Neale, Gerrard

      Brinton, Tim

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

      Needham, Richard

      Brittan, Leon

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Brotherton, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Normanton, Tom

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hawksley, Warren

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Budgen, Nick

      Heddle, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Henderson, Barry

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Burden, F. A.

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Butcher, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Penhaligon, David

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hooson, Tom

      Porter, George

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Hordern, Peter

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Channon, Paul

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Raison, Timothy

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Rathbone, Tim

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cockeram, Eric

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Cope, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Corrie, John

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Costain, A. P.

      Lamont, Norman

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lang, Ian

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Critchley, Julian

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Crouch, David

      Latham, Michael

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rossi, Hugh

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rost, Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lee, John

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Dover, Denshore

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Dunlop, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Dunn, Robert (Darttord)

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Durant, Tony

      Luce, Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      Eggar, Timothy

      MacGregor, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Elliott, Sir William

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Sims, Roger

      Eyre, Reginald

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Speed, Keith

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Speller Tony

      566

      567

      Spence John

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ward, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sproat, lain

      Thompson, Donald

      Watson, John

      Squire, Robin

      Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Thornton, Malcolm

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

      Stanley, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wheeler, John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Steen, Anthony

      Trippler, David

      Whitney, Raymond

      Stevens, Martin

      Trotter, Neville

      Wickenden, Keith

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stokes, John

      Waddington, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wakeham, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Tebbit, Norman

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant an

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Eric G. Varley: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 8, leave out lines 12 to 30.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 56, in page 8, line 18, leave out
      ' not less than 80 per cent. of those entitled to'
      and insert
      ' a simple majority of those voting '.
      No. 57, in page 8, line 25, after ' class' insert
      for which the union, or unions seek the agreement'.
      No. 58, in page 8, line 28, after ' conducted ', insert
      ' under the joint supervision of the applicant union or unions and the employer.'.
      Mr. Varley: In support of this amendment I adopt many of the arguments which were used in the previous debate, but I shall not inflict them again on the House. In Committee we were concerned about the provisions set out in subsection (3) and we tried to discover from the Secretary of State why he had set the limit at 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote. The main purpose of the amendment is to delete subsection (3) because if it came into operation it would be virtually impossible to arrange union membership agreements. It is arranged in such a way that I cannot think of any other section of society or organisation which would require 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote to vote in favour before any arrangement could come into operation.
      8.45 pm
      During our discussions in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham,
      568
      North-East (Mr. Leighton) asked from where the Secretary of State and the Government got the 80 per cent. figure. Was it plucked out of the air? Is there some rationale behind it? In reply, the Secretary of State said:
      " We have deliberately chosen a high figure of 80 per cent. to ensure that a new closed shop will be approved only where it is genuinely and positively wanted by a large majority of those who will be affected".—[Official Report. Standing Committee A, 4 March 1980; col. 892.]
      He did not say why it should be 80 per cent., 75 per cent., or even a simple majority. It is our judgment that if the figure of 80 per cent. is left in the Bill no new union membership agreements will come into operation. That is probably the Secretary of State's intention. If so, it would be better that he said it.
      Amendment No. 56 in effect says that if the Government were to go down the path of holding ballots to establish union membership agreements, at least they ought to rely on nothing more than
      " a simple majority of those voting ".
      I suspect that that is not acceptable to the Secretary of State, but it is good enough for most other organisations. It is certainly good enough for our electoral system. In fact, from time to time the Government claim that they have the wholehearted consent of the electorate in carrying through this and many other pieces of legislation. Yet only 35 or 40 per cent. of the electorate voted for them. Therefore, I do not know why the Government should want to inflict such a high figure on the trade unions. This debate will give the Secretary of State an opportunity to tell us again.
      I had intended to refer to the problem of the free-rider. However, having listened to the previous debate, I should like to emphasise the point that was made

      569
      by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham). He took the argument seriously in Committee and said that if someone had strong, conscientious, deeply-held convictions for not belonging to a trade union he should pay something to charity. That idea was rejected by the Government, and also by his hon. Friends, mostly lawyers, who spoke in the previous debate.
      I shall not take up much time because we are anxious to get on to the amendments to be moved by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). However, the Donovan Commission, to which we have referred throughout these debates, said of the closed shop:
      " In our view prohibition of the closed shop must be rejected. It is better to recognise that under proper safeguards a closed shop can serve a useful purpose and to devise alternative means of overcoming the disadvantages which accompany it. W have also borne in mind that throughout this report we advanced a number of proposals to assist trade unions to organise effectively and to reduce the incidence of strikes ".
      That is also the view of quite a number of responsible employers' organisations.
      The most recent information that we have about union membership agreements, if there is concern about whether they are operating properly, is contained in the article published in the Employment Gazette in November last year. It was compiled by Mr. Gennard, Mr. Dunn and Mr. Wright of the industrial relations department of the London School of Economics. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), who used to be Secretary of State for Employment, is muttering. I do not know whether he wants to intervene or to say something complimentary, either about the gentlemen I have just mentioned or about the industrial relations department of the London School of Economics. At least I think I shall carry the right hon. Gentleman with me in saying that the Employment Gazette is a responsible journal. I do not believe that irresponsible articles would be allowed to appear in it and I commend it to the right hon. Gentleman if he has not yet had the chance to look at it.
      The article is a responsible piece of research about the operation of the closed shop. The authors had this to say in summary:
      570
      " Negotiators have concluded increasingly sophisticated post-entry UMAs to define precisely the obligations and rights of workers whose union membership agreement exists as a condition of employment, and despite enormous variation in detail there appears to be a growing standardisation in the broad content matter which is only partly attributable to legal considerations. For example, where new closed shops have appeared, it has increasingly become the norm to exclude existing non-unionists from compulsion to join the union. Over 63 per cent. of the sample fall into this category. Moreover, procedures specially designed to handle difficulties arising from the operation of the UMA and often incorporating provisions for an independent arbitrator have become a regular, if seldom used feature."
      That summary should allay the fears of Conservative Members about how union membership agreements have operated. They have been used responsibly and proper provisions can be made for those who have religious or deeply-held convictions and who do not wish to belong to a trade union. Their position is negotiable.
      I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will say why he has set the figure so high. Perhaps he will tell us why he wishes to eliminate all closed shops and why he cannot accept amendment No. 56 if he wishes to go down this road.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has said, we are now to have a brief debate on these four amendments. That does not alter the fact that they are important and that the Government must answer them.
      The first of the amendments would wreck this part of the clause and would remove ballots altogether. The second amendment would make it a simple majority instead of 80 per cent. and I shall return to that issue. The third amendment would, as it were, broaden the class to which the ballot applied and the fourth amendment would deal with joint supervision.
      The main Opposition argument is that we do not need a ballot at all or that, if we do need one, we should have a simple majority and that the figure of 80 per cent. is far too high. On this point I said in Committee:
      " The view of the Government has always been that the introduction of a new closed shop marks such a substantial change in the terms and conditions of employment that it is right

      571
      that a very large percentage of those who will be covered by it vote in its favour. It is a very important step when a closed shop is brought in ".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 March 1980; c. 872.]
      I was challenged on the figure of 80 per cent. and I said that industrial experience was that a union was most unlikely to apply for a closed shop until it had between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. union membership. An employer is unlikely to agree to a closed shop—or to try to obtain a closed shop himself—and I put it in that light—unless there is that sort of membership. When such a substantial change is being made, it does not seem unreasonable that there should be a considerable majority.
      I do not know whether the requirement will have an effect on the number of new closed shops. I suspect that it will, because it will not be easy to achieve the required majority. If it is not possible to achieve it, I do not think that there should be a closed shop. If it can be achieved and if there is that majority of 80 per cent., I do not think it unreasonable that there should be a closed shop.
      We believe that it should be shown that it is the desire of a large majority of the work force involved to have a closed shop. If it can be shown that there is such a majority, we shall have much more settled industrial relations than if the proposal is bulldozed through with many people not having the right to make their views known in advance.
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield enlarged the issue. He referred to the article in the Employment Gazette. I do not have it with me, but I have read it. It refers to increasingly sophisticated arrangements for closed shops and the number of closed shops that are now based on sensible and reasonable arrangements—for example, existing members of the work force not being asked to join and wider conscience clauses.
      The right hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. He is saying that the majority of closed shops will not be affected by the Bill when it is enacted because certain matters will be taken into account in advance. If they are so taken into account, the legislation will not bite on them. If he accepts, as he does, that these are reasonable matters to include in
      572
      a closed shop agreement, he can have no real objection to the standards that we are seeking to lay down for closed shops.
      Mr. Gorst: May I support my right hon. Friend's argument? I have had the opportunity of reading some more recent research than that to which he has referred. Miss Helen Jackson and Dr. Charles Hanson have investigated more than three times as many agreements as those investigated by John Gennard. It appears that a considerable underestimate has been made by John Gennard, and that it is much more likely that there are twice as many written agreements in existence than one was led to suppose by the Gennard research.
      Mr. Prior: That is helpful of my hon. Friend. It substantiates the weight of public opinion and parliamentary opinion over the past few years—namely, that there should be reasonable grounds for exemption from the closed shop and that closed shop agreements should be drawn up that win the support of the work force. In so far as at present they do not do that and in so far as in the past few years, as a result of the 1975 and 1976 Acts, things have gone wrong, I believe that we all have a duty to seek to put matters right.
      The way in which we are now dealing with the closed shop is an approach that can be broadly supported by industry. I do not want to trespass on what I might say when debating the next amendment. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has said that research that supersedes the Gennard research indicates that there are twice as many written agreements in existence as we have been led to suppose. When we discuss the next amendment I think that my hon. Friend should be more content with the present position and should not try to follow a too legalistic route. I shall argue that with some strength when we turn our attention to the next group of amendments.
      We have the balance reasonably right. I do not believe that the 80 per cent. requirement is too high for such a great change.
      Amendment No. 57 is unnecessary. A closed shop agreement cannot be made unless discussion has taken place between the parties. If the parties cannot agree, no closed shop will be formed. A closed

      573
      shop can therefore be formed only by agreement of those parties.
      9 pm
      Amendment No. 58 calls for joint supervision. This is probably for a code of practice. However, I would have thought that as this is an important ballot, and as we wish to get more ballots in operation, it would be wise to use an outside body to carry out the ballot and for it to be supervised by the Electoral Reform Society or by some other body of that nature. That certainly means that the ballot would be conducted fairly and properly and that it would win the confidence of all those involved.
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield has said that he does not wish to spend a lot of time on these amendments. However, we are not prepared to accept them. We believe that the last amendment is unnecessary and that two of them would wreck our purpose. He has made a conciliatory speech and I am trying to make one in return. It is right to get these amendments out of the way and to move on to what I hope will not be an unduly controversial number of amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). I therefore ask the House to reject these amendments.
      Mr. Cryer: The clause goes to the heart of the Government's vicious attack on the trade union movement. It represents an attempt to tinker with the voting system in order to stop the closed shop. The Government's justification has nothing to do with democracy or with the other platitudes that we have heard. They wish to inhibit the effectiveness of the trade union movement. People belong to a trade union because they have only their labour to sell and they need to face the might of capital.
      The Secretary of State is presented as the compromiser of the Conservative Party. However, this clause is an example of the lengths to which the Government will go to crush the trade union movement, without incurring a backlash similar to that which toppled the Heath Government in 1974. One group says that the Government must be careful, while the hawks, having successfully mounted an assault on the coloured workers at Grunwick think that they can extend their tentacles of repression to-
      574
      wards the trade union movement. That group wishes to go further.
      Most people cannot work in the privileged surroundings in which we work. Most working people find life a struggle. They therefore see the trade union movement as part of that struggle and use it to obtain gains in the day-to-day battle. It may be said that there should not be a battle. In some circumstances capital and labour work together. However, the existence of a Tory Government has meant that many employers have hardened their attitudes. They see this legislation as a means of crushing trade union activity wherever possible.
      Why 80 per cent.? The Secretary of State has given a pretty pathetic explanation. It is certainly an example of double standards. There appears to be a different standard for ordinary working men and women. They must be an extraordinary collection of people if legislation is needed to ensure that 80 per cent. of the electorate vote in favour of a proposition. That standard does not apply to Parliament. Our legislation affects everybody in the country. Most legislation affects millions of people. We do not insist on an 80 per cent. vote in favour of it. The Tories will not have an 80 per cent. vote in favour of this legislation. If they get it through by one vote they will say that that is all right. Why should there be different standards for trade unionists? Of course it is deliberate.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Member asked why we have this provision for an 80 per cent. ballot. He is trying to interpret our thinking, therefore he should understand that we seek to protect people on the shop floor from their own unions. In a sense, the union is unlike a club or other organisation, because when a man is deprived of his union card, for whatever behaviour, he is deprived of a living for his family and himself. Therefore, it is important that there should be an overwhelming majority in favour of a closed shop, to safeguard the man on the shop floor.
      Mr. Cryer: If that is the case, why is there not an 80 per cent. vote in favour of all the statutory instruments that regulate the various professions? When a doctor is struck off by the General Medical Council for disciplinary reasons, and thus loses his livelihood, we do not insist

      575
      that the order should be passed by an 80 per cent. vote in favour of it. In fact, such orders are almost certainly negative procedure instruments, which never even get debated.
      I understand the position of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). He must put himself back into the mainstream of Tory thinking. He has given approval to pickets who are fighting a vicious employer in Huddersfield. I understand that he is pursuing a difficult path, but I am afraid that his argument does not strengthen his case.
      Mr. Leighton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position is even worse than he says? It is not just 80 per cent. of those who vote, but 80 per cent. of those who are eligible to vote. In our experience, most elections do not attract 80 per cent. of those eligible to vote. Therefore, one could have a ballot in which 21 per cent. of people did not vote. In other words 79 per cent. of those voting might vote 100 per cent. in favour of a closed shop, but that would not meet the requirements of this clause.
      Mr. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for his useful comments. There was an argument during the referendum on the Common Market, which was not supported by the Euro-fanatics in the Conservative Party at the time, or those in the Labour Party, that we would take the decision on the basis of those who voted, not on the percentage of those eligible to vote, as clause 6(3) lays down. It is a question of gerrymandering the voting to suit the political position of the Tory Party. That is the naked, straightforward truth, and it is time that we cut through the platitudes that swamp this place.
      Of course the Conservatives do not want to consider the feelings of trade unionists. If they wanted to consider trade unionists they would look at the statistics. They know that during the four years of the last Conservative Government 55 million days were lost in strikes. When we came to power we passed legislation to give trade unions the right to operate as trade unions and combine—we did not give them any special privileges in law; we only allowed them to exist. We did not make the closed shop compulsory, we only allowed it to exist. As a result, the days lost in strikes in the first four years
      576
      of the Labour Government totalled 29 million—roughly half the number lost under the Conservatives. On a legislative basis it makes sense to improve industrial relations, not by penal legislation, such as this Bill, but by allowing trade unions to get on with their jobs. The Tories say that theirs is a non-interventionist Government. In speech after speech, at Question Time after Question Time, they say " We are not going to intervene. We have given tax concessions. We are helping entrepreneurs to provide jobs." Yet they get their dirty little fingers into the trade union movement. They are selective about intervention. It is part of their philosophy not to intervene in industry. Why does not that attitude carry across to the trade union movement? The answer is that they want to intervene to crush the trade union movement. That is what the clause is about. That is why we want to delete it.
      It is no good the Secretary of State coming to the House and delivering a bleeding-heart speech about concern for improved industrial relations. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that this country, each year, loses more days through industrial injury than in strike action. What are the Government doing about industrial injury legislation? The answer is absolutely nothing. They could improve the position for people, cut the number of days lost from work and improve productivity, but they do nothing. They produce, instead, comprehensive legislation that must have taken thousands of man hours to prepare and nurture. They spend hours in Parliament over restrictive clauses such as clause 6, especially subsection (3).
      Since the Government are so concerned about democracy and the right of trade unionists to have a ballot on the closed shop, they will no doubt be aware that I have put forward a Ten-Minute Bill to extend the rights embodied in section 58A. I claim that my Bill is a more important matter and that the internal affairs of the trade union movement should be left alone. I wish to give people living within 30 miles of the proposed cruise missile sites the right to vote to discover whether 80 per cent. favour cruise missiles.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) believes so much in democracy that he tried to stop a local authority from holding a referendum.

      577
      That is quite apart from his attitude to my legislation. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) said that I should keep my nose out of the matter. He claimed that it was a constituency affair and that the location of cruise missiles was no concern of the rest of the nation.
      I have given the Government an opportunity. They claim to be concerned about important matters, I think it will be agreed that cruise missiles are at least on a par with the internal organisation of trade unions. I would say that they are far more important. The future of mankind may rest on what I hope will be their temporary installation on our shores.
      The Government may say that they are not picking on trade unions. They may say that people should have an opportunity
      to express a view on an important issue and that the Bill of the hon. Member for Keighley should therefore be supported, but my guess is that they will do nothing of the sort. They want to make decisions about defence independently of Parliament, and independently of the people. They want this shabby little clause, gerrymandering the vote, to attack the trade union movement. That is how the issue will be seen by the trade union movement, and that is why it will express its oppositions to these policies on 14 May, and will continue to do so until a Labour Government repeal this shoddy measure.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 290.

      Division No. 264]

      AYES

      9.14 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Dubs, Alfred

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Adams, Allen

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynett

      Kerr, Russell

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Eadie, Alex

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Eastham, Ken

      Kinnock, Nell

      Ashton, Joe

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      English, Michael

      Lamond, James

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Leighton, Ronald

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Ewing, Harry

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Faulds, Andrew

      Litherland, Robert

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Field, Frank

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Fitt, Gerard

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ford, Ben

      McCartney, Hugh

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Forrester, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Buchan, Norman

      Foster, Derek

      McElhone, Frank

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Campbell, Ian

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Canavan, Dennis

      George, Bruce

      McMahon, Andrew

      Cant, R. B.

      Ginsburg, David

      McNally, Thomas

      Carmichael, Neil

      Golding, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Gourlay, Harry

      McWilliam, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Graham, Ted

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

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

      Cook, Robin F.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Maxton, John

      Cowans, Harry

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Meacher, Michael

      Crowther, J. S.

      Haynes, Frank

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Home Robertson, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Homewood, William

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

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

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Deakins, Eric

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

      Morton, George

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Huckfield, Les

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Dempsey, James

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

      Newens, Stanley

      Dewar, Donald

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Dixon, Donald

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Ogden, Eric

      Dobson, Frank

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dormand, Jack

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Douglas, Dick

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Park, George

      Parker, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Parry, Robert

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Watkins, David

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Snape, Peter

      Wellbeloved, James

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham west)

      Soley, Clive

      Welsh, Michael

      Race, Reg

      Spearing, Niger

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Radice, Giles

      Sprlggs, Leslie

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Richardson, Jo

      Stallard, A. W.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (w isles)

      Whitlock, William

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Stoddart, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Straw, Jack

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Winnick, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Woodall, Alec

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Sever, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Wright, Sheila

      Sheerman, Barry

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

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

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Short Mrs Renée

      Tilley, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYE

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Torney, Tom

      Mr James Tinn and

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Mr. Donald Coleman.

      Silverman, Julius

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Alexander, Richard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Alison, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hooson, Tom

      Ancram, Michael

      Dover, Denshore

      Hordern, Peter

      Arnold, Tom

      du Cann. Rt Hon Edward

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dunlop, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Durant, Tony

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Eggar, Timothy

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Bendall, Vivian

      Elliott, Sir William

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Kimball, Marcus

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Best, Keith

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lamont, Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Lang, Ian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Blackburn, John

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Latham, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Body, Richard

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lawson, Nigel

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Lee, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, lan (Havant & Waterloo

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fox, Marcus

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bright, Graham

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Loveridge, John

      Brinton, Tim

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Luce, Richard

      Brittan, Leon

      Fry, Peter

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Brotherton, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacGregor, John

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Macmiilan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Buck, Antony

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Budgen, Nick

      Gow, Ian

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Madel, David

      Burden, F. A.

      Gray, Hamish

      Major, John

      Butcher, John

      Greenway, Harry

      Marland, Paul

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Marlow, Tony

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grist, Ian

      Mather, Carol

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Mawby, Ray

      Channon, Paul

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

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Hannam, John

      Mellor, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Cope, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Corrie, John

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Costain, A. P.

      Heddle, John

      Moate, Roger

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Henderson, Barry

      Molyneaux, James

      Critchley, Julian

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Crouch, David

      Hicks. Robert

      Montgomery, Fergus

      580

      581

      Moore, John

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Morgan, Geraint

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Thompson, Donald

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thorne, Nell (llford South)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Rossi, Hugh

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Murphy, Christopher

      Rost, Peter

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Myles, David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Trippier, David

      Needham, Richard

      Scott, Nicholas

      Trotter, Neville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Neubert, Michael

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Newton, Tony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Waddington, David

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)

      Wakeham, John

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Shersby, Michael

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Silvester, Fred

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Sims, Roger

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Parris, Matthew

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Waller, Gary

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Walters, Dennis

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Speed, Keith

      Ward, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Speller Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Penhaligon, David

      Spence John

      Watson, John

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Sproat, lain

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

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Squire, Robin

      Wheeler, John

      Porter, George

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Stanley, John

      Whitney, Raymond

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Wickenden, Keith

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Stevens, Martin

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Raison, Timothy

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Stokes, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Renton, Tim

      Tapsell, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 8, line 13, after ' 58A' insert—
      ' (1) A union membership agreement which came into force on a day prior to this Act coming into operation shall be deemed to be null and void if it has not been confirmed by a secret ballot carried out by not later than two years after the passing of this Act, and in accordance within the provisions of this section.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following amendments:
      No. 33, in page 8, line 17, after ' question ', insert
      ' within the previous three years '.
      No. 9, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
      "(4) Existing union membership agreements shall cease to have effect three years after the passing of the Employment Act 1980 unless re-approved by a ballot to which the conditions specified in subsections (1) to (3) above shall apply.
      (5) All future union membership agreements shall lapse three years after they come into effect unless they are re-approved by a ballot to which the conditions specified in subsections (1) to (3) above shall apply.'.
      No. 34, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
      ' (4) If not so approved in strict accordance with the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and
      582
      (3) above, the union membership agreement proposed shall be null and void and the contract of employment between the employer and the employees concerned shall be unenforceable in that respect, and if the trade union and employer concerned shall nevertheless conclude such an agreement, the trade union shall be regarded for the purposes of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and all its provisions as having forfeited registration as an independent trade union.'.
      Mr. Gorst: I shall be brief, because I do not think that a great deal needs to be said about the amendment; it is quite simple. Its purpose is to extend to those already locked in a closed shop the right to vote on whether they wish to be in that closed shop. Under the Bill, that right will be conferred on those who are not yet in a closed shop. They will be given the opportunity to vote on the issue. If 80 per cent. say " Yes ", there will be a closed shop. If 80 per cent. say " No ", there will not be a closed shop. The amendment provides that those who are already in a closed shop will be given the same opportunity as those not yet in a closed shop. It does not go beyond the principle which is already enshrined in the Bill. We are not asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do anything that is not already a principle enshrined in the Bill.
      If 80 per cent. of a union's membership should in future be the qualifying

      583
      number for a closed shop, why should not 80 per cent. also be a pass mark for closed shops already in existence? All the amendment does is, first, to require an affirmation after not more than two years, and secondly, to provide that that affirmation, endorsement, confirmation—whatever it is called—should be available to those who presently do not have the opportunity to express an opinion.
      I wish to make the position and context clear. At present, about 30 to 40 per cent. of the entire work force in Britain are locked in closed shops, either formal or informal. That is an enormous proportion of a work force of 22 million.
      I do not know what will be ray right Friend's attitude to the amendment, but I received a certain indication from him in Committee as to what he regarded as being the right procedure if we were to consider regularly testing the position. I asked my right hon. Friend
      " whether … it would be desirable to have regular testing of the situation?"
      He replied:
      " This is very much a matter for a code of practice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 March 1980; c. 898.]
      9.30 pm
      I do not mind leaving to a code of practice a periodic review of a closed shop. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend is insisting that when a closed shop is first initiated there should be a significant ballot in favour of it. Therefore, I ask that we should legislatively ensure that there is ballot for those already in existence. That is the purpose of the amendment.
      There are only two other points that I wish to make. First, let us assume that by the autumn of this year someone has been forced to join a closed shop, or otherwise lose his job, and that he has been in that position for a year or two. I maintain that it is extremely unlikely that an industrial tribunal will accept that he then genuinely objects on grounds of conscience or " deeply-held personal conviction" if he raises the matter on appeal before such a tribunal. Therefore, the effect of the Bill on existing reluctant members of closed shops will be virtually non-existent They will remain disfranchised unless the amendment
      584
      is made. In a sense, they will remain under-privileged. I believe that they have the same right to treatment as future generations of closed shop trade unionists.
      Without the amendment the Bill will condone existing closed shops. It will do nothing for those who have been dragooned into closed shops—possibly against their will or under the threat of losing their jobs. Equally, regrettably, it will be totally inconsistent with the Bill, because its approach to new and old closed shops will be based upon no discernible rational tenet of philosophy other than perhaps a philosophy of dealing softly, softly with trade union reform—softly, softly, not to ruffle the trade union movement which, if one is to understand Opposition Members, is already sufficiently ruffled.
      I suggest that there is no point of policy or principle which is not already enshrined in the Bill which ought to constitute an argument against acceptance of the amendment.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: I wish to speak to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and to amendment No. 9 which has been tabled in my name and the names of 26 other hon. Members.
      The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to allow those who are currently in closed shops to have a vote within three years of the Bill becoming an Act to say whether they want to stay within closed shops and, on top of that, that those in any closed shop so agreed, or any future closed shop, should have the right every three years to have a ballot to see whether they still want to remain within a closed shop.
      There is nothing that the press likes more than what it thinks is a political revolt or a party rebellion. Its nostrils flare at the very feeling of potential parliamentary bloodshed, and it likes, above all, the sight of ministerial entrails dangling from the Gallery.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Gallows, not Gallery.
      Mr. Marlow: On this occasion, sadly, our friends in the press have got it completely wrong.
      Sir Ronald Bell: I wonder whether my hon. Friend means " Gallery " or " gallows ".
      Mr. Marlow: I take my hon. and learned Friend's intervention as he would like. On this occasion our friends in the press have got it wrong. They are rather out of date. The self-same press that for years has been castigating Members of Parliament as being Lobby fodder, ciphers, placemen, men of straw, men of no account, people who will do anything for a bribe, should have noticed during the term of the previous minority Government that individual Members of Parliament realised once again that they had a role of their own that they could play in affecting the future of Government policy. This is wholly good for the country.
      During that Parliament, and during this Parliament, hon. Members may have voted against the Government while at the same time being wholehearted supporters of the Government, and having every confidence in the programme that the Government put before the people. The press would say that those hon. Members who voted in favour of new clause 3 last night were voting against the Government. In fact, we were voting for the new clause, and I should like the press to take note that most hon. Members who so voted are amongst the strongest supporters of the Government.
      I have the highest regard for, and the greatest confidence in, the Bill as now amended. Together with deeming, this is a courageous step that has previously been flunked by the Labour Party. The measures that have been proposed will do more than measures that have been introduced by, I was going to say, any Government but in reality by all Governments to transform this country from the industrial backwater into which it has been pushed into the industrial mainstream of Europe.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I consider the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to be an argument in justification, but he is now making a Second Reading speech. He must address himself to the amendment.
      Mr. Marlow: I concur entirely with what you say, Mr. Speaker. The Bill seeks, through the encouragement of
      586
      ballots, through the provisions against some of the abuses of the closed shop, and the control of the intimidation and anarchy of the mass of indiscriminate picketing—this is where I am coming to the point, Mr. Speaker—to protect individual British citizens—workers, trade unionists—from being bullied and pushed around. In the words of the immortal Citizen Smith of the Tooting Popular Front, we are trying to give power to the people. We are trying once again to establish real democracy at the grass roots, so that the responsibility for trade unionism, will rest with the individual trade unionist rather than with the trade union bureaucrats. This is highly germane to the amendment that we are now discussing. The Bill—and the amendment—is exceptional and yet they are entirely unexceptionable.
      I should like to say a word to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because I am taking a slightly different view from him. I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend. I should like to congratulate him on an excellent speech yesterday, and I look forward to hearing another excellent speech today. His speech was logical, moving, passionate and persuasive. I congratulate him on the esteem in which he is held in the House and on the inestimable value that that esteem bears for the Government and the country in his actions with the trade unions.
      Why have I been active in pursuing these amendments? My right hon. Friend is rightly approaching the matter of trade union reform on a step-by-step basis. The amendments that have been put forward by my hon. Friends and myself are part of that step-by-step approach. In fairness, we do not expect my right hon. Friend to accept these amendments at this stage. Among other things, before such amendments, which are far reaching and significant, are brought in, they must be discussed with the various parties who would be affected by them.
      However, it is up to us to set out the next stage. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said that if necessary we shall introduce further new measures, step by step, in this area. It is up to us on the Conservative Benches to prepare the ground, dig the soil and get ready for the next measures, so that we can have argument

      587
      and discussion in the country on the basis of solid support from the House for measures that we may wish to introduce in future.
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be helpful and will tell us that some of the things that are being suggested will be introduced into the code of practice. If he says that, I shall bless him for it and be pleased. However, I imagine that the code of practice will be voluntary. Some of the worst abuses—and there are abuses—occur when a closed shop is in the hands of a tyrant. I can hardly believe that if measures that are against his interest are put into a code of practice, that man will implement them. If someone has his fingers on a vice and the law does not tell him to take his fingers off, he will keep them on.
      People have very strong feelings on this matter and want us to discuss it in the House. They would like to know that a large number of hon. Members have great concern for their feelings and are prepared to react accordingly. I believe that, in a way, for the amendments to be discussed and voted on will facilitate the difficult and sensitive job that my right hon. Friend has to do.
      The purpose of the amendment is to allow those who are already in closed shops to have the same privileges as those about to join a closed shop and to vote on whether they wish to stay in.
      I understand that there are about 25 million in work in this country, of whom about half are trade unionists. Half of those trade unionists are in closed shops. I do not think that it is disputed that one-third of all trade unionists voted Conservative at the last election. [HON. MEMBERS: " More ".] Correction, more. If one-quarter of the trade unionists who voted Conservative at the last election and are in closed shops do not wish to be in them, that then means that ½ million people are forced to be in closed shops that they do not want to be in. That is a serious matter.
      Most hon. Members do not share the blind hatred for closed shops of some people in the country. We all agree that they are rooted in the traditions of this country and that people have strong views on either side of the argument. I
      588
      think that we all agree that, as far as possible, we should move along common ground in the House.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing to stop any person in a closed shop from leaving his job and going to a lower-paid job as, for example, a farmworker, where there is no closed shop? That is why people will not leave. They do not want to go to lower paid jobs.
      Mr. Marlow: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point, which is not something of which he can be proud, that there is nothing stopping anybody in a closed shop from leaving his job. The problem is that there is a lot stopping people from staying in a closed shop job when they want to.
      Closed shops have their advantages. In many situations managements get a lot of benefit from closed shops. They know who they are talking to. There is also a great deal of concern, from the trade union point of view, about freeloaders who accept the work and advice of shop stewards and the benefits accruing from negotiations without paying for them. I should love to have free legal advice, but I doubt whether my hon. and learned Friends would be prepared to give it to me, and I quite see their point.
      9.45 pm
      There are a great number of disadvantages to the closed shop. What does a closed shop mean? It means that a person who does not do what the closed shop tells him to do will be thrown out of a job. Whereas a person who conflicts with the laws of the land goes before a judge and jury and may lose for a time his liberty or be fined, a person who goes against the massive power of the closed shop loses his livelihood, perhaps for ever. There are other disadvantages. In our less productive industries there is a preponderance of closed shops.
      The measure that we are proposing is simple and liberal. I think we would all agree that the closed shop on the whole is not a good thing. It would not be right or possible for us to seek to ban the closed shop. That was tried in 1971 and the attempt was ineffective. It would not be right because it is up to the people in

      589
      each individual closed shop to decide whether they want that closed shop to remain.
      Then let the ballots take place. The fact that a ballot is about to take place would make the union shop stewards and anyone involved in the union far more responsive to the wishes of the membership than they are in many places at present. If the ballot is positive, well and good. That has been decided, and the closed shop would have an element of authority and dignity that it does not have now. If the ballot is negative, should we not be interested in the fact that people are currently in closed shops that they do not wish to be in?
      Do not we in this country believe in freedom and democracy? Where in some circumstances there is corrupt power within a closed shop, should not that power be destroyed? Where there is a degree of tyranny, should not that tyranny be emasculated? Where there are slavery and serfdom, should we not introduce freedom? Where there are inefficient restrictive practices, would it not be better if people had productive and satisfying employment?
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Has the hon. Gentleman ever negotiated a closed shop? Has he ever belonged to a closed shop? Has he been an employer who has resisted a closed shop? Has he ever had anything to do with a closed shop, or is he talking from a theoretical standpoint on a subject about which he knows nothing?
      Mr. Marlow: I answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that I have never committed rape or had an abortion and yet I am called upon with him to take parliamentary action on these measures.
      If this measure becomes law——
      Mr. Cyril Smith: Supplementing the question posed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), has the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) received, as I have, letters from people who have suffered severely as a consequence of being penalised through a closed shop?
      Mr. Marlow: That is a serious intervention, as opposed to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), which was stupid and flippant. Yes, I have, and I find it
      590
      very moving and disturbing. That is one reason why I am supporting the amendment.
      If the amendment becomes law, it will not be hon. Members who will decide what should happen with each individual closed shop; the people themselves will decide. The House takes great pride in letting the people decide wherever possible.
      Mr. Radice: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) always speaks in gentle tones when he is moving the most extreme measures, whereas the language of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is a little more intemperate. The hon. Member for Hendon, North always starts by saying that his motion is very simple. I want to show that his motion is not so simple. The hon. Gentleman wants to extend voting to all existing closed shops. I presume that he wants the 80 per cent. concept to apply to existing closed shops. Incidentally, I notice the distinction here between 80 per cent. for closed shops and 15 per cent., which was the figure that we discussed last night on another issue with regard to ballots. It is an interesting distinction.
      I believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be disruptive for the new arrangements and extremely disruptive in respect of existing closed shops.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the correct comparison in percentage terms is not 80 per cent. as against 15 per cent. but rather 80 per cent. as against 20 per cent.?
      Mr. Radice: I am sorry, but I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. The point I am making is that if one applies the 80 per cent. test to existing arrangements it will be extremely disruptive to industrial relations. I hope that Conservative Members are interested in industrial relations. If they are, they should take into account the figure of 30 to 40 per cent. which the hon. Member for Hendon, North has just mentioned. They should think about what that would mean. It would mean that ballots would have to be held up and down the country. It would be extremely disruptive to industrial relations.
      The case for having closed shops is twofold. First, they give employees an additional strength, and, secondly, employers are strongly in favour of them.
      Mr. Marlow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Krupps were very much in favour of having slave labour from the rest of Europe?
      Mr. Radice: I am not prepared to respond to that intervention. As usual, it seems totally irrelevant.
      Most employers are worried about the changes which are already contained in the Bill. They will be even more worried if the amendment of the hon. Member for Hendon, North is passed. They are strongly against the idea of tampering with closed shops, because if employees speak with one voice it solves one industrial relations problem for employers. The hon. Member for Hendon, North is trying to disrupt the existing pattern of relationships. That would be a disastrous step.
      Of course, there are libertarian issues with regard to the closed shop. I wish that Conservative Members who are so interested in liberty would, when it comes to trade unions, apply that concept a little more widely. We would then perhaps listen to them with a little more conviction.
      My view, and the view of most trade unionists, is that these problems should be solved through voluntary arrangements. I do not know whether any Conservative Members have read the survey by the Department of Employment, which shows that most existing closed shop arrangements now take account of libertarian and conscience issues, but the view is that existing non-trade unionists do not have to join a trade union. Therefore, existing closed shops are already dealing with these issues.
      My fear is that most Conservative Members who have tabled amendments of this kind are against all closed shops. Furthermore, I believe that they are merely paving amendments towards the goal of abolishing all trade unions. What worries me is that the Conservative Party seems to believe that trade unions were all right in the nineteenth century but that they are now out of date and unnecessary. That is basically the view they discuss with their wives in the middle of the night.
      Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Radice: No, I will not. What really worries me——
      Mr. Brotherton Mr. Brotherton rose——
      Mr. Radice: No, I will not give way. What worries me is that——
      Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been made quite clear by the hon. Member for Ches-ter-le-Street (Mr. Radice) that he does not intend to give way to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).
      Mr. Brotherton: Would it not be in order for me to point out that the hon. Gentleman——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only in order for me to point out that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, (Mr. Radice) has the floor.
      Mr. Radice: What has worried me about the tone of this debate and that of the debate last night is that it reveals that the Right wing of the Conservative Party is trying to set the agenda for the Secretary of State for Employment. It is attempting to decide what will be in the next legislation. That worries me, it worries the Labour Party, it worries the trade union movement and it worries employers. Right-wing members of the Tory Party know nothing about industrial relations, and if the Secretary of State listens to their siren voices it will be dangerous and a disaster for the country. I strongly oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of contributing to the long debates on the Bill. It is also the first occasion on which any of the many amendments that I have tabled have been selected by you, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly seek an early occasion to ascertain why some of the other excellent amendments I have tabled have not been selected for debate.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I could tell the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) now why his amendments have not been selected but I shall not; I am much too kind. I can tell the hon. Member only that this amendment has been selected for discussion.
      Mr. Winterton: You always win out in these exchanges, Mr. Speaker. You always have the upper hand and I always stoop to your advice and to any requests which you make. I fully appreciate that

      593
      my two amendments have been called only for discussion.
      Perhaps I can answer straight away one of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Rad-ice). I am indeed utterly and entirely opposed to closed shops. I believe that they are evil and that they are an unacceptable infringement of personal liberty. What is more, I believe that the closed shop is the basis of most of the abuse of trade union power in this country.—[Interruption.] I am not a lawyer. I say openly to Opposition Members below the Gangway that it is perhaps a good thing that there are some hon. Members who are not lawyers.
      I have taken a consistent view on this subject and I say to Opposition Members that I have every respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that he has been sincere, genuine and consistent in his approach to the reform of industrial relations. But I say to him that I believe that he has got it wrong. I disagree with him fundamentally.
      Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that there are some Conservative Members who are prepared to stand up and be counted and who are prepared to justify our stand. We are prepared to say openly that there is perhaps a difference of view within our party. I also say openly that I hope that my right hon. Friend, who has obviously carried the day, with the majority of the parliamentary party behind him, proves to be right and that this legislation will be successful. The future of our country depends upon peace, harmony and stability in industrial relations. If we do not get that, I do not know how we shall achieve the progress that Britain needs.
      Mr. Allen McKay: When the hon. Gentleman talks about peace and harmony in industrial relations, does he honestly believe that his amendment would bring peace and harmony to industrial relations? What about the freedom and the democratic right of an individual who refuses to work with a non-trade unionist?
      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.]
      594
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Winterton: That was an extra ordinary intervention. I was referring to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay). I rarely query the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. That is not a matter for me. It is extraordinary to suggest that those who choose to remain outside a closed shop and who oppose a closed shop are un-democratic. That cannot be equated with wishing to give people freedom and responsibility. We have also been asked why trade unionists should vote with non-trade unionists. Probably slightly less than half the British people are trade unionists. Why cannot we all work together both inside and outside trade unions? There are some trade unionists in unions that are associated and affiliated to the TUC and some who are not. There are staff associations and all the other——
      Mr. Brotherton Mr. Brotherton rose——
      Mr. Winterton: No, I shall not give way.
      Mr. Brotherton Mr. Brotherton rose——
      Mr. Winterton: Very well, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).
      Mr. Brotherton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), who talked about land, is a landowner not only in the North-East of England but in France? It ill becomes him to talk about the way in which British people——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long way from the question of the closed shop.
      Mr. Winterton: If there is a closed shop of landowners, I do not fall into that category. I am not really interested whether the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street owns land in Spain, France or any other part of the world. That has no relevance to the debate.
      I am behind the general principle contained in the amendment. Obviously, I wish to see my amendments, Nos. 33 and

      595
      34, included in the Bill. I believe that their inclusion would bring genuine democratic rights to British working people.
      No doubt the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street or others who have participated, including the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who has been so active on Report, could give me the precise number of those who are members of closed shops in various places of work. However, that is not basically relevant. Many of those who are part of closed shops never had an opportunity to vote for the closed shops in the first place. It is right that we allow those in an existing closed shop to vote within a specified period whether they want the closed shop to continue.
      My critical amendment is No. 33, the one upon which No. 34 hangs. It seeks to insert
      " within the previous three years "
      after " question " in clause 6 on page 8, line 17. If Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), believe that the closed shop is correct and that it will lead to peace and harmony, they should be prepared to put that idea to the test. They should allow existing members of closed shops to vote on that issue.
      In 1953, Britain formally became a member of the Council of Europe of 21 nations. In January 1966 the Labour Government, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) accepted that all rulings emanating from the European Court of Human Rights would be considered binding on the British Government. If cases in the long-running saga of the British closed shop are referred to that court by the European Commission or by the Council of Ministers, and if it is ruled that compulsory closed shops contravene articles 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the charter, the Government must respond or face the humiliation of possible expulsion from the Commission. However, we would not face expulsion from the EEC, because that is a separate entity. Indeed, that may be a matter for further debate at a later stage.
      If Britain makes no effort to show the European Court or Commission that we are prepared to allow those who have become part of a closed shop to indicate whether they wish to remain such, our
      596
      case within Europe will be lost by default; the ruling of the European Court will go against this country. These amendments are therefore serious. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street did a great disservice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) when he said that he was moving an extreme amendment, even if he did so in dulcet and moderate tones.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North stood up for a principle that is enshrined within the European Court of Human Rights. If hon. Members do not have a right to refer to these matters as often, as positively and as constructively as they wish, this House will not be doing its duty or serving our people.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was associated with the Grunwick dispute. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those employed by Grunwick will be allowed to join a trade union? Is he suggesting that they will be allowed to decide every three years whether there should be a closed shop?
      Mr. Winterton: I was under the impression that the majority of workers at that firm had clearly demonstrated that they did not want a closed shop. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would listen and not get carried away by party dogma. A sizeable number of employees at Grunwick may have wished to become members of the union. No doubt they would have voted for a closed shop. However, the majority of employees voted against a trade union and against a closed shop.
      Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman consider another relevant example? It should first be placed on record that the majority of those at Grunwick who had wished to join a union were sacked. In my constituency the firm of Chix has refused to recognise that the overwhelming majority of its work force, consisting mainly of Asian women, wish to join a union and have that union recognised. They have been on strike since last October. According to his argument, the workers at Chix are right and the employer is wrong.
      Mr. Winterton: I seek to get legislation on the statute book that has meaning

      597
      and that can restore sanity to industrial relations in this country. I do not pretend to know everything about the case that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) has just mentioned. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest that I do. I am simply giving my views in general on the issue of the closed shop, and the amendments which Mr. Speaker, in his infinite wisdom, has brought forward for debate tonight. There is no doubt that the employees of the company to which the hon. Member referred could take advantage of this enlightened piece of Conservative legislation when it goes on the statute book.
      In supporting the four amendments, I stress that the issue at stake tonight is one of great concern to the vast majority of people in this country. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has paid considerable attention to industrial relations over a long time, has not grasped the fact that most people in this country are strongly opposed to the closed shop for the evils that it has brought. I am sure it has been said before that, whether it appeared in the Conservative manifesto or not, most people believed that the Tory Government would reduce the power of the closed shop by legislation. Sadly, they have not done so. For that reason, some of us have taken the opportunity of the Report stage of this Bill to highlight
      598
      the evils and abuses of the closed shop.
      Many amendments have not been called and the amendments in my name are very modest. Amendment No. 33 merely seeks to ensure that within three years there is a ballot where there is an existing closed shop. Amendment No. 34 clarifies that and states that it is important that all matters that are already part of this clause should be adhered to, otherwise the trade unions concerned would not be recognised as fully fledged. My right hon. Friend should realise that, whether he accepts the amendments or not, the feeling in the country is very strong.
      I hope that legislation will be brought forward during the lifetime of this Parliament to protect those people who find it obscene—and I use the word advisedly—to be forced to join a trade union, because their place of work is a closed shop, that is affiliated to a political party that they do not support. That is morally and fundamentally wrong. Labour Members may say that such people can contract out of the political levy. I agree. But by doing so they identify themselves, and it is possible that others will pick on them and their opportunities to progress in the trade union or in the company will be jeopardised as a result.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend grasps the principle behind these amendments.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. J. Grimond: I am opposed to the closed shop. I believe that this is an occasion on which those who oppose it should speak out. I fail to understand how anyone who believes in personal liberty could possibly be in favour of the closed shop. I am totally unmoved by arguments that the employers like it.
      I have long thought that there is a great danger that the worst bureaucratic features of the employers' and trade union organisations are reflected in one another. I have no evidence that the closed shop is necessary for efficient business. It is not the custom in Europe. As hon. Members know, Europe is much more efficient, in many ways, than British industry. We may soon be arraigned, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said, before the European Court for this practice.
      It is odd to hear the argument that one cannot bring in reforms by legislation. This used to be the prime argument of the most die hard Tory lawyers of the last century. It was rightly resisted by the Labour and Liberal Parties. It is now said that it is wrong to legislate for reform and that, at all costs, we must remain conservative and stick to existing practices.
      I wish, however, to tread on the toes of my colleagues of the English Bar. I have long maintained that the English Bar has certain elements of a closed shop. I have never understood why a litigant in court should not be allowed to select a man who is not a member of the English Bar to speak for him. I see a distinguished and learned right hon. Member about to rise to his feet.
      Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I was only going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he was suffering—I hope that he never will—from cancer, he would submit himself to an operation by some totally unqualified person. If he would, the analogy is complete.
      Mr. Grimond: If I suffered from cancer, I do not see why I should be prevented from seing some quack in whom I believed, who might possibly do me
      600
      good. There are some quacks whom I would prefer to some highly qualified doctors.
      It is alarming that the present development is spreading into public authorities. For public authorities to enforce a closed shop among employees is totally against not only the principles of liberty but the principles of good administration and government. We are not debating, I understand, the principle of the closed shop. We are debating an amendment that would extend provisions already in the Bill to those already in a closed shop. I cannot see any objection to that proposal.
      I cannot pretend to understand the enthusiastic support I am receiving, notably from the Government supporters below the Gangway. I join them, however, in hoping that the Minister, upon whom so many compliments have been showered, will see his way to extending the principle already in the Bill to people who at the moment are outside the provisions. If the closed shop is a matter for ballot, these people should be entitled to ballot.
      Mr. Michael Brown: This appears to me to be a great parliamentary occasion. I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others who have spoken. I fully appreciate the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finds himself with regard to the closed shop. I feel that he is basically in sympathy with the philosophy that many of us express on the question of the closed shop. I recognise and appreciate but cannot accept the arguments that he has put forward during the passage of the Bill and earlier about the reasons why the closed shop cannot be outlawed. This is not the place to argue the merits and demerits of the closed shop.
      It is a good idea for hon. Members to bear in mind what they said during the election campaign. I am conscious that I represent an industrial working-class constituency where many thousands of my constituents who work for the British Steel Corporation, are in a closed shop. The corporation has 16,000 employees in my constituency. I told those people when offering myself for election last

      601
      year that I was against workers being compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. I consider that if a union is doing a good job, people will join voluntarily.
      I agree to some extent with the arguments of my right hon. Friend on the Bill. My right hon. Friend has decided, rightly, that if there is, for better or worse, to be a closed shop, it should be endorsed by at least 80 per cent. of the work force. The 16,000 people who work for the British Steel Corporation in my constituency have already been conscripted against their will into a closed shop—at least, their will has not been tested. They should have the same rights and privileges as are to be afforded under the clause to trade unionists who may have a closed shop thrust upon them in future.
      I associate myself with the amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and others. It provides that closed shop agreements be tested every three years. The hon. Member for Keigh-ley (Mr. Cryer) compared ballots for closed shops with ballots at general elections. The views of people change. At general elections, people vote one way one year and another way another year. I do not anticipate that that will happen for some time. People changed their minds between 1974 and 1979, thank goodness. It is reasonable to assume that many steel workers in my constituency have changed their minds after 13 weeks of being led—some might say misled—by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.
      I have great respect for the local union leaders in my constituency. They did not seek deliberately to mislead, but the effect of their actions was to mislead their members. As a result of the closed shop and because the confederation had such power over its members, those who disagreed with the confederation could not opt out of membership because they would lose their jobs. After 13 weeks' experience and because more job losses are likely as a result of the strike, many people might not afford the confederation the confidence that they once gave it. If a union has to seek endorsement for the closed shop—if that dreaded principle is to become a fact of life for the time being—that will ensure that union
      602
      leaders are more responsive to the wishes of their members.
      People change their minds about how they vote in a referendum. Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, argue that people have changed their minds about the Common Market. They would like the opportunity to express their views again in another referendum. Union members might change their minds about the effectiveness of their union in a closed shop.
      I commend the amendments. I understand that there has not been much public discussion on them and that my right hon. Friend might not be able to accept them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said, we are to some extent ploughing a furrow to ensure that the Government will take account of public opinion. For the last three or four months I have been at the sharp end of public opinion in my constituency. At surgery after surgery I have received many trade unionists who are extremely anxious about their position if they dare to speak out against their union's views.
      On the whole, Scunthorpe is a moderate town and its union leaders, even though I disagree with them, are moderate men. I am pleased to place on record that there has been no victimisation in my constituency in this instance. The fact is, however, that many ordinary trade unionists have been worried about the possibility of victimisation. The very possibility of having one's union card withdrawn because of a closed shop is in itself sufficient to cause ordinary trade unionists to worry.
      I am conscious that time is pressing, so I shall draw to a conclusion. I believe that this proposed test of the closed shop is a reasonable test. In my view, the test of a closed shop which my right hon. Friend has accepted and enshrined in the Bill for future closed shops should be available to those who have been unfortunate enough to become members of a closed shop already where they have not had the opportunity for the ballot now provided for in the Bill.
      I understand the difficulty which my right hon. Friend may be in with regard to these amendments, but I think that they are well worth considering and I shall find myself able to support them. I

      603
      believe that the Bill will go a considerable way towards solving the problem of industrial relations, but there is still room for some improvement and I consider that these modest amendments indicate the room for that improvement.
      Mr. Leighton: I am sure that the whole House has enjoyed the knockabout speeches from hon. Members on the Government Back Benches. Perhaps they did not make much sense, but they certainly gave us some entertainment and amusement.
      I greatly enjoyed the characteristically ebullient speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Perhaps, with his agricultural background, he does not appreciate all of the nuances of industrial life, but there was only one thing on which I would disagree with him. In fact, only one thing that he said would I disbelieve. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, but he said, prompted by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), that he had letters from people who had suffered under closed shops.
      I say now that I do not believe that. I do not believe it, and I should like to see them. We heard about this in Committee. Such letters are very few in number. The hon. Member for Rochdale has one, but I should like the hon. Member for Northampton, North to show me his. I say that just in passing.
      The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), again characteristically——
      Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Leighton: No. Sit down.
      Hon. Members: Order. Give way.
      Mr. Leighton: All right.
      Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that several hundred railwaymen lost their jobs when the NUR and British Rail formed a closed shop and that several of them have had to go as far as the European Court of Human Rights in order to seek justice? Is it not a shocking indictment of our present legislation on industrial relations that individuals can be victimised in that way and that they have up to now had no redress in this country?
      Mr. Leighton: I am not impressed by that intervention, and I am certain that the hon. Member for Northampton, North does not need the hon. Gentleman's assistance. I have made my statement, and I should like to see those letters. I leave it at that.
      Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member has no interest in the liberty of the individual.
      Mr. Leighton: Again characteristically, the hon. Member for Hendon, North went slightly too far, as he sometimes does. I think he will agree that he does not like trade unions. He told us in Committee that he does not want to destroy them completely, but I am sure that he will agree that he does not like trade unions. He certainly does not like closed shops and would like to abolish them completely.
      Unlike some hon. Members, I worked for 33 years before I came here on 3 May, and I never worked in anything but a closed shop. I have spent the whole of my working life in closed shops, so I speak with some experience. Perhaps hon. Members might care to know something about real life and real experience—or perhaps they might not.
      In Committee—this may be of interest to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who just told me about the railwaymen—I issued an invitation. I offer the same invitation to him. I invited all the members of the Standing Committee to come with me to Fleet Street at night, because that is when we work printing newspapers, and meet people who work in closed shops and ask them what they think. That is an invitation which hon. Members can take up—or live in a dream world of their own.
      10.30 pm
      Why are these ideas unworkable? The Secretary of State does not need me to help him, and I am certain that he would be embarrassed if I were to do so. In Committee, the Secretary of State said:
      " The approach that we have sought to adopt … is a different approach from that of 1970–71. partly because it did not work. Whatever our views may have been at that time, the fact of the matter is that it did not work. I have asked countless employers what they did about the closed shop following the passage of the 1971 Act. They look at one rather sheepishly and say ' We never actually got round to getting rid of it.' That is another reason why I want to be careful this time that what we do we can actually enforce."

      605
      As a result of the 1971 Act, all the closed shops in which I worked were rendered void. That Act had no effect. There were no changes. So there are limits to what can be done by law.
      The CBI gave evidence in a letter of 26 February, which the Secretary of State quoted in Committee. It said:
      "The CBI recognise that the closed shop is an established feature of industrial relations practice in some areas of employment. We do not therefore feel that the time has yet come to make union membership agreements unenforceable."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 February 1980; c. 724.]
      In Committee we discussed practices in other countries. In many European countries the closed shop is illegal, yet when my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) pointed out that in many of those countries closed shops operate the Under-Secretary said " Hear, hear." In other words, he agrees that they still exist in countries on the Continent where they are illegal.
      Mr. John Townend: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that once a closed shop is established it cannot be destroyed? I give the example of the Humberside county council, where a closed shop was imposed by the Labour authority. The Conservative group on that council, of which I was the leader, said in its manifesto that it would abolish the closed shop. It won the election and during its first week of office it tore up the closed shop agreement, and many people in that county council no longer belong to a union.
      Mr. Leighton: Tearing up agreements is not the way to obtain good industrial relations. The borough in which I live—which is Tory-controlled—has just introduced such an agreement, but I shall not go into that.
      Why do trade unionists seek 100 per cent. membership? A lawyer speaking for the British Government at a European institution said on behalf of the Government—a Labour Government at the time—that
      " There is inherent in any capitalist society—and perhaps in any society—an inequity of bargaining power between employer and employee, and it can only be reduced by a closed shop."
      I have worked in a closed shop for 33 years. I worked for very rich men. I was a very poor man. The power of
      606
      the employer was larger than mine, but if an injury to one man was an injury to all, the employer was careful when deciding whether to pick on any individual worker. I did not feel that I lost any freedom or liberty by being a member of a closed shop. I felt that I had more freedom and liberty.
      I should explain how we run our affairs. We call our branches chapels. That goes back to the time when the monks did the printing. I worked for two newspapers. I shall not advertise them. One had the largest Sunday circulation. The hon. Member for Stretford, who is laughing, featured in that paper quite recently, boosted the circulation and gave employment to members of my union. The other was the largest daily selling newspaper.
      In one chapel there were 600 members and in the other there were 400. We had quarterly meetings. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are not perhaps interested to know how closed shops are run. If they are willing to listen and understand, I shall explain. We meet quarterly and we fine people if they do not attend the meetings. They are obliged to attend. If any member misses three meetings on the trot, he may be expelled from the union.
      The only hall in London large enough to accommodate our chapel is the Beaver hall, which costs £400 a time. Therefore, it costs at least £1,600 per annum to accommodate our chapels and get workshop democracy. The convener and shop stewards on the committee—I have taken part in this myself—are elected quarterly by secret ballot.
      Why should anybody be afraid? Where is the loss of liberty? Our own people are running our affairs. We had many managerial prerogatives. Discipline was applied not by the management but by the chapel. There was seniority on the job. If anyone wanted to change anything, he moved a motion. Indeed, after listening to Conservative Members I can say that the standard of debate in our chapels was much higher than in this House.
      This is the nearest thing that I have seen, in what is called a closed shop situation, to Athenian democracy. In Athens the regions for local government were made up of 5,000 people, because an orator's voice could reach 5,000 people.
      That is how the printing unions run

      607
      their closed shops. Any idea that it is an infringement of freedom or that we feel insecure is complete nonsense.
      If we had people coming in from outside, we wanted to know that they were competent for safety reasons. Their union cards were their bona fides. They showed that they were capable of doing the job. It is the same with the National Union of Mineworkers. Miners are not prepared to have anyone go in the cage and work underground with them if they are not assured that he is capable and able to do the job.
      The idea that closed shops are tyrannical is nonsense. I give an open invitation to Conservative Members to meet the members of my union and ask them about this matter.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Yes.
      Mr. Leighton: I have one acceptance. Are there any more? We shall do it through the Heritage group. The hon. Gentleman can meet ordinary workers and see for himself whether they feel that closed shops are tyrannical.
      Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a remark that I made about 45 minutes ago from below the gangway, I said that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) was a landowner in France. I was entirely wrong. It is his mother who is a landowner in France. Therefore, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Radice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) for distributing land so grandly across the Chamber this evening. However, I do not have land in France, and neither does my mother. She is fortunate enough to have a house in France, which is a little different, regrettably, from having land.
      Mr. Budgen: I do not wish to become involved in these conveyancing transactions. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) in his interesting speech, made a serious point when he said that this important debate was primarily about whether the libertarian wing of the Tory Party would be able to persuade the present Government that further legislation was required.
      608
      I regard the debate on amendment No. 8 as the most important debate that we have had in these three days. In discussing the principle of the closed shop, we have dealt with many of the more important arguments that have been swirling around in connection with the trade union movement. I have considerable sympathy with some of the arguments that have come from Opposition Members. I agree, for instance, with the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) that over many years the trade union movement has been most strongly and dishonestly blamed for many of the evils of this country—evils which it did not commit.
      It is true that year after year Governments have blamed the trade unions for the creation of inflation. Year after year they have been blamed for lack of productivity, for bloody-mindedness and for all sorts of things that are no part of their burden to bear. The trade unions have been deeply disturbed in their own contractual relations because of the effect of inflation. Trade unionists, like all other members of our society, feel the sense of instability and desperation that we all feel when we are uncertain about whether we will keep our relative position or whether we will catch up in the next wage round. We should beware of blaming the trade union movement in a general way.
      Nonetheless, I much regret the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepts, so easily and so readily, the principle of the closed shop. I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who is opposed to the whole principle. There may be good reasons for the Tory Party accepting that principle, but there is one really horrifyingly bad reason, which I hope will not be in anybody's mind tonight—namely, the argument that many industrial managers find the closed shop acceptable and useful. Whatever the Tory Party is or is not, it is not the party of industrial gaffers. It is a national party. It should be concerned with the libertarian interests of all the people.
      When I hear people say "Oh, but I have been speaking to such and such a manager in ICI, or the director of environmental services in the Tiddlypush urban district council, and they would

      609
      like to have an extension of the closed shop ", I understand that. It is an inevitable follow-on from the years of statutory wage control. The House has not made the trade unions the natural advocates of those who are industrial workers but has made the trade union leaders the policemen.
      We have said to Jack Jones, Len Murray and the rest " It is 5 per cent. this year and we appoint you as the policemen to impose that 5 per cent. on your members." The trade union leader has said " But there might be a few chaps in the awkward squad who do not like 5 per cent." and we have replied " Then let us shelve our libertarian instincts and allow you to impose the closed shop upon them. That should shut up the awkward squad."
      10.45 pm
      We want no more of that. We want most of all further legislation that considers the whole principle of the closed shop. I have voted in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on two other important matters during the Report stage. For example, I voted for the new clause dealing with immunities in tort in respect of secondary action.
      One hon. Member dealt with the situation that occurred at Hadfield's. The Bill deals with secondary picketing at Hadfield's but does not deal effectively with the attitude that might be adopted by Hadfield's own workers. If they have to balance the damage that they might do to their firm with their desire to act in solidarity with their friends in other steelworks, they may conclude that they do not want to get involved in secondary action. But if they are to lose their jobs anyway—because they are in a closed shop—it becomes even more important that we review the law on immunities in tort.
      We have also considered the compulsory secret ballot, and I was attracted by the arguments of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that if we oblige everybody to have a secret ballot in all circumstances we shall tie the hands of trade union leaders and make it difficult for them to act quickly and efficiently in bringing their arguments to bear upon managements.
      But unless members can say to their trade union leader " We have considered the past five or six strikes. On balance,
      610
      I do not like the way that you do things and we intend to leave the union ", they have no discipline over their leader. Once again, some of my hon. Friends and I were forced to vote for a new clause which, in detail, we rather disliked.
      I say to any of my hon. Friends who have voted in disagreement with my right hon. Friend " Please vote for the amendment. It is the most important." We should be united on the amendment. It goes to the core of the matter. It is not a Right-wing amendment but a libertarian amendment. We are the true repositories of the Disraelian spirit in the Tory Party. Let us unite and ensure that this is not, as my right hon. Friend said, the last chance, but the first chance and that there will be a second and more comprehensive chance to get it right.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: My views on the closed shop have been put on record, not only during the Report stage but in Committee, where I moved an amendment to make the closed shop illegal. I was supported by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) but by no other Conservative Members. Indeed, they did not even abstain but voted against the amendment and supported the Labour Members who opposed it.
      I believe that the closed shop is an infringement of the liberty of the individual. Any individual should have the right to belong to a trade union and, equally, any individual should have the right not to belong to a trade union.
      All those views I expressed in Committee. I dealt with the issue of the free rider, and I readily conceded that that was the hardest argument to answer. I expressed the view that there was a price to be paid for most liberties, and the price we had to pay for liberty in trade union matters was the price of the free rider. If the Official Opposition were saying that that was the only reason for supporting the closed shop, I should be more than willing to consider an amendment that ensured that people who were not in a union but none the less worked in a unionised factory could pay their financial dues to an acceptable cause.
      None of those arguments was accepted, and the net result is that the Bill does nothing to make the closed shop illegal. All that it does is to provide that anyone who loses his job as a consequence of the closed shop can claim compensation

      611
      for unfair dismissal, whereas before he could not. If the Bill does not make the closed shop illegal, it is not unreasonable for it to make the principle of the closed shop more acceptable to some hon. Members and to the British public. It can never be acceptable to me in the sense that I agree with it, but, if I have to accept it, I should be able to be satisfied that the people who are required to join a union have the opportunity to say whether they wish to be forced to join a union or whether they wish to force others with whom they work to join a union.
      The latter principle is accepted in clause 6 in relation to future closed shop agreements. The Bill provides that, in future, for a closed shop agreement to be made legal it will have to be voted for in a ballot by 80 per cent. of the work force in the place where the closed shop is to be enforced.
      Mr. Greville Janner: Which is impossible.
      Mr. Smith: I do not think it is impossible. We are not dealing here with large constituencies in the sense of people living miles away. We are talking about people employed under one roof. All they have to do is to walk from their machine to a ballot box in the middle of the factory and put the ballot paper in. I do not think that is impossible.
      Mr. Janner: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that to get a majority of 80 per cent. of the people eligible to vote in any ballot anywhere is almost an impossibility, wherever they live and whatever they do, because some people will be away ill, some will be on holiday and some will not believe in voting? In any event, does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the chances of this provision working are almost nil and the closed shop in future will be killed off by the Bill? The object of the clause is to kill off future closed shops, and the present ones as well.
      Mr. Smith: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, what I know is that if there is not to be a closed shop agreement in the future it will be because at least 21 per cent. of those who work in the workshop have not indicated that they wish to have a closed shop. That is what
      612
      the clause means, and 21 per cent. is a substantial minority. I intervened in the speech made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) when he said that last night we were talking about 15 per cent. having to approve a secret ballot and now we are saying that 80 per cent. have to approve a closed shop. I intervened to say that the comparison should be between 80 per cent. and 20 per cent., not between 80 per cent. and 15 per cent.
      Last night, we were trying to protect the rights of minorities. That is what the clause attempts to do. It seeks to ensure that if a substantial minority—in this case, 20 per cent. or 21 per cent.—is not prepared to indicate by putting a cross on a piece of paper that it wishes to have a closed shop in its establishment, the closed shop should not be legal.
      That is what the Government have accepted for future closed shops. What they have not done is to make the slightest provision in the Bill to deal with existing closed shops. They have done absolutely nothing to deal with those cases. The amendment which I am supporting simply says that within two years of the passage of the Bill—I shall be perfectly frank, I prefer two years to three years because it means before the next general election—anyone working under an existing closed shop agreement shall have the right to have that closed shop agreement tested under the Bill's provisions for new closed shop agreements.
      I could understand it if the amendment said that it should should be re-tested every three or four years. Frankly, I would not be desperately unhappy about such a provision. But that is not what the amendment says. Therefore, one cannot argue that an amendment of this kind will cause constant industrial unrest and upsets and that we shall keep on having ballots and one thing or another, because that is not the case under the terms of the amendment. It is a one-off test of the closed shops which were approved before the operation of the Bill.
      At present, more than 5 million people are members of closed shop agreements. My information is that it is something like 5.3 million. A Labour Member said earlier that most of those closed shop agreements included an " easy " clause which allowed people to opt out on grounds of conscience and so on. My

      613
      information is that 37 per cent. of the agreements which already exist are tight agreements which do not allow members to opt out, except in very rigid circumstances. Therefore, 37 per cent. of those agreements are known to be " tight " as opposed to " loose ".
      It is no use saying that all existing closed shop agreements are all right. We also hear the argument that a lot of people like them and that there have been no upsets. The fact is that many people have suffered very seriously as a result of being forced out of their jobs because they refused to join a trade union under a closed shop agreement.
      Mr. John Evans: How many?
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman asks " How many? ". I do not know. But I do know that when this House approved the agreement for the Post Office to have workers on its board, it was approved only in order to save the Post Office union from carrying out a witch-hunt against those workers, some of whom had worked there for 30 years, who refused to join a trade union, despite the fact that a closed shop had been introduced. [HON. MEMBERS: " Rubbish ".] It is all very well for hon. Members to shout " Rubbish ", but it may interest them to know that I personally negotiated that agreement with Tom Jackson and Bryan Stanley before it came to the Floor of the House.
      It is no good hon. Members asking " How many?" I cannot say whether the figure is 300, 400, 500 or even three or four. However, I know that such people exist. With great respect to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), it matters even if only one person is affected. One individual matters. We cannot say that if a half-dozen people are crucified it does not matter because only six people are involved. It matters to that half-dozen. It is important to them.
      11 pm
      I believe, as I said last night, that the House has a responsibility to protect minorities as well as to uphold the rights of majorities. There is no doubt that even though they are a minority there are people who have suffered badly as a consequence of the closed shop.
      I appeal to the Secretary of State to think seriously about the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hen-
      614
      don, North, myself and other right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative side. It is a reasonable amendment which attempts to do something about the operation of the existing closed shop. It does not establish a new principle for approving closed shops. It merely puts into operation the principle which the Secretary of State has advocated in the Bill for new closed shops.
      The amendment will ensure that if we must suffer closed shops we have at least made sure that the people who are caught up in the mesh of closed shops have the opportunity to express agreement about continuing with them.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: Despite the levity earlier in the debate, it has been an important and interesting discussion. Unlike some of our debates, it shows the clash of two genuine principles—that of group solidarity and loyalty versus individual liberty. They are principles which are often in conflict in society, and society has to find—and usually does—its own informal balance. That balance differs in different sectors and at different times, but my belief is that if the law is to intervene in helping to find a balance, it should do so to protect the individual, as the clause, unamended, proposes to do. For it is the individual, as opposed to the group, who is in the weaker position.
      Dedicated trade union activists see the need to unite in a common purpose as a prime virtue which finds its crowning expression in the closed shop. I was interested in the views of Opposition Members when we discussed the Bill in Committee, because when their minds were freewheeling and they were filling in time making points about each clause they tended to speak as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has just done of the closed shop as warm, humane and mutually supportive. Such people simply do not recognise the picture of the closed shop drawn by libertarians as a means whereby employees are dragooned and marshalled against their will—and against their best interests—by shop stewards armed with the ultimate power of tearing up their union cards.
      I do not believe that either of those extreme views corresponds to reality. Few union members see the union as father and mother. Most of them are critical

      615
      of their union and find membership rather a nuisance most of the time. But—I say this to my hon. Friend—they do not believe that union solidarity and effectiveness spring primarily from the closed shop. I believe that that solidarity is often strengthened by the closed shop at the expense of extremists, just as often, as at the expense of moderates. I suggest to my hon. Friends that if the closed shop disappeared tomorrow at the wave of a legislative wand, the forces of loyalty would still be there.
      Reluctant to let down colleagues would still be a strong binding factor. So, of course—one should not underestimate this—would the readiness of almost everyone to believe that he was worth even more than his representatives were arguing for him.
      The only real question for us is what the law should be. I believe that the ideal is quite clear. People should be free to belong to a union or not to belong to a union. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] Some of my hon. Friends say " Hear, hear." I hope that that will be their response to my next remark.
      That principle, if enforced by law, would mean banning the closed shop. Our experience in 1971 showed that that could be done. Where closed shops were well established, unions and employers acted in concert to maintain them. I do not approve of that, and most of my hon. Friends do not approve of that, but that is exactly what happened. There was no deliberate flouting of the law. Personnel managers who do their job properly select from the applicants those who they think will fit in best with the interests of the company and the work that it is doing at the time. Where a closed shop already existed in 1971, it was inevitable that that meant taking on those who were members of the union or those who were going to join it.
      This clause recognises that reality. It also ensures that those who do not want to join a union in a brand new closed shop will have a remedy if they lose their jobs. It ensures that those who leave a union, for whatever reason, after a closed shop has been established when the Bill is an Act will have a remedy if that closed shop has not been approved by an 80 per cent. vote. That is a high hurdle
      616
      to overcome, as Labour Members have indicated.
      I have one reservation. Such ballots have the real disadvantage of making it possible for a minority to be denied rights at law which others have, as a result of this workmates. That is not a wholly admirable arrangement. However, it is a concept that we have to accept because of the larger virtue that it produces. But that is one reason why I am reluctant to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
      My hon. Friend wants to re-ballot both old and new closed shops after three years. I do not believe that that could be done without real disruption to existing industrial relations. What would happen if a re-ballot were organised and 75 per cent. voted in favour of maintaining a closed shop that had been long established?
      Mr. Gorst: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that it is not necessarily a matter of re-ballotting? In many instances it is a matter of holding a ballot for the first and only time.
      Mr. Lloyd: The question that I am putting still remains valid. What happens if 75 per cent. are in favour? Under my hon. Friend's amendment, the closed shop would become null and void. That would bring about strife and dislocation of which the public would not approve. They would not regard it as democratic if 75 per cent. had voted for the continuance of existing arrangements. They would not thank the Government for gratuitously creating conflict where it had not existed and would not exist had it not been for the amendment.
      Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend explain why the Humberside county council had no problem when it abolished the closed shop?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is saying as he has his back to me.
      Mr. Townend: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will my hon. Friend deal with the issue that I raised earlier? When the Humberside county council abolished a closed shop that had been in operation, there were no problems. How does he account for that?
      Mr. Lloyd: There was a determined employer who correctly judged the mood of his workpeople, acted on his principles and ended the closed shop. I hope that many other employers will operate in the same way. That can be done under the law as it exists.
      Mr. Robert Adley: What my hon. Friend is saying is sound. The denial of rights to the 75 per cent. would cause conflict, and the suggestion that this measure sought to deny the 75 per cent. rights would create the conflict that helped to destroy the 1971 Act.
      Mr. Lloyd: That is right. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the problem posed by the amendment and the reason why the terms of the amendment do not appear in the Bill as it stands.
      There is a second most important argument against the proposed change. Many of my hon. Friends won their seats with trade union votes and they will know that union members are extremely conservative. They have a tendency to stick to the status quo. They would vote " Yes " in most of these ballots. A combination of union and management pressure would encourage them to do so. Hon. Members may say that we should give them the chance to choose. However, the purpose of the clause is not merely that people should vote but that they should reach a particular conclusion.
      I oppose the principle of the closed shop. I do not want existing closed shops to be sanctioned at regular intervals by ballots. If Opposition Members were sharp, they would support these amendments in order to confound my hon. Friends. For once, the Whigs could dish the Tories. The Bill will do as much as it can within the law. It will provide compensation for those who lose their jobs as a result of unreasonable exclusion from a union. It will give compensation to those who hold strong personal convictions that they should not belong to a union. Where a demonstrable injustice has taken place, it will provide a remedy.
      The Bill cannot go further without running into insoluble problems or becoming ineffective. If that were to happen, it would provide no protection. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment because it will not achieve its objective. I urge them to support the clause in its
      618
      original form, because it is realistic and has been shrewdly drafted.
      Mr. Stoddart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on a courageous speech. Some Conservative Members have been wrongly called " wets ". They have come forward and expressed a reasonable point of view. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is inspired not by liberty but by his pathological hatred of the trade union movement. He has demonstrated that hatred on many occasions. The test of whether oppression exists is whether people kick against it. No one has yet shown that a significant body of people have said that they are oppressed by their trade union agreement. We have not seen any demonstrations, petitions, marches or lobbying of Parliament. As far as we know, hon. Members have received little correspondence on this issue.
      Why is there such great debate? It may result from the pathological hatred of Conservative Members for the trade union movement.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) concerning the protection of minorities. Does it matter whether 4,000 people march round Parliament Square, or is it more important that four people have complained of trade union oppression? It is a matter of principle. Not one Opposition Member appears to consider that important.
      Mr. Stoddart: I was just about to discuss that point. Many Tory Members not only hate the trade union movement but have no confidence that the people of Britain can look after themselves. By attending their trade union branches and by taking an interest in trade union affairs, people can do whatever they wish within that movement. That they do not do so is an exercise of freedom on their part. They will defend their rights if they feel that they are being taken away.
      11.15 pm
      It goes further than that. We have heard the boast ad nauseam that 5 million trade unionists voted Tory at the last general election. Are Conservative Members suggesting that those 5 million Tories are so pathetic and inactive that

      619
      they cannot take over trade union branches or executives? If they have 5 million people in the trade union movement, they do not need legislation—they could run the trade union movement tomorrow. If the Tories believe what they say, why do they not get off their bottoms and organise the country instead of making stupid amendments to a Bill which will undermine the rights that trade unionists have enjoyed for more than 100 years?
      Trade union agreements are not just one-sided. They exist because they have been agreed between employers and trade unions. These membership agreements could be ended by either side at any time. We do not know the consequences of this—they may be bad, and they may be good. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) undermined his hon. Friend's case when he said that his Tory friends, on taking control of the county council, ended the union membership agreement within a week. It is already open for trade union membership agreements to be ended if the people involved do not wish them to continue. It is nonsense that we should spend so much time debating these amendments.
      Many Tories really want to smash trade union membership agreements because they wish to undermine and weaken the organisations protecting the rights of workers. They have been trying to do this for a long time, and if they pass these amendments they will be well on the way to achieving that goal. I shall vote against the amendments on that basis.
      Sir Ronald Bell: At the time of the general election, I was under the impression that the biggest swing to the Conservatives was among trade unionists and that they voted for us because they believed that we would protect them from some aspects of their trade union leadership. It is our duty to fulfil that expectation that they expressed by voting for us.
      I had considerable hesitation about supporting the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) this evening because, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I am absolutely opposed in principle to the closed shop. The effect of the amendment is to
      620
      provide that where 80 per cent. of people in employment vote for a closed shop, there shall be a closed shop. I felt some difficulty in casting my vote in support of that inference. However, one is limited by the practicalities of a Bill at this stage, and the principle embodied in the amendments is embodied in the Bill in relation to future closed shops. Therefore, at the risk of being misunderstood, I shall support the amendment.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) gave us a description of the operation of a closed shop in the printing industry. Instead of being reassured, I got the feeling that I was listening to some sort of " Gulag Archipelago ". Everybody had to attend. A person who failed to attend for three meetings running was expelled. In a closed shop, I presume that he was not merely expelled from the union but expelled from the job in which his skill rested and was turned out on the labour market with, I assume, virtually no chance of re-employment at comparable level. That does not seem much of an argument in favour of closed shops.
      The objection to the closed shop is not only that of libertarian principle—that people should be free to join or not to join. It is also the link between membership of the union and employment. It is tyrannous that anyone who gets into bad standing with his union can be deprived of his employment or his career without any remedy. I did not hear any arguments from the Opposition Members addressed to that point. I cannot see how this can be reinforced with the practice of a free society. I had reached that conclusion on principle. I am reinforced in it by the fact that the other nations of the world appear to take the same view. This is something that we have almost to ourselves. Something so remarkable must be justified either by the general practice of mankind or by some cogent, specific and logical arguments explaining why it is right. The House has heard neither.
      It is a little surprising that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not thought it possible to face up to this problem in the Bill. I believe that he has not done so because he fears that there would be a powerful reaction from trade union leaders and that it is not altogether acceptable to some managers. I agree strongly with hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have commented

      621
      on the irrelevance of the attitudes of certain managements. It is due primarily, I believe, to laziness. It is easy for a management to deal with the closed shop. It saves all the trouble of dealing with people individually. It has led to the rate for the job. It has led to the bad worker being paid as much as the good worker because the management is too lazy to make distinctions. On the trade union side, it is obvious that it would diminish the power of the most militant union leader.
      I do not believe that the division of opinion on this matter coincides with political parties. I believe that plenty of hon. Members in the Labour Party think as I do about the closed shop. It is, however, more difficult for them to say what they think than it is for me. On my side, in politics there is a certain temptation to appear to be on the middle ground by adopting some of the postures of trade unionism.
      I cherish the memory, in the same month, in 1951, when I heard Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, on behalf of the Conservative Party, say that the Tory Party would go to the stake for the right to strike and Aneurin Bevan say that strikes were an anachronism in the second half of the twentieth century. Aneurin Bevan was right. A strike in our highly complicated, interdependent society is like taking a sledgehammer to a computer.
      It is lunacy to conduct our affairs in this way. Somehow, we must find a sensible answer which is not so destructive of an advanced society. A small but real contribution will be made to that achievement by supporting the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North has put forward. I shall support it.
      Mr. Greville Janner: At least, the hon and learned Member for Beacons-field (Sir R. Bell) has a refreshing honesty and candour about his libertarian approach. No one would accuse him of adopting the posture of a trade unionist. He makes it plain that he dislikes all closed shops and would be rid of the lot. He is clear that he is trying to destroy that form of trade union activity.
      The proponents of the clause maintain and pretend that that is not what they are doing. They say that they are pre-
      622
      pared to preserve closed shops, provided that they adhere to certain rules. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said that 80 per cent. was reasonable. I invite hon. Members to consider whether any of them would be in the House if they had to achieve 80 per cent. of the vote—whether 80 per cent. of those who voted or, still less, 80 per cent. of those who were eligible to vote. Unfortunately, 80 per cent. of those eligible never vote, even in the bluest of blue areas in the most Tory of Tory constituencies. I see that there is an exception.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in my constituency there is a vote in excess of 80 per cent. regularly?
      Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman has every reason to be proud of the turnout, and his electorate has every reason to be amazed at its result.
      We must consider what closed shops mean. Conservative Members are right to say that a closed shop applies a restriction on freedom. A person who does not join a union does not have the freedom to work where a closed shop exists unless he can opt out under the agreement or has a religious objection. There is a clash of freedoms. Members of a trade union also have a freedom. It is not unrerasonable for them to say " We do not want to work with people who will not join our union. We pay our dues and have made our sacrifices. You may have a freedom to work, but we have the freedom to say that we do not want to work with you." If Conservative Members do not recognise that view, they have no understanding of the basic philosophical difference which lies at the root of this important debate.
      There is a clash throughout our law. There is a clash between those who want to have freedom of speech and those who do not wish to be defamed. There is a clash between those who wish to march through our streets with then-banners, crying racist slogans, and the freedom of others not to have their lives disturbed. The question is where we should draw the line.
      The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield draws the line in favour of people who say that there should be total freedom to work without closed shops. He is entitled to be wrong—it is a free country.

      623
      We take a different view. We say that on balance we consider that ordinary working people have the right to say that they have built up their trade union movement and have induced their employers to agree to a closed shou which the Bill rightly refers to as a union membership agreement, under which workers agree to join a union, pre-entry or post-entry. They are entitled to that freedom.
      Mr. John Evans: Will my hon. and learned Friend make it clear that when someone approaches a closed shop and does not particularly want to join a union, he has a freedom? The shop steward will inform that person that certain wages and safety conditions have been established for the benefit of members. He will say "You are free to join us and join our trade union, or you are free to find a job elsewhere. The choice is yours."
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Janner: Yes, I agree, but the choice is, of course, a limited one, in the same way as we have a limited choice in all other aspects of our life.
      I take the view that, when there is a substantial majority of people in favour of a closed shop, it is on balance right that the closed shop should be allowed to exist if the union and the management agree to it.
      The logical outcome of the amendment is that we should return to the situation which existed between 1971 and 1974. I wonder whether hon. Members recall that. At at that time, in the absence——
      Mr. Marlow: Were there ballots on closed shops between 1971 and 1974? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that throughout the country there are probably at this moment a great number of closed shops the members of which do not want to be in a closed shop? How on earth can they get out of a closed shop situation unless they have the ballot which we are suggesting?
      Mr. Janner: There are millions of people who deeply regret having this Government, but they have to put up with them for the moment. In our democracy we have to put up with things that we do not necessarily like, because no democracy and no system is perfect. Any system which allows the present lot to be elected as the Government is far from
      624
      perfect, but people have to put up with it until the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: " Yes, a ballot."] Sometimes a ballot takes place and the results are very unsatisfactory.
      From 1971 until 1974 closed shops were to all intents and purposes unlawful. With the exception of those arrangements which were called agency shop agreements, of which there were only a couple, one of them being among seamen, all closed shops were theoretically unlawful. What happened in reality was that the closed shops remained in being in spite of their being unlawful, because a management wanted them to remain. They remained in being partly because the trade unions said that they would not have these arrangements destroyed, and they remained in force also—hon. Members ought to recognise this—because practical people who work in industry, as one hon. Member on the Government Back Benches courageously said, ordinary personnel managers and industrial relations managers, generally prefer to work in a closed shop situation.
      That is the view taken by managements not, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, because they cannot be bothered to negotiate with individuals. In the large organisations in which people work, one cannot do that. It is not merely convenient but right to have these arrangements, because one can then negotiate with an integrated work force and its elected representatives. That is the way to have good industrial relations.
      The divide-and-rule system so beloved by Conservatives destroys good industrial relations, and the sort of system now proposed, tacked on to a Bill which is bad enough already, will achieve the ultimate destruction of such industrial relations in exactly the same way as they were destroyed between 1971 and 1974.
      Conservative Members are fully entitled, as we are, to have their philosophical beliefs, but when they are dealing with legislation they ought to have regard to the havoc that those beliefs may cause if they are implemented through the sort of action recommended by hon. Members tonight, whose speeches reveal that they have not a clue about the way that industrial relations operate on the shop floor and how the law forces people into situations where it is not the responsible trade union leaders, as they call them.

      625
      who succeed, but the breakaways, the independents, the wildcats, as they choose to call them, or what they regard as the extremists, who can take action because the others do not have the power.
      Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will my hon. and learned Friend also refer to another freedom—the freedom or licence of employers not to have a trade union at their place of work?
      Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend is correct. The removal of the recognition procedures by the Bill without their replacement by other measures is a further invitation to chaos.
      These are bad amendments, tacked on to a bad Bill. If they are implemented, the result will be disastrous. I trust that the House will recall what happened in the past when similar arrangements were made and that hon. Members will join together to reject this extremely ill-thought-out and bad amendment.
      Mr. Prior: I hope that the House will forgive me for a moment if I pay a short tribute to Sir John Methven, who died this afternoon. He was a powerful personality, and he made an immense contribution to British industry and to the Confederation of British Industry. In public he was a powerful advocate for his case, and in private he was a warm and very gentle man. The nation is very much the poorer for his passing from us. I thought that the House would like to join tonight in sending our sympathy to his widow. [Hon. Members: " Hear, hear."]
      Once again, we have had a serious debate, at times quite light-hearted, but underlying the light-heartedness a serious debate. It was not an easy debate for me to answer. I am grateful to many of my hon. Friends who have made kind remarks about me—but who have then said that despite those kind remarks they intend to vote against the Government tonight.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Do not worry. You have friends over here.
      Mr. Prior: That is the sort of remark that always worries me.
      Passions have always run high on the subject of the closed shop. The debate has been wide. I should like to try,
      626
      within the rules of order and within the rules of the amendments, to find a message to convey to my hon. Friends, to the House and to the country.
      All Conservative Members—and, I suspect, some Labour Members also—find the closed shop objectionable. Therefore, in Opposition we gave considerable thought to how best we should proceed on this issue. There was much debate and discussion on the subject, and we always came back to the approach that is embodied in the Bill.
      Our paramount concern throughout has been to provide effective and proper safeguards for the individual. But we also had to recognise that a simple attempt to ban closed shops would be ineffective. Worse, trying to outlaw the closed shop would sometimes be harmful to the individuals concerned. The evidence of the 1971 Act in this regard suggests that informal agreements-agreements under the counter—may continue even if formal ones are banned.
      Speaking about closed shops, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said that it is tremendously important—he was speaking as a lawyer—that we do not pass legislation that we cannot enforce. There is a real danger—this was borne out by the experience last time round—of passing legislation which cannot be enforced. Such informal agreements as then result may restrict the individual's right to work far more than an open agreement which is regulated and limited.
      The belief of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Budgen)—which we all share—is consistent with what we seek to do in the Bill. We are seeking to protect the rights of the individual within a closed shop situation.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Prior: I will, but I do not want to give way too many times.
      Sir N. Bonsor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I shall be extremely brief. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the consequence of the legislation as now formed is to protect—and rightly protect—the 54 per cent. of the manual work force not yet in closed shops but to

      627
      abandon with no hope for the future the 46 per cent. who are now in closed shops?
      Mr. Prior: I do not accept that for one moment. I shall, I hope, go on to convince my hon. Friend why that is not so. From the Government's point of view, the proposal, which could make formal agreements null and void, is fraught with dangers and risks.
      There is another vital consideration that the Government have to bear in mind. The Bill deals with specific union abuses and bad practices, and I believe that it does so adequately and effectively. At the same time, we must see that in doing that we do not hamstring industry and prevent employers and managements from getting on with the job.
      In seeking to tackle the problems of industrial relations, we must make sure that we do not create more problems than we solve, that we do not undermine managements and responsible union leadership and that we do not create more disruption and unrest rather than less. That consideration is reflected in the whole character of the Bill. That is why we are not setting out to impose rigid blueprints from on high. Rather, our whole approach has been to establish satisfactory ground rules which can be built on by all concerned throughout industry.
      In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) recognised in what he said that that was happening. He went into some detail about a recent survey which showed that the vast majority of closed shops were now recognising that proper protection for individuals must be written in. That is something that we need to see, and it is beginning to happen. It is an approach which seeks to provide workable remedies and to restore the opportunity for people in industry to sort out their own problems in a flexible and practical way. I believe that this approach fits in well with the mood of the time.
      The new approach does not reveal itself simply in a change in attitude to the closed shop or in a secession by employers from closed shop agreements, though employers are free unilaterally to end such agreements. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) talked about Humberside doing just that. That was their judgment. Obviously, in their case it was correct. Other manage- 628
      ments are free at any time, if they believe in their judgment that it is right for their industrial relations and for their work force, to do so.
      It is increasingly clear that employers and managements, where they think it necessary to maintain closed shop arrangements, are paying more attention to the protection of individual rights and are not inhibited in their bargaining stance by the fact that a closed shop may exist. The TUC has shown its awareness of the possible dangers in inflexible closed shop arrangements by the guide that it put out a year ago.
      The general approach of the Government has two main strands. First, we want to support employers in adopting a firm and responsible approach to closed shops which may be proposed or to which they are already party. Secondly, we intend to deal with the abuses of existing as well as new closed shops by providing individuals with rights which will deter unions or employers in the circumstances of the closed shop from unreasonably seeking to deprive a man of his right to work because of his sincere beliefs.
      11.45 pm.
      I come to the points that I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North. The Bill contains a number of important provisions. It does not do justice to the Bill simply to point—as some of my hon. Friends have done tonight—to that part of clause 6 which deals with ballots for new closed shops entered into after the Bill becomes law. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was quite wrong to say that the Bill does nothing for existing closed shops. I hope that in the next five minutes I shall prove that it does a good deal for individual protection within closed shops.
      First, the Bill provides protection for those who may be unreasonably excluded or expelled from their union in a closed shop. The impact of that should not be underestimated. It will reinforce responsible trade union behaviour, diminish the possibility of intimidation in closed shops and support individual members in resisting what they regard as unreasonable demands from their unions.
      Secondly, clause 6—in addition to providing for ballots where new closed shops

      629
      are entered into—will provide protection for existing non-union employees in both existing and new closed shops and for those who object, on grounds of conscience or any other deeply held conviction, to being members of any trade union whatsoever or to a certain trade union. That significant new protection will apply also to existing as well as new closed shops. Together with the other measures, it will help to prevent the closed shop from being exploited to the detriment of individual rights.
      Thirdly, the protection afforded by clause 6 against unfair dismissal in a closed shop will be reflected in, and reinforced by, the protection provided by clause 14 against action by the employer short of dismissal. Fourthly, clauses 9 and 14 will have the effect of deterring trade unions from exercising pressure by way of forming, organising, procuring or financing industrial action, or even threatening to secure dismissal.
      Fifthly, there is clause 16. My hon. Friends have said much about employees and employers who may find themselves locked into closed shops against their will. There is the notorious example of those employers and employees who have been the victims of the activities of SLADE and who have been dragooned into closed shops. Nobody has been more vehemently critical than I of such tactics. Clause 16 will enable employers who have been affected by the action of SLADE and any similar employers to terminate the closed shop arrangements into which they may have entered unwillingly, without fear of secondary industrial reprisals being taken against them.
      Finally, I have undertaken to produce a code of practice on the closed shop under the provision of clause 2. That will cover the question of a periodic review of support for closed shop arrangements. Major employer groups have said to us that reviewing the level of support for closed shop arrangements will need careful handling if it is not to be exploited and that is should, therefore, be handled in a code. I endorse that view, and the code will provide clear guidance for employers and unions on the matter.
      The Government have to consult widely under clause 2, and later this year further advice and guidance will be given in the code of practice. The Government will be
      630
      looking to the various people who should be consulted on the matter, and I am confident that, on a broad front, they will encourage managements to reappraise, on a continuing basis, whether the closed shop agreements to which they may be party are really necessary in current circumstances. That voluntary effect, together with the statutory back-up that I have described, will lead us progressively, and in a practical and realistic way, towards the goal that my hon. Friends and I have in common.
      The Bill incorporates a range of provisions that will help to prevent the abuses to which the closed shop can give rise, to encourage responsible employer and trade union behaviour and to support employers in taking a hard and realistic look at their existing closed shop arrangements.
      Mr. Gorst: I readily concede that my right hon. Friend has made all the provision that he has enumerated on behalf of those existing and future members of closed shops, but he has not explained why the procedure for future closed shops is not exactly the same as for existing closed shops.
      Mr. Prior: To take action before a closed shop comes into operation gives employees an opportunity of deciding whether that is the way that they wish to go. If we do that for all existing closed shops, we shall be getting deep into the whole problems of the practice of industrial relations on the shop floor.
      Mr. Budgen: What does that mean?
      Mr. Prior: It means that having a ballot of the existing work force in those circumstances can result in the whole way in which employers, in certain circumstances, have conducted their negotiations being put at risk. It could, and would, lead to an enormous amount of industrial trouble. That is the advice which we have and why we believe that it is better to approach the matter through a code than by writing it into legislation.
      I must tell my hon. Friends that there is a lot of difference between introducing the provision for new closed shops, where the situation has not existed before, and introducing it for closed shops that have perhaps been in existence for many years.
      Mr. George Gardiner: And perhaps for only a few years.
      Mr. Prior: Many of the most effective and strictest closed shops have been in operation for many years and existed all through the passage of the 1971 Act as well.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too deeply involved in the 80 per cent. clause and so on, will he explain how the fact that an employee who loses his job as a consequence of a closed shop has the right to sue an employer for dismissal is a deterrent to the trade union?
      Mr. Prior: Under some of the provisions in the Bill, the employer can enjoin the union in the action that the employee brings for unfair dismissal. That is designed so that we do not get a situation where an employer, having been forced by a union to dismiss an employee, feels that he has no redress against the union. That is written into the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
      Amendment No. 8, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, provides that a closed shop agreement that came into force before the Act comes into operation will be deemed null and void unless confirmed by a secret ballot carried out in accordance with new section 58A of the 1978 Act within two years of the passing of this Employment Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) proposes that the time limit should be three years instead of two.
      The amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) amend the ballot provisions of the new section 58A and provide that a union membership agreement shall be regarded as approved if a ballot has been held on the question within the three previous years. He is tackling it a different way, but the effect would be almost the same If he will forgive me, I will not go into the details of amendment No. 34 at this stage.
      As I said yesterday, I do not propose to shoot down the amendments on technical grounds, though I owe it to the House to point out that they all have technical flaws. Leaving them aside, how does the approach embodied in the amendments differ from that of the Government? It does so in two crucial respects. First, the amendments are far
      632
      wider in scope than the Government's intentions. The voiding of closed shops—the device in amendments Nos. 8 and 34—represents a return to the 1971 Act, and the experience of that Act was that voiding would not work because closed shop arrangements would continue. Indeed, driving such practices underground might result in their operating in a more illiberal and arbitrary fashion.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield goes even further. Not only would an unapproved union membership agreement be null and void, but the trade union could no longer be regarded as registered as an independent trade union for the purposes of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. Again, without going into great detail, my hon. Friend would not be taking away immunities from the trade union. He would be dealing, for example, with the disclosure of information, redundancy, consultation and so on, and I do not think that that is what he is seeking to get at.
      The second respect in which my hon. Friend's approach differs from the Government's is as follows. The Government's basic approach, in accordance with their philosophy generally with industry, is to facilitate, encourage and assist. The approach proposed by my hon. Friends would not allow industry to exercise its judgment. Action by managements and trade unions would be required within two or three years as the case may be. This is not the flexible approach that we need to encourage, and we must prepare the ground for managements to take the lead on all of these matters. It would not help industry to have such requirements imposed upon it.
      Whilst I respect the view of my hon. Friends who believe that industry and management do not matter and that we simply have to protect the individual, I believe that we are protecting the individual in the Bill. I do not want to put the House in the position of passing legislation which it cannot enforce or to put the individual in a worse postion because the practice goes underground. It is no part of the Government's policy to keep on telling industry what it has to do. We have to listen to industry. We are talking the whole time about wealth creation, and we need to carry industry with us. I have spent years trying to get from industry a reasonable position.
      I believe that we are protecting the individual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wishes us to do, yet we are leaving with industry the flexibility it needs where there are existing closed shops. In the past couple of years or so, the pressures have been very much against the imposition of closed shops. I warned right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches that that would be so at the time of the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and after the railwaymen's dispute. It is the pressures since then that are resulting in better forms of trade union membership agreement which protect individual rights.
      So I believe that we are approaching this in the best possible way, and it would not help industry to have such requirements imposed on it, particularly when the sanctions proposed risk undoing the protection we seek to provide. Surely it is better to point the way and allow managements to take action as and when they see fit.
      The amendments would require action irrespective of its timeliness or the delicacy of other issues which might already be under negotiation. That is not the way for a Conservative Government to help industry or those who work in it.
      As I said at the outset, the Government's proposals in this area echo the whole tenor of our approach in the Employment Bill. We are seeking to deal effectively with specific abuses and problems in industrial relations. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends, and Liberal Members as well, on that point. In framing these provisions, it would be folly to discount totally the views of those in industry who must live with the law when it is made. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will give satisfactory safeguards on closed shops to individuals and will also be acceptable to those who will be directly concerned with working them.
      12 midnight
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) said that he thought it was lunacy for us to conduct our affairs in this way, in that if we did not take a firm stand industry would continue in its old ways, that that would be comfortable for industry and so on. I must reject that view. We in this House have seen the decline of our
      634
      nation's industrial performance over the last few years. We must listen to and understand the problems of industry if we are to achieve the improvement which we need.
      I believe that the operation of the closed shop in a number of instances has been detrimental to the rights of individuals. I have dealt with individual cases, just as the hon. Member for Rochdale has done and just as many of my hon. Friends have done. I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). We have had long correspondence and talks about a bill poster from British Rail. There is no doubt that feeling in the country again runs strong about the need for protection for individuals who find themselves within a closed shop, which means that they must either tolerate what they do not believe in or lose their jobs.
      Mr. Mark Wolfson:Does my right hon. Friend agree or disagree with the proposition that the closed shop has had not only the detrimental effect upon individuals to which he has just referred but also, on many occasions, as detrimental an effect on productivity, and that unless that is put right we shall not move forward?
      Mr. Prior: I go along with my hon. Friend with regard to the individual, and I go along with him on the question of productivity to the extent that I think that in many cases closed shops have been comfortable arrangements between management and unions. Comfortable arrangements are not always the best. On the other hand, there are many examples of closed shop arrangements, where the management has known exactly with whom to negotiate, which have prevented a great deal of industrial strife.
      I do not believe that it is part of the Conservative Party's philosophy to write into the law what the practice should be. Our job is to protect the rights of the individual. That is what we are in this House to do. That is what I believe our proposals in the Bill will do.
      The hour is late. We have had a long debate on this subject. Indeed, during the last three days we have had a number of debates in which many problems have been raised by my hon. Friends. It has been no easy task for me to resist their amendments, but I do

      635
      resist them on the basis that I desperately want to see industrial relations taken out of this House. I want to see a basis of law which is acceptable to both sides of the House and to all sides in the country.
      I believe that the approach which we are adopting on the closed shop is a sensible one in that it protects the rights of the individual while at the same time recognising many of the facts of life in British industry today. That is the sort of pragmatic Tory approach which we have always fought for and followed. I hope that we are not going to change that approach tonight.
      Mr. Varley: When this debate started, the Opposition thought that perhaps we might move quickly to the next group of amendments. I make no complaint about the fact that we have spent a considerable amount of time on the amendment of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), because it deals with an important subject.
      But the next group of amendments also concerns individual rights and freedoms, and I hope that Conservative Members will remain in their places in considerable numbers so that we can go through the amendments which deal with the monstrous provisions in the Bill which will take away the unfair dismissal rights of newly established firms employing fewer than 20 people.
      Those provisions will create a new caste of workers. [Hon. Members: " Come to the amendment ".] I will come to the amendment, but there are important minority issues that will come up later during this sitting and we hope that hon. Members will take them as seriously as they appeared to take this issue. [Hon. Members: " What about your friends? "] My hon. Friends will take them seriously, too. Though the Bill may have the approval of some Conservative Members, there is no doubt that it destroys some of the rights and freedoms of individuals.
      I wish to join in the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State on the tragic death of Sir John Methven. I join with him in sending sympathy to the wife and family of Sir John. I had many a tussle with him when he was Director-General of the CBI, and I cannot say that I agreed with his approach on many occasions. But there is no doubt that he
      636
      brought a new vigour to the Confederation of British Industry.
      That brings me to the point I wish to make about this group of amendments. One of the things that Sir John Methven did was to establish the CBI conference. So far there have been two conferences, the second of which took place in November last year.
      The CBI debated the closed shop at that conference. A proposition which was before the conference was not unilke the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hendon, North. Some interesting comments were made at that conference, though I know that that will not impress the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) because he does not care a fig for what industrialists think about this issue. The Secretary of State was right, however, when he said that if we pass industrial relations legislation we must consider how management and trade unions in industry will operate that legislation.
      The CBI discussed these matters last November, and Mr. Graham Turnbull of the General Council of British Shipping said that British shipping operated a closed shop. He said that there were no problems and that no employee had lost his job. He said that the industry was convinced that existing arrangements contributed to good industrial relations and that any changes as a result of legislation would cause considerable and unnecessary upset. That was his view.
      When the Industrial Relations Bill was going through Parliament in 1971, it was suggested that the closed shop should be banned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has reminded me that during the proceedings on the Bill the then Conservative Government had to introduce amendments to cater for the merchant shipping industry as well as Equity and some other organisations.
      Mr. Clifford Rose also had something to say at that CBI conference about the closed shop.
      Mr. Marlow Mr. Marlow rose——
      Mr. Varley: I think that I should get on. I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I did not interrupt him. I shall get on as we should come to a Division soon.

      637
      Mr. Rose reminded the CBI conference that the closed shop was nothing new. The conference report states that he
      " reminded conference that the closed shop was nothing new—it had certainly been around as long ago as 1867. In his view employers should not give so much emotive attention to the subject; the approach should be coolly logical. There was no point in pretending that there was no case at all for the closed shop in the light of the long experience of it in many other industries."
      There are many other quotations that I could use from the CBI Conference. It is not all one way.
      Mr. Cyril Smith Mr. Cyril Smith rose——
      Mr. Varley: I give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) as I think I have referred to him.
      Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman proceed to tell us the result of the vote at the CBI conference in the debate to which he has referred?
      Mr. Varley: By a very narrow majority the resolution was approved. Sir John Hedly Greenborough reminded delegates of standing orders and said that the resolution had not been carried by a sufficient majority. He told the conference that the issue would have to be remitted for further consideration by the CBI.
      By no means is British industry in favour of what the hon. Members for Hendon, North and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) want to do. They must take that into account. Perhaps Conservative hon. Members are not concerned about that, but it is a feature that concerns my right hon. and hon. Friends. We wish industry to function efficiently, to reach the boundaries of possibility, to increase overall production and to achieve higher performance.
      I refer to a document that might appeal to some Conservative Members. It is entitled "A Christian enquiry into compulsory trade union membership". It describes itself as "An Anglican Comment on Current Affairs ". There is a foreword by the Right Rev. Robin Woods, Bishop of Worcester. There is a saying that the Anglican Church is the Conservative Party at prayer—[HON. MEMBERS: " Get on with it."] It is going to be a very long night. I must not be provoked into making a long speech.
      The Anglican Church states:
      638
      "A closed shop can be seen as a logical culmination of the right of working people to combine to protect and advance their interests as they see them… Benefits negotiated by unions apply to everyone, whether members or not, and resentment caused by ' free-riders' who gain the advantages without accepting the obligations of membership or paying the dues will be avoided."
      That is the Anglican Church—well, it is the study group of the Anglican Church. It concludes:
      " We therefore welcome the exemption clause present in the 1976 Act. The fact that broader tolerance is left to the parties themselves as they establish Union Membership Agreements, is, in our view, also to be approved… We urge that individual Agreements deal adequately with the local situation in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance."
      Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose——
      Mr. Varley: That is what I urge Conservative Members to do. They should approach the issue with understanding and tolerance.
      Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose——
      Mr. Varley: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has only recently come into the Chamber.
      Mr. Cormack: No.
      Mr. Varley: Even if he has been here all evening, there is no reason why I should give way to him, and I do not give way to him.
      I quoted what leading members of the CBI had to say about the closed shop. I have quoted the Anglican study group. The Royal Commission of 1965 to 1968 came out firmly against the prohibition of the closed shop. Its members included distinguished industrialists and trade unionists. I have quoted the recent survey produced by the Department of Employment in November 1979, in which provisions were being made for genuinely held personal objections to belonging to a trade union.
      I think that the Secretary of State is right to reject the amendments of his hon. Friends. If we are to make progress in industrial relations, it will be on the basis of being able to come to terms with the closed shop, by ensuring that those who have to do the negotiations make proper provisions for those who have genuine conscientious objection, which is the practice now and has been for some time by the majority of trade unions, by building

      639
      on the guides that were set out last year by the TUC, and by ensuring that we move in that direction. That is the only hope that we have for sound industrial relations.
      The Opposition will be voting against the amendment of the hon. Member for Hendon, North.
      Mr. Gorst: With respect to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), the replies of both Front Benches may satisfy the requirements of the triple pillars of the corporate State—the TUC, the CBI and the Government—but hon. Members of all parties have sought a balance between the power of collectivism
      and the rights of the individual. That has been at the heart of our debate. The amendment does not favour either unfairly. It is a compromise, because it fails to breach the objections of principle to the closed shop that have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends. It merely mitigates their incidence. The amendment could not have been milder. It is well within the principles and practice of the Bill. I regret that I have to ask my hon. Friends to join me in pressing the issue to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House Divided: Ayes 49, Noes 477.

      Division No. 265]

      AYES

      [12.15 am

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fry, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Gorst, John

      Rost, Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Greenway, Harry

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Brinton, Tim

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Hannam, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Budgen, Nick

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Waller, Gary

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Ward, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Loveridge, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Marlow, Tony

      Wolfson, Mark

      Colvin, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Montgomery, Fergus

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Dover, Denshore

      Neale, Gerrard

      Mr. George Gardiner and

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Mr. Christopher Murphy

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Porter, George

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Adams, Allen

      Bowden, Andrew

      Cockeram, Erlc

      Adley, Robert

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Alexander, Richard

      Bradford, Rev R.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Alison, Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Coleman, Donald

      Allaun, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Ancram, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Conlan, Bernard

      Anderson, Donald

      Brittan, Leon

      Cook, Robin F.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Cope, John

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Arnold, Tom

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Corrie, John

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Costain, A. P.

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Cowans, Harry

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Buchan, Norman

      Critchley, Julian

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Buck, Antony

      Crouch, David

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

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Crowther, J. S.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Burden, F. A.

      Cryer, Bob

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Butcher, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Campbell, Ian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Davidson, Arthur

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Canavan, Dennis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cant, R. B.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

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

      Best, Keith

      Carmichael, Neil

      Deakins, Eric

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cartwright, John

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Blackburn, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Dempsey, James

      Blaker, Peter

      Channon, Paul

      Dewar, Donald

      Body, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Dixon, Donald

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Dobson, Frank

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Dormand, Jack

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Douglas, Dick

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mates, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Mather, Carol

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Dubs, Alfred

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Mawby, Ray

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Home Robertson, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dunlop, John

      Homewood, William

      Maxton, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hooley, Frank

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hooson, Tom

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Durant, Tony

      Horam, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hordern, Peter

      Mellor, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Eastham, Ken

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

      Mikardo, Ian

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Huckfield, Les

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Eggar, Timothy

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      English, Michael

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Moate, Roger

      Ewing, Harry

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Monro, Hector

      Eyre, Reginald

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Moore, John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Fell, Anthony

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Field, Frank

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Morton, George

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Fitt, Gerard

      Kerr, Russell

      Myles, David

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Needham, Richard

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Nelson, Anthony

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Neubert, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Newens, Stanley

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lamborn, Harry

      Newton, Tony

      Ford, Ben

      Lamond, James

      Normanton, Tom

      Forman, Nigel

      Lamont, Norman

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Forrester, John

      Lang, Ian

      Ogden, Eric

      Foster, Derek

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Latham, Michael

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fox, Marcus

      Lawson, Nigel

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Lee, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Park, George

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Parker, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      George, Bruce

      Litherland, Robert

      Parris, Matthew

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Parry, Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Golding, John

      Luce, Richard

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Pawsey, James

      Gow, Ian

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Pendry, Tom

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson

      Penhaligon, David

      Graham, Ted

      McCartney, Hugh

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      McCusker, H.

      Pollock, Alexander

      Gray, Hamish

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      McElhone, Frank

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Grist, Ian

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Grylls, Michael

      MacGregor, John

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

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

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McKelvey, William

      Race, Reg

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Radice, Giles

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Raison, Timothy

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      McMahon, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Renton, Tim

      Hastings, Stephen

      McNally, Thomas

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hayhoe, Barney

      McWilliam, John

      Richardson, Jo

      Haynes, Frank

      Madel, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Major, John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Heddle, John

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Henderson, Barry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      642

      643

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Squire, Robin

      Waddington, David

      Robertson, George

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Stanley, John

      Wakeham, John

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Steen, Anthony

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rooker, J. W.

      Stevens, Martin

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Roper, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Walters, Dennis

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Stoddart, David

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rossi, Hugh

      Stokes, John

      Watkins, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Stott, Roger

      Watson, John

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Strang, Gavin

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Straw, Jack

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

      Scott, Nicholas

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Welsh, Michael

      Sever, John

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Whitehead, Phillip

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

      Tebbit, Norman

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whitlock, William

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Whitney, Raymond

      Shersby, Michael

      Thomas Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Silverman, Julius

      Thompson, Donald

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Silvester, Fred

      Thorne, Nell (llford South)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Sims, Roger

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Tilley, John

      Winnick, David

      Snape, Peter

      Tinn, James

      Woodall, Alec

      Soley, Clive

      Torney, Tom

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Speed, Keith

      Trippier, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Speller Tony

      Trotter, Neville

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Spence, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Sproat, lain

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Anthony Berry

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 7

      EXCLUSIONS OF RIGHTS
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 60 in page 8, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 9.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
      No. 61, in page 8, line 38 leave out ' two years' and insert' six months'.
      No. 62, in page 8, leave out lines 40 to 45.
      No. 63, in page 8, line 44, leave out ' twenty ' and insert' four'.
      No. 111, in page 9, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 64, in page 9, line 9, at end insert ' or was redundancy '.
      Mr. Walker: This is one of the neglected but vicious parts of the Bill. The Government have created the impression that the Bill is concerned with containing robust picketing, the closed shop and Government assistance for ballots. We have repeatedly expressed our anxiety about
      644
      the parts of the Bill which strike at hard-won individual workers' rights.
      This part of the Bill needlessly and provocatively strikes at individual rights because it deprives many workers of their right to complain about being unfairly dismissed. The amendments are aimed at removing that offensive provision or, if that is not successful, mitigating the damage.
      I shall not rehearse again all the arguments about the many other much more serious causes of concern for small employers—the impact of the increase in value added tax brought in by the present Government, the enormously increased cost of borrowing money, the impact of price and wage inflation on small employers, the impact of the increase in gas and electricity charges and the increase in rents—but one thing is clear from the mass of evidence available to us.
      I am glad to see the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) in his place, with his responsibility for small firms, because I am sure that he will confirm that the Conservative Party's small businesses bureau places employment protection legislation very low on its list of the matters which are of great concern to

      645
      small firms and are causing the growing number of bankruptcies among them. I have yet to meet an employer running a small firm who has been driven into bankruptcy, receivership or liquidation who complains that it was the product of employment protection legislation.
      The hard fact is that many employees, on the other hand, will be deprived of basic fundamental rights which Parliament has conferred upon them in recent years. The clause strips from employees who have been employed for less than two years in a firm employing 20 or fewer people the right to complain not when they have been dismissed but when they have been unfairly dismissed. This is what is so iniquitous. It seems to confer on the small employer the right to dismiss whether fairly or unfairly, and I fear that that is how some employers will react to it. They will consider that they have a right to dismiss anyone on whatever grounds they like—whether the colour of people's eyes, whether they were drunk at work, or whatever it may be.
      That is wholly unacceptable, and for that reason we have tabled these amendments and intend to press them against the Government.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say " Aye ".
      Hon. Members: Aye.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. John Townend Mr. John Townend rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I did not notice that the hon. Gentleman wished to speak. Mr. Townend.
      Mr. Townend: I wish to speak to amendment No. 111, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understood it, you put the Question and a response has been given from both sides of the House.
      Mr. Walter Harrison: You collected the voices.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was in fact collecting the voices, but I appreciate that the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has an amendment in this
      646
      group, and I think it only fair that he should be allowed to speak to it.
      Mr. Townend: My amendment No. 111 would delete paragraph (c) from the new subsection (1). Clause 7 was originally intended to apply only to new firms with fewer than 20 employees, but it was extended by the Government as a concession to all firms with fewer than 20 employees. I believe that to be an excellent move, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wisdom in accepting the arguments of the small business sector.
      All of us on these Government Benches accept the need to encourage small firms, as it is to this sector of our business community that we have to look for the majority of the new jobs which must be created. There are two ways by which we can encourage small firms. One is through taxation. We started on that in the Budget last year, and we did much more in the Budget this year. But the second and, I submit, most important way to help small firms is to reduce the burden of legislation and bureaucracy.
      Anyone who has any knowledge of the small business sector will know that the one piece of legislation which has caused more criticism and aggravation than any other is the unfair dismissal part of the Employment Protection Act. It has resulted in small firms being exceedingly wary of taking on new staff. I suspect that many hon. Members, when visiting their constituencies and talking to small business men, have been told " I could do with an extra one or two chaps, but I shall not take anybody else on because if I get the wrong fellow I shall end up before the industrial tribunal ".
      Mr. Cyril Smith: I keep hearing that argument, and it is not an argument to which, as a small business man, I subscribe. If a small business man refuses to employ people as a consequence of the Act, the corollary is that he is turning down orders which he otherwise could obtain. He employs people in order to produce goods, in order to meet orders. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any company that refuses orders as a consequence of the Employment Protection Act?
      Mr. Townend: I do not wish to detain the House at this time of night with a lot of examples, but I know of companies

      647
      that are not prepared to expand for two main reasons—taxation and legislation. They are making an adequate living, and they do not want the aggravation.
      Therefore, clause 7 is welcome, because it reduces the burden on small firms and it aligns the two-year qualifying period for redundancy with the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal. However, there is one problem. When one looks at the clause in detail, it is clear that whoever drafted it—I am sure that it was not one of my right hon. or hon. Friends, but perhaps it was someone in the Department—had no experience of small businesses or small business men. If he had, he would never have included para-graphp (c), which states:
      " The dismissed employee was on being engaged informed in writing of the effect of this section.
      That undermines the purpose of the clause—which is to relieve small business men of bureaucracy. Small business men neither understand it, nor do they want to undertake the administration. The last thing that a small business man wants is to get involved in paperwork. Many will never have read the regulations, and in practice they will not give their employees notice of this part of the law in writing when they are first employed. Many never get round to giving contracts of employment until they are challenged. I suggest that Members of Parliament should consider their position as small employers. How many hon. Members give their secretaries contracts of employment? I trust that any hon. Member who has not done so will be prepared to vote for this amendment tonight.
      Paragraph (c) refers to the dismissed employee being informed when he was engaged. Does that mean that when a small business man engages a man on a Friday, to start work the following Monday, he will have to give the man a copy of clause 7 of the Employment Act? If he forgets to do so until the following Wednesday, will the man lose the protection of the clause? I suggest that he will.
      I have two further specific objections to the clause. It is unusual, if not unique, to place on the employer the responsibility of notifying the employees of the law in this way. The normal practice is that the citizen is expected to know the law.
      648
      Worse, if the clause is not amended, many small business men will assume that there is a two-year qualifying period, and, because they have not read the small print and given notice in writing, somewhere along the line someone will be dismissed and will take the small business man to the tribunal, with the possibility that the tribunal will find him guilty of unfair dismissal. That will produce disillusionment among small business men, and they will rightly feel that we have given a concession with one hand and taken it away with the other and that we have not lived up to the spirit of the commitment.
      I have been a small business man for over 25 years, and I represent a constituency where the vast majority of jobs are provided in farms, fishing and small businesses. This is a matter of common sense. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take the advice of those who know and understand small business men. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) agrees that they need understanding. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept my amendment, which I am sure he will agree is both practical and necessary.
      Paragraph (c), if let in, will destroy the purpose of the clause. I am convinced that that is not my right hon. Friend's purpose. If he agrees to the amendment, clause 7 will be a boon to small business men. It will show that we are not just paying lip service to our support for their cause but are implementing our policy in a meaningful way.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Prior: I apologise for detaining the House for so long tonight.
      A number of important amendments have been tabled to clause 7. Amendment No. 60, moved by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), would have the effect of deleting the whole clause. Amedment No. 61 would delete " two years " and insert "six months ". Amendment No. 62 would delete the reference to " twenty ", Amendment No. 63 would allow four only instead of 20. Amendment No. 64 would add " or was redundancy " at the end of subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 111, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), seeks to delete subsection (1)(c).
      My view on the clause is that we need to have absolute regard to doing everything that we can not only to help small businesses which are in existence but to remove any psychological barriers and any impediment in people's minds towards the setting up of new businesses. I say that because so often one hears of people saying " I would set up a business and employ a few people, but I do not want to be bothered with all the labour problems that we have nowadays." That is a usual reaction. It may be that many of those people subsequently set up businesses, but there is a great deal of evidence that we are falling behind many other countries in the numbers of small businesses that we have in this country.
      The greatest growth of small businesses in the last few years has been in Germany and Japan and, above all, in the United States. The small businesses will provide the employment of tomorrow. In many instances, the small businesses will provide the large businesses of tomorrow as well. It is a great mistake to think that America is the country of big business. America is a country of small businesses, some of which have become big.
      Over the years we have had a fetish about size. I am not against large businesses. I believe that small businesses not only have an enormous amount to contribute, but that, on the whole, their industrial relations are much better than in big businesses.
      I do not believe that in 1980, given the independence of the British working man, he will feel that the provisions that we are putting forward in the clause, which do not give him protection for unfair dismissal for two years as opposed to one year, are an imposition on his employee rights. Large numbers of men and women now prefer to work for small businesses because they do not wish to get involved in all the bureaucracy that seems to accompany large business. They are prepared to accept that the relationship between their employers and themselves is generally very friendly but that it may not always be conducted within the strict administrative requirements of the law.
      I suspect that, looking at the Benches on both sides of the Chamber, I may find the odd small employer who does not always stick rigidly to the rules—he probably does not have the contracts of em-
      650
      ployment that he knows he should have because he has not got round to issuing them to his employees—but who has a good and satisfactory relationship with those employees.
      During the Committee stage of the Employment Protection Act 1975, we discussed many of the problems faced by small businesses, with which we are now dealing in the Bill. We tried to move an amendment which would have excluded small businesses from the unfair dismissal proceedings for two years. What we were seeking to do then is even more justified today. The right hon. Member for Don-caster said that other measures which have taken place in the past few months, such as high interest rates and so on—none of which is agreeable to the Government—have had a big impact on the problems of small businesses and their ability to employ labour. That, if anything, makes out the case even more for trying to help small business men. It underlies the principle that we have tried to adopt in the Bill—namely, to help small businesses in any way we can.
      We felt that to choose a number of 20 employees and say that in a firm with fewer than 20 employees unfair dismissal should not operate for two years was not an unreasonable state of affairs. I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendment as it would lead us in the contrary direction to that in which we are seeking to go.
      Mr. John Evans: The Secretary of State will remember that in Committee we discussed the figure of 20, to which he attaches so much significance. He did not answer successfully in Committee the question that I shall now ask and which I hope he will answer. The Secretary of State, like many of his hon. Friends, pontificates at length about assistance to small businesses. Will he say what will happen when a small firm reaches the figure of 20, is expanding and so moves on to 21 or 22? When it goes beyond the magical mark of 20, it becomes embroiled in all the provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends tell us constantly is such a handicap to business and industry. Will he say tie intends to solve that problem?
      Mr. Prior: Twenty was an arbitrary number. There must be an arbitrary figure in these circumstances.
      Mr. Harold Walker: It was plucked out of the air.
      Mr. Prior: It appeared that 20 was a reasonable number for a small business man to manage and to do his own book-work. When he goes beyond 20, it is not unreasonable to expect that he will employ an office manager or someone of that nature to do that work for him. When a firm is building up to 20, that would not be justified. That was the logic behind taking the number of 20. If a business is expanding and going well beyond 20, I do not think that it will stop at 19 and not go to 20. When it reaches that size, it will be in a position to employ the necessary office management, which will enable it to carry out the administrative details which are attendant upon running a business today.
      We felt that it was an improvement which would have a marked effect on the freedom of small business men to take on labour and help up with our employment and unemployment problems.
      Amendment No. 111 seeks to remove paragraph (c)—namely,
      " the dismissed employee was on being engaged informed in writing of the effect of this section ".
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington made a powerful case for his amendment. We discussed the matter in detail in Committee when my hon. and learned Friend said of retention of the notification:
      " This is controversial, and we have been pressed strongly that this would be a further administrative burden, or, indeed, stumbling block".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 March 1980; c. 953]
      At that time we still maintained that, on balance, it was probably right to keep the notification. We have thought about it a great deal since then, and I have been aided by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. I have never met anyone who is more persistent over a point. If he serves small businesses as well as he has badgered me over the past few weeks, there will not be much wrong with small businesses.
      We have looked at the point again and concluded that we should relieve small firms of some of the burdens of the unfair dismissal procedures, including the noti-
      652
      fication requirement. We are worried that if we do not take that step much of the good that we believe will result from allowing two years' grace to firms employing fewer than 20 employees will be undone by the notification requirement. We therefore recommend my hon. Friend's amendment to the House.
      I still think that we should do all that we can to see that when small firms are issuing contracts of employment they ensure that employees know that there is a two-year requirement. It would be wrong to give the impression to small firms that they had the two-year requirement only to find that, by our keeping in the notification requirement, when someone was dismissed after 18 months he sued for unfair dismissal because he had not been given notification. That would undo all the confidence that would be built up by the two-year commitment.
      I have considered the matter carefully and come down on the side of doing all that we can to help small businesses. The case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington is a good one.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I genuinely seek clarification. The amendment of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is down for discussion only and is not to be the subject of a separate vote. How can the right hon. Gentleman accept the amendment? Will it not have to be moved in another place?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any amendment grouped with an amendment that is moved may, if an indication is given and accepted by the Chair, be moved for a separate vote when we reach it on the Amendment Paper.
      Mr. Prior: I have said all that I need need to say, except that I commend my hon. Friend's amendment warmly to the House. It has been tabled in the interests of trying to help small businesses. I do not believe that it will be an impediment to those who work for small businesses. I hope that it will result in greater employment.
      I also ask my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendments, which would wreck the clause and the initiative that we are taking.
      1 am
      Mr. Cyril Smith: I am sorry that the Government have accepted that amendment. I do not subscribe to the view that all small businesses are desperately searching for more employees but are frightened to take them on because of the Employment Protection Act. Of course, I have seen questionnaires. I have received them in my company. If I am asked whether I would like to be relieved of sections of the law which are not entirely to my benefit, I say " Yes ". That does not mean that small businesses are being prevented from taking people on. I just do not believe it.
      The hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that he knew of small businesses which were deliberately not expanding and were refusing orders. If the people running businesses turn down orders when labour is available, as it is at present, and are not prepared to expand because they have to give their workers a piece of paper telling them of their rights, I am glad that my money is not in those businesses.
      Although, of course, I should like to be relieved of all the form-filling connected with the Employment Protection Act, that does not prevent my expanding my business and taking people on. Even if the argument that this prevents firms from taking people on is conceded, why have the Government gone so far as to take away employees' rights to be told in writing?
      I agree with the Secretary of State. I want the Act to be accepted. What is gained by clause 7, having regard to the propaganda value of taking away employees' rights for the sake of avoiding the filling in of a piece of paper? All these forms are printed. There is not a separate letter for each employee. The forms can be bought at the Stationery Office or the printers. All that has to be done is to fill in the detail, giving the hours of work and so on, which takes only five minutes. This procedure applies only to companies which employ up to 20 people, so that at the most it is necessary to fill in 20 forms. Even with a 100 per cent. turnover of labour, it would be necessary to fill in only 20 a year.
      This is the sort of propaganda that the workers understand. Much of the propaganda that will be used against the Bill by the TUC will be blindly followed by
      654
      people although they will not understand what it is about, but they will understand this. If a worker works for a firm employing fewer than 20 people, that firm will not be required to give him a piece of paper telling him what his rights are. He will understand that. The Government may think that they have taken a great step forward in the interests of small businesses, but my belief is that they have taken a major step backwards in relation to getting the Bill accepted by working people.
      Mr. Tony Speller: I often enjoy the robust common sense of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He is totally correct in saying that no firm rejects orders. The extended delivery period of British firms over the last 10 years of increased bureaucracy, as they take the orders but do not expand staff, machinery or capacity, has made us the laughing stock of the world. That is because once many successful firms have reached a certain size they have said " We are big enough ". They take the orders but do not keep the delivery dates, as a result of which they lose future orders.
      Many British industries are today falling and failing because people overseas no longer even ask them for quotations because their delivery dates are so awful.
      Happily, I come from one of the few areas of the country where unemployment has fallen for the third successive month. But all too often small business, which can comprise three, four, 10, 15 or 20 people, says " We are big enough. We shall not expand.", and the first reason given is always bureaucracy. We cannot abolish bureaucracy at a stroke, but every form which is taken away makes someone that much more available to work, to obtain orders, to control and to produce. I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting amendment No. 111.
      Mr. John Evans: During our long deliberations on this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, we have used various epithets to describe different clauses. This clause can only be described as probably the nastiest clause in the Bill.
      I hope that the Secretary of State is ashamed of himself for accepting the verminous little amendment of his hon.

      655
      Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). The right hon. Gentleman should recognise by now that he has enough strength within his party not to need to make any concessions to its Right wing. In this context, he did not have to make this nasty concession, which as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has made perfectly clear, is utterly and totally unnecessary.
      Probably for the first time we are creating two classes of workers—those who work for firms with fewer than 20 employees and those who work for firms with more than 20 employees. Lord only knows why we are doing so in this day and age. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if a firm had 19 workers it could not afford to carry out the procedure of informing its employees of their rights, whereas a firm with 21 employees had the necessary office staff to do so. I hope that he will think again about the nonsense of that statement.
      We all know that, generally speaking, small businesses are better run than big businesses. Indeed, some of us have tried to make that point on many occasions. Generally speaking, the major reason why small firms disappear is that they are taken over by bigger firms. All hon. Members should be concerned about the number of small and medium firms which have disappeared in takeovers. It is the bureaucracy which has been created in large, multinational firms which has meant the death of so much of British industry.
      Indeed, the private sector of the British economy has probably the most centralised bureaucracy of any Western country. In that context, the Lord only knows how small firms will be helped as a result of this miserable little clause. Every honest citizen in the country knows that the real problems of small firms relate to things such as the high cost of borrowing money, VAT, high rates, high rents and difficulties associated with planning arrangements, when small firms are swept out of business because of slum clearance orders. We have gone through all that, both in our discussions on this Bill and in our debates on the Industry Bill.
      The Secretary of State praised the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), for his work with small firms.
      656
      I am bound to point out that the Under-Secretary built up a career as the leading brain behind the Tory-based Small Firms Bureau. The hon. Gentleman sent out questionnaires planting the idea in the minds of small business men that the Employment Protection Act was creating all their problems.
      I do not suggest for a moment that the occasional problem might not have been created by that Act. I accept that. If we pass legislation offering protection to workers it is common sense that we will probably create difficulties. But the whole thrust of the employment protection legislation was to set up a new deal in British industry.
      While I recognise that the vast majority of small employers are good employers, nobody can deny that some of them are crooks, rogues and vagabonds. If anyone disputes that I suggest that they listen to the " Checkpoint " programme on BBC every week. They will hear there of the crooks and the scoundrels. However, the overwhelming majority of small firms are well run and enjoy good industrial relations. However, no Conservative Member can deny that. There is a tiny minority of crooks, villains, rogues and vagabonds in this sector and they are the people who will benefit from this legislation.
      Any decent employer will honour the terms of the Employment Protection Act. He will notify his workers of their rights. I think that the better employers in the small firms sector will maintain the existing position and will not accept what is suggested in clause 7.
      I cannot understand why, at so late a stage, the Secretary of State has to give way on this miserable little amendment. I suggest that he should start talking in Cabinet about the appalling policies of the Government which are creating a nightmare for small, medium and large firms at a time when jobs are disappearing by the thousand. Yet here we are messing about with a clause like this.
      In my constituency a firm which employs more than 400 textile workers is due to close. I have asked the management whether its workers can produce one extra ounce of yarn. The management has assured me that its workers are already giving over 100 per cent. effort and cannot do more to increase the

      657
      prosperity and productivity of the firm, which is due to close in nine weeks.
      That is the kind of issue we should be discussing, yet here we are messing about with despicable little clauses such as this and with despicable little amendments from Conservative Members. It is a disgrace and a shambles, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for trying to put such a clause on the statute book.
      Mr. Leighton: I support the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) in his stand on behalf of the individual. He has been honest and consistent on this issue and he put forward his view during the debate on the previous clause. We shall now see whether Conservative Members are as honest and consistent in their support for the individual. Perhaps we shall see that their support for the individual was hypocritical. The hon. Member for Rochdale has said that the rights of the individual should be equal and should apply equally in small firms as well as in large firms. That is not a bad principle. The hon. Member is speaking up for the rights of the individual.
      I have heard a lot from Conservative Members about the rights of the individual. We shall now see whether their views were honest or hypocritical because under this clause workers in small firms, for the first two years, will have no rights. Is that something that we shall write into English law? Are there to be two classes of worker, those with some rights and those with no rights? If Conservative Members think that that is a bad principle, they should be blushing. Certain firms will set up subsidiary companies when their work forces increase to 19 or 20 members so that their workers will have no rights.
      1.15 am
      There is an idea that small is beautiful, and often it is. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) seems to find that funny. Conservative Members may laugh and think that this is not important. We see hypocrisy written all over their faces when they talk about the rights of the individual. I tell the hon. Member for Grantham that in many small businesses small is not beautiful—for example, small shops, small launderettes and small restaurants whose staff are without trade unions and without proper rights. Those who work for such firms are the weakest in our society. If Conservative Members
      658
      are concerned about looking after the interests of the individual, they should reject the clause instead of smirking and laughing unless they want to be branded as hypocrites.
      I support the hon. Member for Rochdale. The hon. Gentleman is consistent in looking after the interests of the individual. Either a dismissal is fair or it is unfair. It is fair or unfair whether the firm is large or small. We shall see whether Conservative Members are honest when they speak about supporting the rights of the individual. I support the attitude of the hon. Member for Rochdale.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Not long ago the qualifying period for lodging a complaint of unfair dismissal was six months continuous employment. That was the qualification when I was a Minister in the Department of Employment. From time to time I received letters from Conservative Members enclosing complaints from constituents who had been dismissed and who did not come within the six months' qualification. They complained that they had been unfairly dismissed but were denied the right to seek legal redress. Instead of Conservative Members writing honestly to their constituents to tell them that they did not believe that they should have that right, they sent their constituents' letters to me and left me to explain their position.
      The Government changed the period of qualification to 12 months. They are now increasing it to two years for many workers. Many of those who wrote to their Members of Parliament when I was a Minister did not know what their employment rights were in this important respect. They had a right to know. One saving grace was the obligation on the employer to tell his employees one basic right. The clause has been described rightly as a nasty little provision. People who wish to complain of unfair dismissal within the first two years of their employment are now to have that right snatched away from them.
      I have known the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) for more years than any other hon. Member. I do not often agree with him, but I agree with everything that he has said on this occasion. All that was needed was a simple note to tell new employees that they would not have the right of complaint if they

      659
      were dismissed within two years of starting their employment.
      When the Bill was presented for Second Reading, we denounced it as a nasty measure that deprived workers of many hard-won elementary rights. It provided that those who started with new firms employing fewer than 20 persons would be denied their right to claim unfair dismissal during the first two years of their employment. In Committee it was extended to all firms—old and new—employing 20 people or less. The measure is worse than the original provision. This is a nasty Bill.
      I can assume only that the Secretary of State is trying to placate one of his more offensive and rebellious Back Benchers. He is grovelling to gain a little support from some of the extremist and irresponsible bully-boys on his Back Benches. He is depriving decent working folk of their elementary rights. No hon. Member has denied that small businesses can make a contribution to the economy. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that some of his hon. Friends are incapable of recognising that employees of small firms also have rights.
      During the past few years a powerful lobby has come into being that favours small employers. It is time that some of its supporters recognised that there are some employees who cannot defend themselves. They need support and help. Conservative Members should dredge the bottoms of their consciences and hearts. I can see sneers and sniggers on their faces. Unfortunately, Hansard—unlike the television camera—cannot show the expressions on hon. Gentlemen's faces. I wish it to be put on record that Conservative Members sneer, smirk, and snigger when an Opposition Member speaks on behalf of those employees who stand alone. They need some help and protection. Conservative Members should dredge their spirits—if they have any—and consider whether they can find some encouragement for the small employee.
      Mr. John Evans: As my right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, Conserva-time Members smirk, snigger and sneer
      660
      when Opposition Members discuss the plight of the hundreds and thousands of individuals who work in small firms. Libertarian barristers and lawyers earlier spoke about the rights of the individual. Is it not significant that we hear a deafening silence from those hon. Members when we discuss real, not theoretical, freedom?
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is right. The small employee stands alone. He or she needs encouragement, yet has received no crumb of consolation or support from Conservative Members. They have consistently been against the employee of a small firm when a confrontation between the rights of the employer and employee has occurred.
      We share in the common concern to support the small business man and to help small employers. However, it is foolish to believe that depriving the employee of his basic rights will encourage small employers to prosper. In the Financial Times of 21 April there was a report of a survey that had been produced by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It discussed manufacturing trends in London and the South-East. The report states:
      " An alarming rise in the number of small companies suffering from decreasing domestic orders is reported today by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In its 15th survey of manufacturing trends in London and the South-East, the Chamber predicts that by about June 35 per cent. of companies will face falling domestic orders, almost double the figure reported last October. Mr. Gabriel Irwin, who compiled the survey, says it indicates that the erosion of the economy's capital base 'is gathering momentum at a frightening rate'."
      That has nothing to do with the provisions of the Employment Protection Act or any such legislation.
      That which is so damaging to small firms and the economy is entirely attributable to either the policy or the neglect of the Government. If they really want to help small firms, that is where they should turn their attention rather than snatching from employees their basic human rights.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. Ill, in page 9, leave out lines 1 to 3.—[Mr. John Town-end.]

    Clause 8

      BASIC AWARD
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 3, leave out from " that " to " such " in line 6 and insert
      " any conduct of the complainant before the dismissal (or, where the dismissal was with notice, before the notice was given), other than conduct taken into account by virtue of subsection (7), was ".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 66, in page 10, line 4, leave out " whether ",
      No. 67, in page 10, line 4, leave out " or after ".
      Mr. Mayhew: The effect of this amendment is to limit the scope of clause 8(4) so that it deals only with situations where the basic award may be reduced because of the employee's misconduct before the dismissal but only discovered subsequently.
      This amendment arises as a result of our acceptance in principle in Committee of the Opposition's amendment No. 108, which sought to exclude conduct after the dismissal as an element that could be taken into account by the tribunal in considering whether to reduce the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal.
      It seemed to be quite wrong that it should be open to a tribunal to take adverse account of conduct by the complainant which took place after his dismissal. That would be basically unjust and we acknowledged that the clause as drafted could give rise to that result. We believe that this amendment overcomes that, and meets the point that was raised in the House of Lords in the case of Devis v Atkins. Although the remaining amendments, Nos. 66 and 67, are not Government amendments, they would be superseded by this amendment if it were accepted by the House.
      1.30 am
      Mr. Harold Walker: I have had few opportunities during the 100-odd hours that we have debated this Bill to express any gratitude to the Government. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass. I am not sure that the complicated amendment
      662
      standing in the name of the Secretary of State meets entirely the point that the Opposition made. If it does, or is intended to do so, I cannot see why the Government were unable to accept the amendments that we tabled.
      None the less, I am prepared to accept the assurance of the Under-Secretary of State. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not only an honourable man in House of Commons terms but an honourable man in the real sense of the term. I am prepared to accept his assurance and to express, for once, a little gratitude to the Government.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 10, line 9, at end insert
      ' and where the tribunal considers that the employer's conduct, whether before or after the dismissal, has been such that it would be just and equitable to increase the amount of the basic award to any extent, the tribunal shall increase the amount accordingly '.
      I was puzzled by some comments of the Under-Secretary of State in reply to an amendment proposed by the Opposition yesterday. His remarks have conditioned what I might have otherwise said about this amendment and its effect on the clause. Clause 9 (1) begins:
      " If in proceedings before an industrial tribunal on a complaint against an employer under section 67 the employer claims "——
      A number of things ensue, it seems, merely from the claim of the employer. If the Opposition's understanding of that is correct, it is extraordinary that a number of matters should ensue against individuals merely on the unproven claim of the employer. Even though we disagree with the substance of the clause and all that ensues, we argue that the employer should at least be required to prove rather than merely claim.
      Perhaps, in the light of his comments yesterday, the hon. and learned Gentleman can convince me that the requirement to prove is not necessary. On the face of things, I am bound to say that we feel that he should be required to prove conclusively what he is claiming before the consequences ensue.
      Mr. Mayhew: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the right amendment. I think that the happy accord, established on

      663
      the last amendment, has been carried forward to this. I know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wanted to say. I can perhaps say it for him. What the right hon. Gentleman would have said—I am happy, in my professional capacity, to speak on his behalf—is that it is desirable, where the tribunal considers that the employer's conduct, whether before or after the dismissal, has been such that it would be just and equitable to increase the amount of the basic award to any extent, that the tribunal shall increase the amount accordingly.
      The right hon. Gentleman wants to make the employer pay a larger sum, by way of a basic award, where the tribunal believes that the employer's conduct, leading to the dismissal, warrants it. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is saying that this is a quid pro quo and that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander because we say that the basic award can be reduced to zero and that there shall not be a minimum basic award of two weeks, no matter how much the complainant's—the employee's—conduct has contributed to the dismissal. That probably states fairly what the right hon. Member for Doncaster would have said.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member.
      Mr. Mayhew: Having expressed what the right hon. Gentleman would have said, I must add that it is misconceived. There is no analogy. The employee complains that he has been dismissed and his basic award is reduced because of his conduct. That of which he complains he has brought about. The statute provides a scale of compensation for unfair dismissal. It does not provide, and never has provided, for graded scales of compensation according to a moral assessment of the employer. The analogy in the right hon Gentleman's mind does not exist, although I can understand why he might think that it does. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I am deeply grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's quid pro quo. I had put a line through amendment No. 68 but I had not remembered to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Minister so that he could follow my example and move on to amendments Nos. 72 and 73. I ask the
      664
      hon. and learned Gentleman to bear my remarks in mind when we come to those amendments when his reply may be more relevant to my arguments. I am prepared to accept what he says about the geese and the golden eggs and the quid pro quo. I am happy to leave the matter there.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must put the Question, unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Harrison: No.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

    Clause 9

      CONTRIBUTION IN RESPECT OF COMPENSATION
      Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 10, line 15, leave out ' claims ' and insert ' conclusively proves '.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall consider at the same time amendment No. 73, in page 10, line 25, leave out' he claims '.
      Mr. Mayhew: The arguments on these amendments were adduced a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Walker), and I think that the reasons which he advanced are misconceived. He bases his case on the word " claims" in line 15—if the employer—
      " claims that he was induced to dismiss the complainant by pressure "
      and so on. The right hon. Gentleman supposes that the word " claims" means that that is all that the employer has to do, but in fact he has to establish by evidence that there is substance for his claim.
      By seeking to substitute the words " conclusively proves ", the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to add unnecessary words. I quite understand what is in his mind, but no tribunal would act upon the claim and accede to the request that the person whom the employer claimed

      665
      exercised the pressure should be joined until the employer made good that claim by bringing forward evidence.
      He has to prove it already, or he has at least to put forward these matters. It is true that he does not have conclusively to prove, but he has to set up a prima facie case.
      So I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his amendment would serve no useful purpose, and I hope that, with that assurance, he will be content to withdraw it.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 10, line 25, after ' may ', insert
      " before the hearing of the complaint".—[Mr. Mayhew.]
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

DRUGS (SAFETY)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]
1.43 am.
Mr. Jack Ashley: The safety of medical drugs is an issue of world-wide concern because, although the benefits from them have been inestimable, the adverse effects can sometimes be devastatingly dangerous. If the fine balance of risk against benefit is tilted the wrong way, it can have a shattering effect on the lives of people. Experience has shown that drugs can blind, deafen, maim and kill.
The important problem of drug safety requires careful scrutiny and should be approached with a sense of responsibility. But I deplore the behaviour of the Secretary of State. Addressing a dinner of the pharmaceutical industry last Wednesday, he referred to
" the ever-popular sport of bashing the pharmaceutical industry ",
and he said that in recent weeks the " industry bashers " had gone to town with the allegations that certain products were unsafe. I presume that he was refrerring to those who have been concerned with Debendox.
666
Had the right hon. Gentleman attended a meeting I had last week with more than 80 parents of malformed children who believe that Debendox was the cause of their children's deformities, and had he seen their restraint yet their anxiety to ensure that other children do not suffer as their children have suffered, he would not call them " industry bashers ". Their aim is the prevention of handicap, and we should all share that. His abusive, prejudiced and emotive language is regrettable, especially after worried parents, concerned Members of Parliament and a responsible press have handled recent issues with great restraint.
There are various reasons for concern about drug safety, and, as our experience with thalidomide, eraldin, phenacetin and hormone pregnancy test drugs has shown, the process of establishing the danger of some drugs and then preventing their use is slow and cumbersome. Yet the Secretary of State elegantly condemns critics as " industry bashers ". He should substitute careful analysis for mindless abuse.
The scheme for reporting damage caused by drugs is ramshackle and ineffective. Only 10 per cent. or less of adverse reactions are reported by doctors, and, according to Dr. Inman, who was the chief medical officer on the Committee on Safety of Medicines,
" Very few spontaneous reports are received of congenital abnormalities which might be associated with maternal drug exposure."
Yet these grossly inadequate reports provide the Committee on the Safety of Medicines with no less than 70 per cent. of its information about drugs. This failure of doctors to report means that the Committee on Safety of Medicines is relying heavily on inadequate data while making crucial decisions. It is thereby allowing drugs to remain available, with no information concerning 90 per cent. of adverse reactions.
The whole purpose of the yellow card system of adverse reactions is to alert the medical profession to drugs that may damage those who take them. Ministers have admitted that these reports of adverse reactions have never yet given the first danger signals for any drug. They merely provide confirmation of warnings obtained elsewhere. Confirmation is useful, but it is not as important as the first danger signals. These first danger signals have in the past come too late and after

667
there has been unnecessary damage. That is regrettable.
The system fails abjectly to protect the public. The Government have failed too, because after a year in office they have made virtually no progress in strengthening or complementing the yellow card system. For years, various schemes to monitor the effects of drugs on patients have been discussed. They have become less substantial as the negotiations have proceeded, and as the years have passed. Currently, we are left with the retrospective assessment of drugs scheme, commonly called RADS. Under this scheme all patients taking a new drug would be identified by special prescriptions, and this clinical progress would be monitored. It is a useful scheme, but the current proposal is to monitor in this way only one new drug a year, and even that limited proposal has apparently made no further progress since it was first given approval nearly a year ago by the General Medical Services Committee. I do not know the reason for the hold-up, but there is an interminable delay.
Instead of improving the system, the Secretary of State, in his " fairground " speech to the pharmaceutical industry, has announced proposals to introduce major changes in the system for giving approval to pharmaceutical firms wishing to launch clinical trials of new compounds. Apparently—and I have to quote the press release in the absence of a ministerial statement—although some aspects, not specified, are to be tightened up, the proposed changes will make it markedly easier for firms to carry out clinical trials than it has been in recent years.
If we are to have more drugs on clinical trials under what the Minister has called a " negative clearance scheme", and if there is no improvement in the reporting of adverse reactions, the problem will become more difficult. If the case for a new and improved system of checking adverse reactions was strong before—and I believe that it was—it will be stronger still when the Minister implements the plans that he has anounced to the pharmaceutical industry.
We need a strong, vigorous, independent surveillance agency assessing drugs and reporting to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. This could start
668
with the RADS scheme, but, if it is to be effective, rapid expansion and the development of a more ambitious scheme are essential.
It is against that background that I want to take a brief look at Debendox. This is a drug—almost certainly the only one—which is approved by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Yet it has been found by the unanimous verdict of a jury in a court of law to cause deformities. That verdict cannot be lightly dismissed.
The Committee on Safety of Medicines has paid lip service to the court verdict and said that it took " due note ", but it has been forced to admit, in response to parliamentary questions, that it had sent for a transcript of the trial only after it pronounced that there was no evidence against the drug. Had the committee bothered to read the transcript before, it would have seen the evidence of Dr. McBride, the distinguished Australian who first discovered the link between thalidomide and deformity. He did not claim that Debendox was a thalidomide—nor do I—but he stated quite categorically that Debendox was a low trade teratogen which can cause deformities, especially limb reductions.
The committee would also have seen the evidence of the American pharmacologist, Dr. Palmer, who analysed the original notebooks used in the drug company's animal studies and found that
" the animal data absolutely contra-indicates its (Debendox's) use in humans until further experimentation is performed."
It would be understandable if the Committee on Safety of Medicines decided to disagree with both these witnesses and others at that trial. It is incredible that it did not even consider such expert testimony.
But it is not only the medical evidence that is crucial. The epidemiological validity of the surveys of women who have taken Debendox is also important. An American epidemiologist, Dr. Manard, has prepared a report for Congressman Don Edwards, in which she criticises the existing surveys, partly because they suffer from poor selection of controls which biases the results. But the most important point that she made is that all of the studies are too small to show

669
whether there is an unacceptable risk of Debendox being a low grade teratogen.
No one would suggest that the surveys should seek to detect risks as high as one in a million, or even one in 100,000. But the remarkable fact elicited from parliamentary questions is that the surveys on which the Committee on Safety of Medicines has relied could not even detect risks as high as one in 100. That admission by the Minister for Health torpedoes the credibility of the committee's assurance. We can now understand its carefully negative phrasing that it found no evidence that Debendox caused malformation. It appears that it also has no evidence of its relative safety. It is as if it has been trawling for piranha fish with a whale net.
Let me remind the House that Debendox is a drug taken by millions of women—3½ million in Britain, and 30 million world wide. If there is a risk of damage as low as one in 1,000 that means that 30,000 damaged babies are in existence. If the risk is one in 100, there could be 30,000 damaged babies.
Debendox is causing concern because the American court found that it caused malformations and because the committee has not studied all the disturbing evidence at that trial. In view of the considerable public and scientific interest, the committee should be asked to produce a detailed report explaining why it continues to approve Debendox. It should respond to expert witnesses who have criticised the drug. It should also specify what degree of safety it believes to be attached to the use of the drug.
Some people ask me " Why raise this issue of Debendox when it causes worry to pregnant women who have taken the drug? " That is a very dangerous line of argument to use. If we accept it, we would never take off the market any drug taken by pregnant women, because there are always pregnant women. We would never have got rid of thalidomide if we had accepted that argument. Of course peace of mind is important, but it is far more important to ensure that every precaution is taken to ensure perfectly formed babies.
The Secretary of State has made his announcement to the pharmaceutical industry, assuring it of his anxiety to help. What we now need is a similar statement to the women, assuring them that immediate steps will be taken to improve the
670
post-marketing surveillance of drugs to avoid unnecessary malformation. To economise on that is false economy. The approximate cost for each severely disable child is £125,000, but we are far more concerned to prevent the recurring human tragedy of lifelong disability. I urge the Minister to take account of that.
1.59 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): This is an issue which commands wide public interest and it is right that it should be debated at intervals in the House. I am not one of those who argue that such matters are best left entirely to the scientific community and to academic debate. Hon. Members and the media can serve a valuable role when they ventilate problems in this complex area. They can also act as a constant reminder to Ministers and their scientific advisers that, while proper regard to the legal procedures and to scientific principles is essential, in the final analysis it is the protection of the patient which is the real objective.
It would be regrettable, however, if the subject were to be clouded by emotion or personal feelings. The safety of drugs is not really a political issue. Ministers of both parties have looked to the Committee on Safety of Medicines for impartial expert advice. The interest of the press in the question is of course somewhat different and is not exclusively concerned with the safety of patients.
I think it only right to say that up till now the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has commanded the respect of both sides of the House for the indomitable campaigns that he has waged on behalf of minority groups who believe that they have a genuine grievance which has not been dealt with adequately. It is also a tribute to him that on most occasions he has not tempered his activities to suit the changes in political fortune; he has pressed his point with equal vigour whatever the political allegiances of the Ministers of the day.
However, I regret the right hon. Gentleman's attack on my right hon. Friend and I hope that on reflection he will reconsider that section of his speech and agree that it did not live up to the high standards that we expect of the right hon. Gentleman. I also found some sections of his speech unnecessarily alarmist.

671
I should like to utter a note of caution which I hope the right hon. Member will accept is spoken in sorrow rather than in anger. He must never come to feel that he has a monopoly of compassion for the unfortunates and handicapped of our society. Ministers, their officials and many independent scientific advisers are equally concerned about the welfare of the community and individuals within it.
I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he need not for a moment doubt the good intentions of those who have the difficult job of deciding on matters relating to drug safety, or that they would shrink from taking an unpopular decision if they felt it to be right.
There are some on the fringes of drug safety whose good intentions I do doubt. Foreign lawyers tour this country like, as one magazine recently put it,
" a band of septic poltergeists who hover around beds of adversity to make a good living ".
No more attractive are those who engage in what an article called recently " trial by media". Such people bear a heavy responsibility for the fears, false hopes and revived memories of old sufferings which they conjure up.
I turn to the question of Debendox. If I use strong words, it is because I feel strongly about this subject. The fact is that the system of evaluating the safety of drugs licensed in this country is among the best in the world and, some would agree, is the best. The Committee on Safety of Medicines comprises some of the most eminent men in their particular specialities. They are an invaluable source of informed, impartial and independent advice. To suggest that the Health Minister of this country should act in response to scaremongering or the verdict of a lay jury in the United States, rather than on the advice of expert committees, is to align oneself with a movement which is at heart anti-science, anti-progress, anti-medicine and anti the welfare of the people of this country.
The important thing to remember is that the committee is there to advise on the scientific data. It would be inappropriate for the committee to depend on other people's opinion on the data, such as those expressed in the court case on Debendox in the United States as the
672
right hon. Gentleman has suggested on many occasions recently that it should. If there had been any new scientific evidence produced at that trial, the committee would naturally have wanted to consider it before reaching a view on the drug. There were, however, good reasons for believing that that was not the case, and this has been borne out by a review by the secretariat of the CSM of the complete transcript.
Moreover, apart from the fact that it was itself highly ambiguous and interpreted differently by the parties to the case, I can see no force whatever in suggesting that a verdict by six laymen in the United States should influence decisions on drug safety in this country. The CSM is perfectly competent to reach its own judgment on the data.
I cannot myself see what else is required over and above what the chairman of the CSM, Sir Eric Scowen, stated in his letter to my right hon. Friend who has related Sir Eric's letter to the press. Sir Eric points out that the CSM has studied the evidence and, in its professional judgment, it proves no reason for taking the drug off the market.
The controversy surrounding Debendox has, however, had one beneficial result in bringing out into the open the difficulties of establishing the risks attaching to the use of drugs after they are on the market. These difficulties are particularly acute in the case of drugs used in pregnancy and were summarised in what I thought was an excellent article on the safety of drugs in pregnancy by Dr. Tony Smith in The Times of 9 April. He said:
" Surely, nearly 20 years after thalidomide, drugs prescribed to pregnant women should have been properly tested to guarantee their safety ".
But, he went on,
" in practice no such complete reassurance is possible ".
He then set out cogent arguments why this was the case. I therefore sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's concern over Debendox, and understand the emotions that lie behind the call for the banning of the drug. He must, however, realise that, as Dr. Smith has explained, in the real world it is just not possible to give him or expectant mothers the absolute assurances he and they seek.
On the other hand, we probably know more about this drug than any other

673
which might be used for vomiting in pregnancy, and what we know is reassuring—that is, that all the research that has been carried out suggests that a woman who takes Debendox is no more likely to put her unborn child at risk than a mother who does not. That is also the view of the Australian drug regulatory authority.
It would be a tragedy if the campaign against the drug forced doctors into prescribing less well tested drugs or persuaded expectant mothers who suffered from severe vomiting not to take medicines prescribed by their doctors as there is some evidence to suggest that the condition itself, if untreated, is a cause of malformations in babies.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, however, there is one area of drug safety to which he has drawn attention tonight where we ought to look for improvement. The pharmaceutical companies devote very substantial resources to testing drugs in animals and in carefully controlled trials in man before they are marketed. This ensures that an enormous amount is known about the effects of a drug before it is licensed for marketing. This cannot mean that the new drugs are completely free from the risk of adverse effects. Given the potency of modern drugs, wherein lies their efficacy, that is an impossible dream. We cannot have the benefit without a degree of risk.
Despite all these precautions, however, there remains a possibility of adverse effects coming to light after a drug has been on the market for some time. It is clearly important that the time lapse should be reduced to the minimum. To try to meet this need, and to supplement the long-standing yellow card system, the CSM has put forward proposals for pilot studies to test two new systems known as retrospective assessment of drug safety—RADS for short—and record linkage. These proposals are at present under careful consideration.
I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that improvements are desirable in the procedures for monitoring the effects of drugs on patients. It is not, however, simply a question of pouring in money, providing more facilities, or setting up new independent organisations to produce instant results. These are highly complex matters having substantial resource implications.
674
If the right decisions are to be made, which may settle the system of monitoring drugs in this country for years to come, I and my right hon. Friend will need time to consider carefully all the issues involved and ensure that we obtain best value for money. I can assure the right hon. Member, however, that we will make a statement on our proposals just as soon as we possibly can.
May I say a word or two about the risk/benefit ratio? The first thing that must be understood in considering the safety of modern drugs is that there can be no absolute guarantee of safety. No one can give the patient a guarantee that if he takes any particular drug he will not suffer from some adverse side effect. The balancing of risks against the benefits lies at the core of decisions on the safety of drugs. It is what a doctor must consider before prescribing a drug for a patient and what the CSM must consider before advising that a new drug should be licensed.
The risk, therefore, is not in itself a reason for banning a drug. The question has in every case to be decided on the basis of professional judgment, and a layman should venture on to this ground only if he has some exceptionally good reason or new information that he feels is not available to others. In other cases he can do far more harm than good.
In conclusion, I stress again the need for a rational and unemotional approach to drugs. This applies to the value of new products, which might be hailed as " wonder drugs " or " miracle cures ", as much as to those drugs which it is currently fashionable to denigrate. This House, the media, the pharmaceutical industry and the professions carry a serious responsibility to ensure that the public accepts that modern drugs inevitably have risks as well as benefits, and that complete safety is attainable only at a cost which most of us would regard as unacceptable—that is, turning our backs on progress. I am sure that is not what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve by this debate or his other actions, and if he comes to accept the points that I have been making tonight this debate will have been well worth while.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Educational Disadvantage Centre
  Educational Disadvantage Centre
  Teachers
  Teachers
  HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (ATTENDANCE BY MINISTERS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (ATTENDANCE BY MINISTERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  National Income
  National Income
  WITLEY COURT CHAPEL, WORCESTERSHIRE
  WITLEY COURT CHAPEL, WORCESTERSHIRE
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Medical Reports (Prisoners and Detained Persons)
  Medical Reports (Prisoners and Detained Persons)
  Naturalisation (Members' Correspondence)
  Naturalisation (Members' Correspondence)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Commercial Vehicles (Police Protection)
  Commercial Vehicles (Police Protection)
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Ashford Remand Centre
  Ashford Remand Centre
  Convicted Persons (Payment of Compensation)
  Convicted Persons (Payment of Compensation)
  Criminally Injured Persons (Compensation)
  Criminally Injured Persons (Compensation)
  Offences by Minors (Parental Responsibility)
  Offences by Minors (Parental Responsibility)
  Interception of Communications
  Interception of Communications
  Crown Agents Tribunal
  Crown Agents Tribunal
  Woolworth's Store, Manchester (Fire)
  Woolworth's Store, Manchester (Fire)
  National Front March (Lewisham)
  National Front March (Lewisham)
  Health and Social Services Premises (Fire Precautions)
  Health and Social Services Premises (Fire Precautions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue Staff
  Inland Revenue Staff
  Registered Charities
  Registered Charities
  Treasury Long Tap Stock
  Treasury Long Tap Stock
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Taxpayers (Scotland)
  Taxpayers (Scotland)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  European Community (Consumer Prices)
  European Community (Consumer Prices)
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses
  Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses
  Capital Gains Tax (Retirement Relief)
  Capital Gains Tax (Retirement Relief)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  National Water Council (Training Funds)
  National Water Council (Training Funds)
  Former Colonial Employees
  Former Colonial Employees
CIVIL SERVICE
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Dispersal
  Dispersal
  Pay Research
  Pay Research
  Civil Servants (Official Journeys)
  Civil Servants (Official Journeys)
  Senior Civil Servants
  Senior Civil Servants
  Sir Derek Rayner
  Sir Derek Rayner
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Civil Servants (Research)
  Civil Servants (Research)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Civil Servants (Comparability Award)
  Civil Servants (Comparability Award)
DEFENCE
  Holly Hedge House, Blackheath
  Holly Hedge House, Blackheath
  Dan Air Flight DA064 (Near Collision)
  Dan Air Flight DA064 (Near Collision)
  HRH Princess Margaret (Helicopter Flight)
  HRH Princess Margaret (Helicopter Flight)
  Queen's Flight
  Queen's Flight
INDUSTRY
  Postmen (Recruitment)
  Postmen (Recruitment)
  Shipbuilding (Cost Escalation Scheme)
  Shipbuilding (Cost Escalation Scheme)
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  European Community Industrial Grants
  European Community Industrial Grants
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  House Improvement Grants
  House Improvement Grants
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Detained Immigrants' Dependants (Travel Warrants)
  Detained Immigrants' Dependants (Travel Warrants)
  Fuel Allowance
  Fuel Allowance
  Fund Raisers
  Fund Raisers
  Disablement (Classification and Assessment)
  Disablement (Classification and Assessment)
  National Health Insurance (First-year Apprentices)
  National Health Insurance (First-year Apprentices)
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Widows
  Widows
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
ENERGY
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
TRADE
  Stock Exchange Practice
  Stock Exchange Practice
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  South Korea
  South Korea
  MR. GEORGE LINDO
  MR. GEORGE LINDO
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Commission of the European Communities (Official Documents)
  Commission of the European Communities (Official Documents)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iran (Captain Michael Green and Chief Engineer Martin Hanmore)
  Iran (Captain Michael Green and Chief Engineer Martin Hanmore)
  Cambodian Refugees
  Cambodian Refugees
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Anguilla
  Anguilla
  Diplomatic Representation
  Diplomatic Representation
  United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
  United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
  Palestine
  Palestine
  International Conference on the Law of the Sea
  International Conference on the Law of the Sea
WALES
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Llanelli Hospital
  Llanelli Hospital
  Jobs
  Jobs
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Starts
  Council House Starts
  United Nations International Water Decade
  United Nations International Water Decade
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Local Authority Direct Labour
  Local Authority Direct Labour
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
TRANSPORT
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Midland Link Motorways
  Midland Link Motorways
  Continental Ports (Subsidies)
  Continental Ports (Subsidies)
  London Rail Commuter Services
  London Rail Commuter Services
  Motorway Repairs
  Motorway Repairs
  Road Plan (White Paper)
  Road Plan (White Paper)
  Road Haulage
  Road Haulage
  Drinking and Driving (Consultation Document)
  Drinking and Driving (Consultation Document)
  Car Sharing
  Car Sharing
  Leicester (Western Bypass)
  Leicester (Western Bypass)
  Trunk Road Construction
  Trunk Road Construction
  Non-trunk Roads
  Non-trunk Roads
  Midlands Road Development Group
  Midlands Road Development Group
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  European Community (Council of Transport Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Transport Ministers)
  Roads and Railways (Expenditure)
  Roads and Railways (Expenditure)
  Access to Ports
  Access to Ports
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory (Motor Cycle Design and Safety)
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory (Motor Cycle Design and Safety)
  Motorways (Toll Gates)
  Motorways (Toll Gates)
  Rail Electrification
  Rail Electrification
  Road Traffic Offences
  Road Traffic Offences
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
  Roads Expenditure
  Roads Expenditure
  Roads (Definition)
  Roads (Definition)
  Goods Vehicles (Operators' Licences)
  Goods Vehicles (Operators' Licences)
  Tyres (Tread Depths)
  Tyres (Tread Depths)
  Construction Consultants
  Construction Consultants
  Motorways (Built-up Areas)
  Motorways (Built-up Areas)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ulster Polytechnic
  Ulster Polytechnic
  Mullaghbawn Youth Club
  Mullaghbawn Youth Club
  Terrorist Offences (Convictions)
  Terrorist Offences (Convictions)
  Members of Illegal Organisations (Convictions)
  Members of Illegal Organisations (Convictions)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Special Service Award)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Special Service Award)
  Drunken Drivers
  Drunken Drivers
  Proscribed Organisations (Membership)
  Proscribed Organisations (Membership)
  Treatment of Prisoners
  Treatment of Prisoners
  Housing Executive Houses (Sales)
  Housing Executive Houses (Sales)
  Murders (Statistics)
  Murders (Statistics)
  De Lorean Cars Limited
  De Lorean Cars Limited
  C. P. Trim Limited
  C. P. Trim Limited
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Administration
  Hospital Administration
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils

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.

URANIUM IMPORTS FROM NAMIBIA
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Britain has been importing uranium from Namibia for more than 10 years in contravention of United Nations decisions.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, imports of uranium from Namibia began only recently. The contract between Rossing Uranium Limited and British Nuclear Fuels Limited, approved by previous Governments, conflicts with none of our international obligations. United Nations decisions on the subject are not binding in international law.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in two respects is not this importation of uranium from the RTZ Company at Rossing illegal? First, is it not the case that there is a partnership with the South African Government which has been declared illegal and an action against international law? Secondly, did not the United Nations General Assembly, on 13th December 1974, adopt a decree for the protection of the natural resources of Namibia, which declared that no natural resources may be removed from the territory without the consent and permission of the Council of Namibia set up in 1966 to replace South Africa administratively?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the noble Lord is mistaken on almost every count. The trade is not illegal. There is no international obligation on us to prevent trade of this kind with Namibia. As for the so-called
758
decree, that, too, is not binding. We do not recognise the Council of Namibia's claim to be the administering authority of Namibia or to take decisions binding on the international community, as we do not accept that the United Nations General Assembly acted within its competence under the UN Charter in setting up the council. May I add that mandatory sanctions, such as I think the noble Lord thinks exist, can in fact only be imposed by the Security Council after a finding under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that there exists a threat to international peace. In this case no such finding has been made.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I shall not retort by saying that the Minister is wrong in every respect. However, is it not the case that the Hague Tribunal declared the South African Administration illegal and that partnership with it—even paying taxes to it—should therefore be considered illegal? Secondly, despite what the noble Lord has said, has not the Assembly of the United Nations but also the Security Council endorsed the decree to which I have already referred?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord started talking about taxes. The Question on the Order Paper is to do with the trade in uranium. The Security Council resolutions in this matter are only mandatory when they are coupled with a finding under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, could my noble friend proffer to the House any explanation as to why any Member of this House would want to denigrate this country's adherence to legal procedure in international affairs—as did the noble Lord opposite—on such flimsy grounds? Can he give any explanation for wanting to do such a thing?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I hardly think that that question is directed to me.
Lord HALE: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that decisions of the United Nations were regarded by Her Majesty's Government as not binding upon them in this connection? Does that not raise a very complex and important question as to the efficacy of international law which has always been regarded as a

759
matter of some doubt by many Governments? Is this not a matter that must be cleared up, whether it concerns Namibia or the international relations of Governments with the United Nations? Was any protest made to the United Nations at the time it made this decision to the effect that it was acting ultra vires?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, there is no question of any contravention of international law in this matter. The position is quite clear. The resolutions which we are talking about are not binding upon members of the United Nations.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, is it not a fact that for many years—indeed, since the South African Republic took on itself the occupation and, therefore, the administration of former South West Africa—this country, like other countries, has refused to recognise that situation? Nevertheless, as the noble Lord says, is it not also a fact that the mandatory content of the United Nations response to this situation is as he has said? The third question that I should like to put to the noble Lord, and indeed to the House, is as follows: Do not these exchanges reinforce the argument for pressing ahead with every possible speed to secure for Namibia an orderly and democratic procedure into independence on the analogy of what we have achieved in Rhodesia?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as regards the last point the noble Lord is quite right. We are doing what we can to push forward with the negotiations for a settlement in Namibia. As regards the present position, to which the noble Lord referred at the beginning of his remarks, it is true that we regard South Africa's presence in Namibia as unlawful, but we are working towards a South African withdrawal and, as I have said, Namibian independence.

CHEMICAL WARFARE
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 whether they can confirm reports that
760
the Russians have recently used chemical warfare near Jellalabad in Afghanistan.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government cannot either confirm or deny these reports.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which I rather expected. Will it be possible for him to give an assurance to your Lordships that, if at some time in the near future proof is obtained, the people of this country will be informed of this fact so that certain elements may realise that there is a war going on in Afghanistan?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, hesitate to give an assurance to inform your Lordships or my noble friend of something like that, because I foresee difficulties in actually producing the proof to which my noble friend referred. However, I shall bear what he says in mind.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the fact that paragraph 707 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates says:
"Furthermore Soviet forces could make intensive use of electronic warfare and have large stocks of chemical munitions"—
and there is another reference further back—is it not time that we not only produced our own defence against chemical warfare, but that we also produced our own quantity of this noxious weapon as a deterrent?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that matter was referred to recently by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and I should not want to go further than he did then.

THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES: DEBATE
2.45 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether he would agree that any debate on the Statement on the Defence

761
Estimates which might be held in this House should be divided into two separate debates on the same day, each part dealing with an important aspect of defence policy.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House has in the past welcomed the opportunity of a general debate on the annual Defence Estimates as a whole. I am not sure that it would be right to alter what has become a well-established procedure unless there is agreement from all quarters of the House. While I recognise the arguments behind my noble friend's Question, the creation of two debates where one has previously sufficed would entail more speeches: your Lordships might not consider that to be a happy prospect. The second of the two debates would inevitably begin at a late hour. The House has had, and will continue to have, the opportunity to discuss the more specialised aspects of defence policy on separate occasions. For these reasons, I think that one general debate would be for the greater convenience of the House as a whole.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the acting Leader of the House for his reply. Will he not agree that the most effective debates in your Lordships' House are those that deal with a particular aspect, rather than those debates which try to deal with the whole wide range of a particular subject, such as defence, in just a few hours?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I see the force of that argument, but, of course, inevitably the Defence Estimates themselves cover a whole wide range of subjects, and I do not think that it is very easy to restrict such a wide range to a relatively narrow debate, particularly if that will be a question of having two debates. I appreciate the problem of my noble friend, but I do not think that there is any reasonable way of getting round it.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will the acting Leader of the House give this matter rather more detailed consideration? Is he aware that when discussing defence matters—and in particular the Defence
762
Estimates—we in your Lordships' House have been inclined to roam all over the ground and ignore the specific item: namely, the strategy of defence, which, after all, is the most important consideration? Is the noble Lord also aware that in another place they not only discuss the Defence Estimates in general terms, but also the Army, the Navy and the Air Force? I would not go as far as wanting us to to that. Will the noble Lord not give the matter further consideration in order to widen the range of our debates, so that we can address ourselves specifically to important items, which are crowded out when we deal with the general subject of defence?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I was not quite clear what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, meant when he said that he wished to widen the range of debates; I thought what he was saying was that he wished to narrow the range of debates. The noble Lord said that people roam rather wide; I think that that requires a discipline which noble Lords who take part in debates of this nature must place upon themselves. The noble Lord also said that in another place they have debates on separate subjects. Of course, under the Unstarred Question procedure we have the ability to have debates on specific subjects. I would simply draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that on 5th March the House had the opportunity of a whole day's debate on home and civil defence; we also have the annual Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline (Continuation) Order, which gives the House an opportunity to discuss matters obtaining to that.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, in view of the very great importance of this subject at the present time, and the very large resources of experience which are available within this House, would it not be appropriate for us to have two days for this debate when the time comes?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that is a matter which could certainly be discussed through the usual channels, but at the moment I cannot see the likelihood of a two-day debate being particularly helpful, unless more than the normal number of speakers wish to take part. Were that to be the case, we should certainly consider it.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, surely the noble Earl the acting Leader of the House will agree—setting aside the point that I ventured to put to him that in view of the existing international situation, and the apprehensions of many people in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, defence subjects—particularly the strategic elements involved—deserve more than a one-day debate. Surely we can find time to give that consideration. After all, the conclusions of some debates which take place in your Lordships' House are never implemented. At least let us do something about defence.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I would not wish to underestimate the importance of the subject of defence. Indeed, if there is the requirement to spend more than one day on defence, then we would certainly consider this. I would only put this to the noble Lord. As I understand my noble friend's Question, he wanted to concentrate people's minds on various aspects of defence. If we accepted Lord Shinwell's suggestion by having a two-day debate on defence, I fancy that that would merely diffuse the situation.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend spoke of Unstarred Questions as occasions when noble Lords might wish to raise a debate on a special question. Would he not agree that the procedure for Unstarred Questions means that the Minister speaks at the end? No noble Lord has a chance of questioning the Minister on anything he says about Government policy and he in fact has a safe escape route at the end of the Unstarred Question debate; and that is not the point of a defence debate.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it depends of course on what my noble friend wants as a result of a debate. If he wishes to air his views, then an Unstarred Question on a particular subject is an excellent way of airing particular views. I would remind him that the particular subject under discussion is the question of the Defence Estimates. In other words, it is the Government producing an opportunity for people to discuss a Government document as a whole. I should have thought that it is very difficult to separate the contemplation of the document as a whole into small different aspects.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, nevertheless, in the event of the Government agreeing that there should be a two-day debate, would it not be possible to say that on the first day, as indeed we say on the Queen's Speech, that the debate would be largely concentrated on matters of home defence, and the second on strategical matters connected with the operation of NATO?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that of course would be perfectly possible, but I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the only purpose of a two-day debate is if there are so many speakers that you cannot accommodate them all on one day. The point I would draw to your Lordships' attention is that if you separate the debate into two different parts, on one day, you will inevitably have the problem of Peers who say they want to speak early because they have to leave early, and they will then be introducing into the first part of the debate matters which would necessarily happen in the second part. You would then have the problem of Peers who wish to make maiden speeches, when the convention is that they will come early in the debate, and they would have to make a speech possibly on a subject which would more properly be kept to the latter part of the debate. There are difficulties here. I shall certainly consider the views of the House. If the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asks, Will I consider it again?—of course I will. But I would merely remind him that the problems are not quite as easy as might appear when the Question was put down.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say that noble Lords should remember that today there are two debates on defence. All I am saying is that I broadly support what the Lord Privy Seal—the acting Leader—says.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, (a) for agreeing with me, and (b) for elevating me to the level of Lord Privy Seal, which was the first I knew about it!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any intelligent Member of the House who has an Unstarred Question, if he does the courteous thing of letting the Minister who is to reply

765
know the general line of his questioning in the debate, will get an excellent answer—even from that side of the House?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am still wondering from Lord Davies of Leek's question who are those who are not the intelligent Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, before we leave the subject, may I make a constructive suggestion with a view to avoiding—
Several noble Lords: No!
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, of course the noble Lord may, provided that it is in the form of a question.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I am asking a question. With a view to avoiding either diffuseness or superficiality, both of which dangers we have to avoid, would it not be possible to put down one or two amendments to the Motion on which the defence debate takes place, and for those amendments to concentrate the discussion at two points in the afternoon so that we would deal with them in detail?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, of course that is certainly a possibility. I am bound to say that the idea of it simply horrifies me, because I can imagine no better way of muddling the whole debate than by having about three amendments to one simple question.

TENANCIES: LEGAL PROTECTION
2.55 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider introducing measures on a similar basis to the Leasehold Reform Act to prevent those who have held tenancies in their homes for a large number of years from having to vacate them because of the exorbitant prices they are asked to pay for long leaseholds or freeholds.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of THE ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, as I have responded to similar Questions from the noble Lord in the past, the Answer again has to be, No.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Lord reconsider the position? Is he aware that the present situation is even worse than that which prevailed when the Leasehold Reform Act had to be passed? Is he aware that tenants now are not even being taken into consultation by landlords who hold the freehold when outside repairs need to be made? Will he see to it that he reconsiders the position from this point of view: the way things are going at present, thousands of people are being deprived of their homes, and if this continues you will have whole districts being deprived of their homes in the same way as when the leasehold system came to that particular pass which was bound to result in legislation being taken, the Leasehold Reform Act, to protect the tenants.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, so far as requirements under the various tenancy Acts not being adhered to, if the noble Lord has any specific instances I shall be glad to look at them. As to the second part of his question, as to whether I am aware that whole districts are in danger of being taken over in the way that he suggests, I am not sure that that is something that I am aware of, most of all to that extent. I do not know of that. I know of the concern that exists, and it is a matter that the Government are thinking about, but it would be quite wrong of me to try to imply anything further than that at this moment in time. I can only say again with some regret that I fear that there is not more that I can say to the noble Lord to help him in this matter, which he raises regularly and which he is probably quite right so to do.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the original intentions of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act were very drastically altered during the short Parliament of 1974 by the party of the noble Lord, to require the market price of the house to be charged at the end of the lease? Will he consider this so that the original

767
intention of the leasehold enfranchisement which had the support of all parties, could be adhered to, and those who have had leases, so-called trustee leases, of 50 years and over, will have the chance to remain in their houses for a modest amount?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, to use an expression I have learned since I came to your Lordships' House and to another place, I hear what the noble Lord says and certainly will take note of it. That does not necessarily mean that that is the end of it, but of course this whole area is a very difficult one indeed, as I have said before. As your Lordships will no doubt have seen from a statement made by the Minister in another place only in the last week, there have been pronouncements as to what might be done to make certain modifications to the Leasehold Reform Act. That indicates, I am sure, that the matter is one which is under consideration all the time. If that does not go so far as the noble Lord would like me to do, I should have to repeat again that it is because it is under review the whole of the time.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that up to this change people were able to buy the freehold of their houses for only a thousand or two pounds if they had been there a long time, whereas now others in the same street whose long leases are coming to an end are being asked £150,000? Does the noble Lord think that that is equitable?
Lord BELLWIN: As I have said before, my Lords, this is a matter which is of considerable concern. I trust that it was of equal concern prior to 12 months ago when the previous Administration had the same problem with which to deal, though I do not know that they did anything about it. We have said, and we say again, that we are certainly looking at the matter.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for saying that he is going to look at this matter, but will he speed it up? It took 15 years of looking at it before the Leasehold Reform Act was passed. Can he manage to do it within 15 days, 15 months, or some period like that?

IRAN: EEC DECISION
3 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall make a Statement on yesterday's decision by the Foreign Ministers of the Members of the European Community concerning Iran. I am arranging for a copy of the text approved to be placed in the Official Report.
As the House will recall, my colleagues and I had adopted a decision in Lisbon on 10th April, which was in effect a last appeal to the authorities in Iran to release the hostages in conformity with international law. Our ambassadors in Tehran were instructed to convey this appeal to the Iranian President and to request him to name the date and method by which the hostages would be released. They did so on 12th April.
Mr. Bani-Sadr's reply was, I have to tell the House, unsatisfactory. The most he would say was that he hoped a decision on the future of the hostages would be taken by the new Iranian Parliament when it had been elected and established. While holding out the prospect that visits to the hostages might be arranged, he could give no firm assurance as to when the Parliament might meet, or whether it could be relied upon to act as he hoped.
When this matter came up in this House and in another place on 14th April, the mood of the House was unmistakable. The phrase,
"the utmost solidarity with the United States"
was used from the Benches on both sides. There was a general feeling that diplomatic methods had, for the time being at least, been exhausted, and that the time had come to find some more concrete and far-reaching way of expressing our abhorrence at the continued defiance of the rules of international behaviour and the opinions of the civilised world.
Your Lordships will find this mood reflected in the decision adopted yesterday in Luxembourg. In accordance with a suggestion made last week by the United Kingdom, it was decided to proceed in two stages. In the first stage, the Nine

769
will put into effect to the extent that they are not in force already, certain measures, mainly of a political nature. We shall reduce still further our embassy staffs in Tehran. We shall insist on a parallel reduction in the Iranian embassies in our own capitals.
We shall reintroduce a visa system for Iranian citizens, after giving due notice, and we shall formally ban export of defence equipment to Iran.
The measures to be adopted in stage two are much more far-reaching, and it was this paragraph which occupied most of the time yesterday. If I may, I will read the key sentences. Ministers
"decided to seek immediate legislation, where necessary, in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran, in accordance with the Security Council Resolution on Iran, dated 10th January 1980, which was vetoed, and in accordance with the tenets of international law.
They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17th May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples. In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions."
These are decisions of great gravity. If it becomes necessary to implement them, a wide range of commercial activities will be affected. It is of course our hope that, at this eleventh hour, the Iranian authorities will draw the inescapable conclusion that the continued detention of the hostages is not in Iran's own interest, and should be brought to an end without delay.
If this does not happen, we shall face the situation which we contemplated when we cast our vote for the Resolution presented to the United Nations Security Council in January, except that now the action taken must be on the basis of national measures, and not on the basis of a Resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations.
The necessary measures will be laid before your Lordships, and I know that the Government can count on the cooperation of the House in handling them with the least possible delay.
The customary Statement on the other business of the Foreign Affairs Council is being made separately, in answer to a Written Question.
Following is the text referred to:
"DECISION BY THE FOREIGN MINISTERS OF THE NINE ON IRAN:
1. "The Foreign Ministers of the nine member States of the European Community meeting in Luxembourg on 22nd April discussed the implications of the recent events in Iran in the light of the reports by their ambassadors following the demarche to the President of Iran decided upon by the Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Lisbon on 10th April.
2. "The Foreign Ministers expressed the solidarity of the Nine with the Government and people of the United States at this time of trial.
3. "While welcoming the visit by the ICRC to the hostages on 14th April and noting the assurances given by President Bani-Sadr as to the living conditions of the hostages, the Foreign Ministers expressed their profound regret that the Iranian Government has been unable to give precise assurances about the date and methods by which the hostages would be released. The Iranian Government continues to ignore the clear call of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice to bring to an end a flagrant violation of international law and release the hostages.
4. "Since the hostages were first detained, the Nine, in full respect of the independence of Iran and the right of the Iranian people to determine their own future, have insisted that they must be released. The fact that after six months they are still detained, despite the efforts of the Nine and the clear condemnation by the community of nations, is intolerable from a humanitarian and legal point of view.
5. "The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, deeply concerned that a continuation of this situation may endanger international peace and security, have decided to seek immediate legislation where necessary in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Security Council Resolution on Iran, dated 10th January 1980, which was vetoed and in accordance with the tenets of international law.
"They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17th May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples. In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions.
"Ministers consider that, pending the entering into force of the measures mentioned above, no new export or services contract with persons and organisations in Iran should be concluded as of from now.
"Steps will be taken within the Community in order that the implementation of the measures decided upon should not obstruct the proper functioning of the Common Market.
6. "The Foreign Ministers decided meanwhile to put into effect without delay the following measures, to the extent that they are not already in force :—

(i) Reduction in embassy staffs in Tehran.

(ii) A reduction in the number of diplomats accredited by the Government of Iran in their countries.

(iii) The reintroduction of a visa system for Iranian nationals travelling to member countries of the Nine.

(iv) The withholding of permission for the sale or export of arms or defence-related equipment to Iran.

7. "The Foreign Ministers decided immediately to contact the Government of the United States through the Presidency and to inform it of the decisions taken by them.
8. "The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, believing that this situation should be a matter of concern to the whole international community, call upon other Governments to associate themselves with these decisions.
9. "The Foreign Ministers instructed their ambassadors to return to Tehran in the interval in order to convey the present decision to the Iranian Government, to follow the situation, and to undertake all possible efforts to alleviate and improve the living conditions of the hostages pending their release.
"They express the hope that the Iranian authorities will take action accordingly."
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the Statement that he has made. May I ask whether he is aware that there will be general accord in all quarters of the House and, I imagine, in the other place and in the country, with the agreement reached yesterday as to how, at this stage, to support the United States in the very difficult and dangerous situation that is continuing to develop in Tehran, and how to make absolutely clear, in concert with all civilised countries, our abhorrence of this flagrant breaking of international law, defiance of the International Court, and persistent cruelty to these hostages and to their families at home?
If I may put the matter interrogatively, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that this is an agreement among the Nine? May I ask whether it will quite quickly be brought to the attention of the other members of NATO, at least all 17 of them, and also whether other countries will be asked to co-operate on a national basis but, as the noble Lord said, in accordance with what was supported, though vetoed, in the United Nations`? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that even action by nine countries, unilaterally as it were, might harm those countries more than it might move the Iranians, if the rest of the world, or a large section of the rest of the world, having voted in the United Nations for this kind of action, does not join in? Can the noble Lord give an assurance that there will be quite intense diplomatic action to persuade others to join in and to accept the lead of the Nine, a lead which in turn is due to the lead given by the United Kingdom and by the noble Lord?
Will the noble Lord make clear to our friends and allies in the United States that it is no small action that this country is taking, as a country which at the moment has an annual trade with Iran of some £400 million sterling, which is, I believe, expanding after the setback inevitably caused to it by the events of last summer? So this will be a sanction on Britain and on British industry, as well as on Iran, and may we hope that our American friends will take this fully into consideration when they have even the slightest doubt about the loyalty and support of this country in connection with their action.

773
Finally, may I refer to the penultimate paragraph of the noble Lord's Statement, where he assumes, rightly, if I may say so, that the Government can count on the co-operation of this House in handling whatever measures it proves necessary to lay before the House, and no doubt before the other place? The answer to that assumption is, Yes. I put the question in order to give the answer. We shall co-operate in every possible way.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I think I am on record as suggesting from these Benches a little while ago that the time had come to apply the measures proposed in the vetoed Resolution of the United Nations, and I am glad that this is to be the case. However, would not the Government agree that necessary though these present and prospective measures are—and how much we must hope that they will be successful—we cannot, so long as the Ayatollah is in command in Qom, be at all optimistic that they will result in the liberation of the hostages? Therefore, would not the Government further agree that if, unfortunately, this proves to be the case, any further measures of pressure, presumably of a military nature, would not only probably result in the murder of the hostages, but would also have far-reaching results, which, to say the very least, could only be counter-productive?
3.10 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. I think it reflects, generally speaking, the mood on all sides of the House; and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord opposite for what he said about helping the necessary legislation through the House, which will be very welcome to the Government. I have of course already been doing what the noble Lord suggested about informing other members of NATO, and also Japan, because he is of course quite right in saying that the measures will be that much more effective if all the industrialised countries take them. The Japanese Foreign Minister was in Luxembourg, and I had the opportunity to talk to him over a period on this subject. I feel that he is very well aware of the circumstances in which this action is being taken. I also very much agree with the noble Lord about the sacrifice that we are making. I think the
774
noble Lord's figure is a little too high, but it is certainly a very large figure and it will have a significant effect upon this country. It certainly is a measure which the Government have taken having regard to the consequences it will have, and I have no doubt that our American friends will be aware of that. Indeed, I might say in passing that there are other countries which are even more affected than we are, particularly Italy. This is a decision on the part of Europe which can in no sense be regarded as inadequate to the situation.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said, I do not think I should like to make a judgment as to whether or not the hostages will be released while the Ayatollah is still in Iran in the position he is at the moment. I hope very much that they will be, but one cannot of course say. I do not think, equally, I would care to anticipate what the decision of Her Majesty's Government might be, or indeed what the Americans might do, in the event of the failure of these measures.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there was an almost exactly parallel position in about the 1880s in the relations between Her Majesty's Government of the day and the Abyssinian Government, and that we solved that, and released the hostages which were taken, by our own efforts and at our own very great expense? Does he not think that there are great dangers in the internationalisation of a bilateral problem, however serious and dramatic it may be in the eyes of the countries concerned?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think there are great dangers in any action you take on this subject, and you have to weigh up the disadvantages and the advantages of any course which is open to Her Majesty's Government. I believe that we have weighed up the advantages and the disadvantages correctly.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while I agree with the Statement he has made as far as he has gone up to now, there is a great apprehension in the country? With the land forces of Russia to the North of Iran and the battleships in the Persian Gulf,

775
there is a terrible fear in the country, and I hope we are not committed. Will it lead us to a war in the Persian Gulf?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, that, of course, is a situation which it is the object of all of us who are concerned to avoid. I would only point out that I do not believe that the best way of avoiding a war is to see your ally humiliated in world opinion and not to support them when they are in trouble.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, in their reactions to the situation in Iran and in Afghanistan, the United States and the European Community have shown some very clear signs of being seriously out of step. Is my noble friend giving some careful thought at present—I am not asking him to make a definite statement now—to the need to improve the machinery for political cooperation between the Community and the United States?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I would not say that everything was perfect, but I would have thought that the Community demonstrated yesterday that the Community and the United States were not in disarray and in competition or disagreement with each other.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I think all of us would want to recognise the quite extraordinary, constructive activity of the noble Lord: here yesterday morning, in Brussels in the afternoon and late at night, and here this morning preparing this complicated Statement. All of us would want to pay tribute to that. But may I add that some of us are disturbed by these developments, beginning with diplomatic and economic limited arrangements and proceeding to full economic sanctions, followed by military action by the American Government. Those of us who were active politically before the First World War see now a terrible parallel of sliding into a war situation. Are not these actions likely to unite and make more militant the people of Iran? Will there not be dangers for the lives of the hostages, rather than making for their release; and may these actions not lead to a situation of war? Would not continued patient diplomatic action, difficult as it would be, be more likely to save the hostages than the course on which we have started?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think these are difficult matters of judgment, and I think that one can very well argue the way the noble Lord has argued. I would only say this, that when one talks about patience and diplomatic activity I think all of us have got to remember that the hostages have now been held in Iran for six months, and that the United States have show n unparalleled patience in dealing with this situation. Certainly they have decided that patience and diplomacy is not going to release the hostages; and they in their judgment have decided that they have to go one step further, and apply diplomatic sanctions. I think all of us are very acutely conscious of the dangers which there are in the situation, both in Iran and in Afghanistan, but I can only repeat what I said to my noble friend behind me. Having seen the difficulties, having looked at the difficulties and having examined the situation, I believe we have come to the right decision—and it has been a difficult decision. With regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I would only say that he is far too kind. I am getting rather worried.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would my noble friend please confirm that we will not withdraw all diplomatic personnel from Iran?—because I think it would be a mistake to do so when it appears that, in effect, there is no Government in Iran at all, or there is no central control in Iran. This is what makes the release of the hostages so difficult—that there is nobody with whom it is possible to negotiate. Therefore, it is very important to keep as many diplomatic personnel as possible in Iran, for information for my noble friend and for Her Majesty's Government.
Secondly, is it not true that there could be a danger of worrying about Iran—which is unstable, there are 50 hostages, it is American election year and it is all against international agreements, et cetera—whereas the real danger is Russian aggression in Afghanistan? That is far more dangerous to our way of life and to the Western World than the immoral, illegal hostage-taking in Iran by a Government which has no control of its own citizens.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government

777
to thin out the embassy in Tehran, and this was decided yesterday in Luxembourg; but it is not the intention to withdraw the embassy staff completely. Indeed, it is not at the moment the intention to withdraw the ambassador, who later on will be returning to Tehran and, with his eight Community colleagues, will be once again seeing Mr. Bani-Sadr, telling him of the gravity of the situation and, in the light of what the Community has decided, asking him to release the hostages.
There is no intention of withdrawing totally any kind of diplomatic representation in Iran. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to do so because there are still some British citizens there. With regard to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I think that both of these "incidents", Afghanistan and Iran, (if one can call them so) are serious. I should not like to say which is the more serious of the two. Inevitably, one is inclined to rub off on the other. I think we have to consider very carefully the action we take having regard to the situation in both countries.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, while wholly understanding the extreme difficulty of the present situation and how it should be dealt with, and that the whole country is deeply concerned with this matter, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could comment upon the report in The Times today that the Iranian Government and the Soviet Union have signed an economic agreement and that the Iranian Government spokesman has said that whatever boycott were to be applied—particularly by the United States but I think, also, internationally—their friends in the Soviet Union would help them to get through it?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I cannot add very much to what the noble Baroness has said, because she has said everything that I know. The only comment that I might make is that I think that possibly the Iranian Government, if they are relying upon the Soviet Union as trading partners in substitution for the West, will find it a lot more difficult to get hard currency from them.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary aware that reports have also appeared in the
778
Press that the United Kingdom, while still not being fully self-sufficient in oil, has offered, in the event of sanctions having to be imposed, part of its oil supplies to those who will suffer as a result of Iranian oil supplies being cut off? Is he aware that this will be particularly important in regard to such countries as Japan which are so much dependent upon Iranian supplies? Is he further aware that if Her Majesty's Government have made this offer, it will have national support?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the resolution on sanctions which was vetoed by the Soviet Union and approved by everyone else did not in fact include oil. There is no prohibition on the purchase of oil from Iran. All that has happened is that the United States have asked us and others not to purchase Iranian oil at a price sharply different from that ruling in the rest of the world. It follows from that that the report in the newspaper is not accurate. But it may well be that oil will be cut off in the end. I do not know. Should that happen there is an agreement in the IEA which triggers off, below a certain percentage of shortfall, a sharing system with which all countries who belong to the IEA have agreed. Short of that, if there is still a shortfall but not sufficient to trigger off the IEA action, there is an agreement in the Community that we shall consult with each other.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, in view of the Statement by the Foreign Secretary on this situation, and in view of the consensus of agreement on all sides of the House, I feel that we should be foolish in continuing this discussion because the situation is so fluid at the moment and is moving day by day and hour by hour. I feel that we should leave it like that.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord came in more often.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, in spite of the fact that the noble Lord wishes that my noble friend would come in more often, I hope he will forgive me if I return to what I asked—and I do not wish to press him too far. Does not this whole issue of economic assistance from the USSR raise

779
the whole spectre of what the world is mainly worried about? I understand the point about Russia not being too good at providing hard currency, but—and again I do not want to press him too far—is there not a danger in this kind of economic boycott of driving Iran in a direction in which they would never have thought of going?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is quite right. On the other hand, I am not sure that fundamental Mohammedism is very likely to find much attractive in Soviet communism. Equally, I think it would be a little unlikely that the Iranians would be able to substitute—entirely, at any rate—Russian trade for Western trade.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, in the hope that it might be a helpful point, may I ask whether we are using in our diplomacy and elsewhere the point that there has been in recent years a welcome revival of the Mohammedan religion and that what the Ayatollah is doing now is well served to destroy the improvement which has been made—which could be most unprofitable and extremely regrettable for Iran itself?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that remark.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (CASTLEFIELD) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT: POLICY ON OVERSEAS SALES
3.26 p.m.
Lord NEWALL Lord NEWALL rose to call attention to the present policy for overseas sales of defence equipment; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords,
780
it is most appropriate that, on St. George's Day, we are discussing a problem which is vital to this country. In fact, we have two debates which touch on defence aspects and I consider myself fortunate that we have been able to have this debate ahead of the White Paper debate and dealing with only one narrow aspect of defence. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, and his colleagues that I will not be touching on the nuclear aspects at all.
The Defence White Paper, on pages 81 and 82, deals specifically with defence sales. It is only a summary and there is nothing there that anybody who has a reasonable mind could disagree with. But it cannot go far enough as it is only a summary. In the Hansard of the other place of the 15th of this month, an Answer was given by the Government that 61 countries bought some sort of defence equipment from this country in 1979. It may surprise some noble Lords to know that our defence exports total 21 per cent. of our total exports, a very significant figure and one which, I believe, is not beaten by many industries, if any at all. These defence equipment manufacturers employ some 80,000 people. I expect that the Ministry of Defence are fairly pleased with this sort of figure of employment, but I hope that they are not complacent. I believe firmly that we have the best industries to make things like this; we have the best brains to design and devise new defence equipment and different systems, some of which are produced to kill or to hurt an enemy. But if we can produce better ones than others can, surely we can save lives by so doing. No one wants war, but it is only from strength that we can avoid one. The Russians, I believe, are currently proving this point that strength can count.
Our forces and our equipment have been run down to a somewhat abysmal degree under the previous Administration. I am glad to see that the noble Lords, Lord Shinwell and Lord Winterbottom, are to speak from the opposite side of the House; and I feel that they will probably not disagree with much of what I have to say. If and when we need weapons in an armed conflict, we certainly need the capacity and the expertise. Our own defence requirements are fairly small so that we have to sell to others. We have to keep the industry going and our costs down; and we have to be ready to expand if an emergency should arise.
In 1980–81 we expect to sell something like £1,200 million worth of defence equipment. I do not think that that is nearly enough. In 1973–75 we sold more and I think that we can do much better. We could be more efficient. We even import arms. In 1979, according to the White Paper, we spent £41 million-plus on imports of small arms and ammunition. I consider that this could have been done much better by using our own industries and so helping our balance of payments instead of hurting it. Some ammunition was made in India and Pakistan because our own Royal Ordnance factories could not supply enough. I do not think that that is good enough. We are a leading industrial nation and it was certainly wrong that we were an importer of small arms in both world wars to meet our military requirements. Through our continued policies we have bolstered the profits of many foreign manufacturers, especially the United States.
The world is not a peaceful place. Terrorism has grown alarmingly, to enormous proportions in some areas. We have security checks every time we travel by air and sometimes in hotels and shops. A person's life often seems less valuable than it was a few years ago. The divisions that there have always been between police, special security personnel and the army have narrowed somewhat due to the times in which we live. If anybody is against arms sales—and I am sure that there are some—they must be living in something of a dream world. We cannot have a perfect world. If we could we would say: "Right, no more arms, no more ammunition". That obviously is the real solution; but we know that it is not practical. We must defend our own country and we must have that capability.
Defence sales of course should be made to Governments—and I stress "Governments" and not to individuals. Sales on an individual basis are usually purely for profit and they are not to be welcomed in large numbers. Even Governments are not blameless—sometimes they have been known to buy defence equipment and sell it on, making a profit on the way. Sometimes also this is only a limited possibility, and they are often accountable for their actions. Perhaps we should press harder for an international arms registry for all defence
782
sales. That would be welcomed by many in the West even though we may not get the co-operation that we should like from those in the East.
Perhaps I could mention some anomalies in defence sales. When we consider sales to other countries, we often apply our own strict guidelines from the outside on another country, based on our own view, and we apply sanctions to them. We often refuse to sell things to them. But are we always in the best position to judge? Many Western nations pay lip service to not selling things to South Africa because of their apartheid policy; yet the Russians and the Czechs openly sell arms there. We refuse to sell diesel engines for tanks that we supplied some years ago, some new engines to refurbish Centurion tanks. Now who is supplying them?—the Americans, one of our major allies. The German and United States Governments have made many statements about not selling arms to South America, yet there are German rifles and American revolvers being assembled in Colombia. We even have a factory in this country which is assembling German rifles and sending them to Jordan. I do not think that this is the best policy. It is just as well that there are some good things, too. We allow India, for instance, to manufacture British-designed tanks under licence.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a British factory assembling rifles. Is he in a position to reveal the name of the factory?
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I should not like to reveal the name here. Perhaps we could speak about it afterwards. It is a fact and I have it on good authority though I have not seen it myself. So far as India is concerned, there is something good to say. We have an agreement with them that they will manufacture British-designed tanks under licence. I think that we could do much more, and I consider myself extremely fortunate that less than two weeks ago I was able to raise this question with Mrs. Ghandi in Delhi and discuss defence sales with her on a broad basis.
There are many other examples referring to different countries, but perhaps I have said just enough to show that Government can use many devious means for selling

783
their arms and defence equipment abroad, sometimes assembling them in a third country for purely commercial reasons. I wonder whether the Government know of another small instance where German small arms were given to our own SAS; and now our own soldiers, as they travel around the world, have often been heard to be recommending these German arms to foreigners. I do not think that that is a good idea, any more than the idea that we should ask for the Americans to supply revolvers in Ulster.
I have already mentioned the great need for industry to export. Exports help to retrieve our research and development costs and minimise our expenses. Much of our defence sales industry has been run down to a rather depressing degree in the past. Much of the equipment that can be used for military purposes can also be used for civilian purposes; things like tents, boots and even uniforms. I am glad to say that Rolls-Royce, who design many excellent diesel engines for tanks, have nearly always been able to put them to good industrial use and recommend that they should be used for such purposes. I do not think that we do enough to encourage our defence industry. Our own annual production of small arms will probably sustain us for only two weeks in an emergency.
What do other countries do about it? The French are nearly always quoted by commercial firms. They sell very hard and in their ex-colonies they virtually control all defence sales. Their embassies sell. Their Government supports them frequently and fully, knowing how helpful it is to a healthy economy to have export sales of defence equipment. The Italians and Belgians also sell hard. I believe that they have made great strides in Libya where we banned our own people from selling, and now they are reaping the benefits which we were not able to do.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, was it not alleged on very good authority that the Libyans supplied arms to the IRA? Does the noble Lord think it is a good idea for our European allies to sell arms to a country which is prepared to do such a despicable thing?
Lord NEWALL: No, my Lords, there are many anomalies in the whole thing.
784
I am only bringing out one or two small instances to show how if we do not sell it does not deprive another country. Some of our own allies in many fields go out and make the money that we could have made, although we perhaps should not do this. I am not suggesting that we should always make all these sales; but I just want to make the point that we often do things for the wrong reasons.
The Germans are good salesmen and are quite prepared to sell all over the world. Nearly all these countries get full support from their own Governments. Salesmen plan ahead. They study the basic future needs of different countries. Replacement times on equipment can be forecast. There are many lists available of who buys what. I can mention one: the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It is a very useful guide for arms salesmen, even if there are some details omitted regarding smaller countries. Foreign salesmen often go and sit in a potential customer's country. They get the right contacts and talk to the right people. If a deal becomes imminent their Governments are ready with credit, reciprocal bartering or package deals. These salesmen stalk their prey and get the deals. They often break OECD limits. There are limits on defence sales and on credit. They blatantly defy these rules. As credit is the one key to defence sales, we are sometimes at an enormous disadvantage by playing to the rules.
What do we do? There are many commercial firms who are excellent at selling. Sometimes they are helped by the Government; sometimes they are hindered. There is a very good organisation which helps companies to sell defence equipment. It is called the Defence Sales Organisation. Most firms are high in their praise of this organisation and they have only good words to say in its favour. I believe that the Iranian tank deal—which of course now is defunct—could not have gone ahead without the great help of the Defence Sales Organisation. They have helped in many other areas as well.
However, they have limitations. They are not part of the cut and thrust of company incentives, commissions and bonuses. They cannot really challenge the private salesmen. Perhaps I could give an example. In marine defence sales prior to 1977, which was the nationalisa-

785
tion year, the three leading warship builders were Vosper Thorneycroft, Yarrow, and Vickers. They had good order books and they were profitable while most other yards were making a loss. Since then, their order books have shrunk alarmingly despite major rearming in NATO countries and other non-communist countries. The British shipbuilders have had only one new major naval order since that time, which is a frigate for the Sultan of Oman. They have had nothing else at all, and I am very glad that some reorganisation is on the way for warship sales.
In my view, nationalisation is obviously not good for sales, whatever other attributes it may have. Nationalised industries lack an instinct for competitive survival. In the private sector, if you do not get orders you do not have a company and you do not have a job. It pays to work hard. Also, foreigners do not like dealing with Governments and they do not like dealing even with companies which are one step away from Governments. Governments have a habit of changing their minds at the stroke of a pen. For instance, the president of some banana republic may put on red socks one day and be in a bad temper. He says something detrimental about this country and so the Foreign Office decides "no sales today", and that can also affect spare parts.
I have great admiration for many of our military defence attaches abroad. They are tremendously useful sources of information, but they certainly are not chosen for their effectiveness in selling. They have been known to suggest that it was beneath them to sell, and certainly their knowledge of methods being used by foreign competitors falls far short of reality in some cases. They change every two or three years, and contacts are vital in these matters. I believe that a recent order from Iraq for ships worth about £900 million, which was obtained by Italy, was denied to us because of advice given to private and public companies by the local embassy.
The bad selling that we have become renowned for helps the "cowboys". They proliferate; they are entrepreneurs—sometimes British—who willingly barter arms for large or small commissions and are always motivated by their pockets. They have no allegiance to their country;
786
they often sell foreign arms and they do not worry where they go to.
How do our sales work in practice? Supposing I have a recoilless ground-to-air missile to sell to the President of Utopia: probably I will get an unofficial view from Harry or Bill at the Defence Sales Organisation and they will tell me whether or not it is worth while putting in an official request. But if I have some new and untried fuel on which engines can run at 100 miles per gallon, and that was an unknown quantity, then Harry and Bill could not readily give an opinion. Therefore I have to go through the official channels—through the Defence Sales Organisation, to the Foreign Office for political clearance, which often changes its policy from time to time, through to the Ministry of Defence to see whether or not it is a sensitive product. All that has to be co-ordinated by the Department of Trade and Industry, who do not really know a great deal about it—masses of faceless men who are answering repeated inquiries without a decision. Months may pass and sometimes after more inquiries a "no" is easier than a "yes". The system seems rather prehistoric. Sales are like hot potatoes and they often have to be made very quickly if they are to succeed. Quick decisions are needed to sell, and so the system has to be streamlined drastically. Licences have to be granted much more quickly.
There are many doubts about the defence sales policy going around in industry today. For instance, do they sell only for the public sector or for the private sector as well? Is their role to open doors at high level or will they project-manage a potential sale, using the supplier as a sub-contractor? Many people consider that they lack product expertise, and the channels of communication between industry and defence sales are not at all clear. Some large companies with big export order books are not clear, and so I believe the situation ought to be reorganised and should undergo some structural changes. I hope the Government are looking at that.
May I also ask the Government to look at certain elements of the post-Rhodesia sanctions problems? If an amnesty is to be given to companies who have done naughty things, what about the good boys'? I have been told about one

787
case, a company called Racal which sells radio equipment. They sold to Rhodesia through South Africa and are now poised for a big break-through as a supplier which is known to Zimbabwe. What about the people who behaved, such as Marconi? They refused to break sanctions and now they are at a very distinct disadvantage. I hope that the Government will give them some help.
I have already mentioned that the key to good sales is credit finance and ECGD help on defence equipment is often very difficult to obtain. Another branch of the Ministry of Defence is International Military Services, which sometimes seems to compete with the private sector and sometimes works as a Government agent to help companies. Its exact role is uncertain, and many companies are not sure about it. Often American banks can lend money more quickly on better terms than British finance houses. This area of credit finance and the exact role of the IMS is a vital area which needs to be streamlined and closely re-examined so as to avoid the uncertainty that is definitely felt by many people I have talked to. Today's Financial Times carries a very good article which bears out some of these points and I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathcona will tell us today of some improvements that are on the way. I know that consideration had been given to changes in structure since last spring, and the time is now ripe for some decision.
The United Kingdom has international goodwill and technical expertise in the defence field, but currently we are not gaining our rightful share of the world market. We are depriving our own people of readily available jobs and we are not adequately building up our defences in a realistically priced market. We must give defence sales a higher national priority. I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the well-informed and admirably delivered speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, might be regarded as an overture to the important defence debates which will come before your Lordships' House shortly. He will, of course, agree that the subject is highly controversial: it always has been. Even
788
before the First World War there was controversy to an intense degree among politicians of the various parties as to the desirability of selling arms to other countries. It was regarded by some as immoral and improper—a contribution to further wars and conflicts of various kinds, both minor and major.
The advantage of this debate is that when the major debate comes before us we shall have disposed of a controversial subject, because the Defence Estimates themselves are highly controversial. After all, a nation cannot engage in expenditure of something like £10,000 million and expect to avoid controversy—controversy that is based on the need for economy and also based on what are regarded as moral principles. So the noble Lord, Lord Newall, may be congratulated not only on furnishing information of a wide-ranging character, but also on enabling us to avoid this aspect of defence controversy when it comes to the crux of the problem.
Therefore, almost every aspect of the subject having been covered, I find myself confined to two what might be called minor aspects of the problem. In speaking to them, it is likely I would not regard it as probable—that I may be able to refute some of the absurd allegations that are used by those who are opposed to the sale of arms by the United Kingdom to any other country.
I take, to begin with, what might be described as the moral argument, psychological, philosophical and ethical in its aspects, according to one's opinion and judgment. But in my view, for what it may be worth, the sale of arms to another country, whichever form it may take—tanks, rifles or even in a wider and more destructive and dangerous form—is no more immoral than selling to another country oil which might be used in battleships, in frigates, in carriers and the like, and even in aircraft; or even selling, as the United States and Canada have been doing for some considerable time, thousands of tons of grain to Soviet Russia and to some of the Soviet Union's satellites. That could, I should think, on careful analysis, be regarded as just as immoral in its subsequent effects as the sale of arms. So, from that point of view, and dealing with that aspect, I would regard what might be described as the moral objection to selling arms to another country as hardly worth consideration.

789
Anyhow, no matter what the objection may be, no matter what controversy is raised, the fact is that almost every nation which produces arms for itself endeavours to sell arms to other countries. It is a remarkable fact. I suppose that Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in defence matters are aware that there is not a single country in the world, throughout the whole globe, the whole of the cosmic scheme—superpowers, those who would like to be super, some who think they are super and some not much larger than this Chamber in which I am venturing to address your Lordships—which is not in possession of arms. What for? Ostensibly, they are for the purpose of protection, of security.
That is precisely why we produce arms for ourselves and create a force, which is not as large as I should like, but which is quite adequate alongside our allies—perhaps they are more adequate than we are. We do this not to engage in a conflict, which is not our desire, never has been our desire and, I hope, never will be our objective, but to deter a conflict which we, at some time or other, apprehend. So when there is talk about nations defending themselves, purchasing arms and all the rest, I sometimes think of a country like the State of Israel. Without the arms, where would it have been? It should never have been a State at all. The same can apply to several countries. So much for the moral argument.
There is another argument, which is that by selling arms to other countries we are assisting in the promotion of another conflict, promoting war. What is the answer to that? I am venturing on a challenge to those who disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newall, and myself on the subject of the sale of arms to other countries. Let them produce evidence of any country that has gone to war with some other country because it has purchased arms from a super-power or from any quarter. That has never happened.
There are two instances that occur to me, as I seek to address the House. There was the Korean affair, when North Korea sought to invade, and did actually invade, South Korea for political motives. One was Communist, the other was non-Communist and it obtained the assistance of the United States having obtained, not immediately but eventually, in the course of events, the consent and endorsement of
790
the United Nations and the Security Council when that event occurred. North Korea did not go to war against South Korea, nor did China assist North Korea—which it did at the time and which may, eventually, have led to the Vietnam affair—because they had purchased arms from a super-power or from any quarter. That had nothing at all to do with it.
The same applies to the Middle East. I challenge contradiction on this issue. Nothing that has occurred in the Middle East—the Suez affair, the seizure of the Suez Canal by Nasser and a variety of other misdemeanours that occurred in that area, leading to some conflict—was in any way attributable to the purchase of arms from the United Kingdom, the United States, Czechoslovakia or any other country. All that happened was that Czechoslovakia sold arms, we sold arms and the United States sold arms wherever we could. But there was no contribution to conflict. Conflicts occur for other reasons into which I need not enter, but of which I think Members of your Lordships' House are fully cognisant. That is the situation. So much for that.
This controversy has been interminable and I recall it taking place before the First World War. If I may turn to that period for a moment, there was the action of Germany, the attitude of France, which was a little ambivalent, the attitude of the United Kingdom after some controversy and difficulties in the Cabinet of the period, and even division in the country. There was certainly more division in the country then than there was in the Second World War, when the country was, if not unanimous, united. But the Germans did not go to war against the United Kingdom and France because they had purchased arms from other countries. This is a foolish argument, a stupid allegation, which is used by those who claim to be ethical, and who indulge in moralising, sermonising and all the rest of it. I would regard it—and I say so with the greatest respect—as just hypocrisy, sometimes humbug. Wars do not occur because of the sale of arms. Sometimes they could occur because of no sale of arms and no possession of arms if a country is incapable of defending itself. So I dispose of the arguments against the sale of arms and I agree with almost every word the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has said.

791
I would rather it were otherwise. If international tension vanished, if there were no danger of conflict, if our apprehensions were disposed of, for one reason or another, how happy we should be. We should not require to spend £10,000 million—or perhaps more in the course of time—or to rely upon our allies to assist us, and sometimes to rely on allies who let us down at the last minute. I do not want to mention any names or to be too controversial on this subject.
It seems to me that, in all the circumstances, there is nothing particularly wrong with the sale of arms. Although I would rather it could be avoided, it has to be done. It helps to build up our own industries. It contributes to the manufacture of adequate arms for the United Kingdom for the purpose of deterrence and for the purpose of security. That is our purpose. Therefore, I support the Motion and have not the least doubt that your Lordships' House will accept it.
4.2 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for his raising of this very important subject and for the admirable content of his speech. He always takes infinite trouble in collecting information, and it was a speech which was full of very useful information. It also had the benefit, as it always does when he speaks, of being succinct and to the point. As I have to chair a meeting shortly after 4.15 p.m., I was particularly grateful for his shortness. I would ask for the indulgence of the House if I go away, but I shall of course return to this debate as soon as the meeting is over.
First, I have to make an apology. On 18th December we had a short debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, on the British nuclear deterrent. I had cause to criticise the BBC "Panorama" programme on that same subject which was transmitted on 10th December. 1, and many others, thought that it was biased towards the political Left. In referring to Doctor Rotblat I said that his views were of the extreme Left, or Marxist. Since then I have had the opportunity to meet and discuss this matter with him. I now believe that
792
I did him a grave injustice and that I was wrong. Ever since he worked with the United Kingdom team at Los Alamos he has believed passionately, and understandably, in nuclear disarmament—and even in unilateral nuclear disarmament. Therefore he has taken part, in the past, in Aldermaston marches, but unlike some others on those marches I believe that he was motivated by horror and by compassion, not by sympathy for Marxist or Soviet views. I accordingly withdraw and apologise and try to correct the injustice I did him. I make that statement now because this is the first opportunity afforded to me to do so in a defence debate. Unfortunately, our main defence debate has been brought forward to May 8th, when it clashes with a meeting which I shall have to attend of a Panel of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris; I shall not therefore have the opportunity to be here on that occasion.
I want to concentrate on the importance, as I believe it to be, of increasing the total of our overseas sales—not that I think that we have done badly. In 1970 and 1971–10 years ago—we were exporting in 1979 terms £870 million of defence equipment. In 1973 and 1974 there was the peak of £1,229 million of equipment, but that was helped by large sales to Saudi Arabia and to Iran. In the year just ended, 1979–80, we exported £900 million of arms. To that should be added another £140 million for works services, for support and for advisers. This latter item of £140 million is becoming increasingly important as we sell arms. The arms have a high technological content; therefore instructors and support are very necessary.
Looking back, I think that one of the blunders of the Labour Government, apart from the rundown of defence, was made in 1964. They have always been slightly pathological—though excuse my saying so—about Spain. When I left the Admiralty in 1963 I knew that we were a long way towards receiving an order for ships of British design, fitted with a great deal of British equipment, for the re-equipment of the Spanish navy. Unfortunately, all that was cancelled because at the time Franco was at the helm. Had they been able to see ahead, I think there would have been very, very valuable orders for our ancillary maritime equipment and that we should have had ships designed to

793
British standards now equipping the Spanish navy. The same applies to Portugal. Even manoeuvres with Portugal were forbidden. Both of those nations are now democratic and an important part of Western defence.
I think we have been well served by successive heads of defence sales. I knew them all. Sir Raymond Browne was the first; Sir Lester Suffield was the second and Sir Ronald Ellis is currently in office, and has been for some years. They have done outstanding work and have certainly opened doors which those in industry would not have been able to open without their help. It was well worth while setting up, and I pay tribute to the Labour Government. It was their initiative which did it. I think that it was brave and that it was correct.
Despite that, I still think that we ought to be and should be doing even better. One only has to look and see how France has done to realise the potential. France had a smaller aerospace industry than ours and certainly was insignificant compared with our strength in avionics and electronics. Let us, however, take the figures from SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. I realise that all such figures are liable to error because sometimes the bases are different. There it records that in 1978 France was selling three times as much as this country.
There is one place where our imbalance of sales has not got any better. It was in September 1975, nearly five years ago, when a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the United States of America to try to improve the two-way flow of arms—the two-way street as it was called. Even today, despite efforts, there is a grave imbalance, in that we are buying between three and four times as much from the United States as they are buying from us. If we succeed, as is likely, in selling the Rapier surface-to-air missile, or if they place the order, as we urgently hope they will, for the AV8B—the United States version of the Harrier—this will make a very big impact on that balance. But it has not yet happened. Every opportunity therefore must be taken by our Government to make clear to the United States that that obligation still is there so that we may hope to keep them to the understandings and the undertakings which were signed nearly five years ago.
794
I think that we in this country must particularly specialise in our defence sales in the high technology industries. As our prowess and, regrettably, our leadership in the traditional heavy industries of shipbuilding and heavy engineering—and, in the earlier days, railways—have declined, and as our sales have deteriorated in those areas, so it has become vitally important that we should renew our efforts in aerospace, electronics, and other high technology industries.
I have spent the whole of my working life associated with electronics and aerospace and light engineering, and I know how vitally important the research and development contracts emanating from the Ministry of Defence are to the success and competitive position of British industry. Profit margins are not great and they are controlled. Of course they are limited, in favourable cases, to as high as 14 per cent., but they can be as low as 11 per cent. It is very difficult in an inflationary world, when delivery is wanted in three or four years' time, to quote a price, sometimes a competitive price, which will hold up against the inflation of three years—inflation which is perhaps much greater than one estimates.
Moreover, in quoting for long-term sales, both here and for export purposes, it is very difficult to forecast the borrowing rate which will apply over the intervening years, and if one is having to borrow money from one's bank at something like 20 per cent. it makes desperate inroads on the profit margins available. So I urge my noble friend to have a look and to see whether the profit margins today are realistic in view of the 20 per cent. inflation and the difficulty when borrowing rates are very high of making ends meet.
A further difficulty arises if a firm is locked into a development contract to meet a Ministry of Defence requirement or perhaps to meet the demands of the Civil Aviation Authority or some other public body: that contract may be cancelled at short notice and one is placed in a parlous position when one has set aside the efforts and the brains of one's research and development staff, and gets no orders and does not fill one's production factory, and yet all the overheads have to be carried as a result.
I do not think we should forget the enormous contribution which defence

795
work makes to employment in this country. This admirable White Paper sets it out extremely well in paragraph 735, where it points out that 200,000 people owe their employment directly to the production of defence equipment and another 200,000 are working for sub-contractors in the defence field. So that is a total of 400,000 people directly and usefully employed in the defence of our country and in the sales of defence equipment.
I would also ask my noble friend to see what France is doing to increase her share of the export markets for defence equipment. A circular has come into my hands which states:
"France dominates the Middle East defence sales".
It goes on to say that there is a possible sale of as many as 450 Mirage 2000 fighters to Saudi Arabia within the next ten years. It quotes the setting up of a joint French-Jordanian factory in Jordan for the manufacture of the Mirage 2000. It is perhaps significant that President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing recently made a 10-day visit to the Middle East and to the Gulf and it may be that these orders have been helped by that.
Let us take an example—the French effort. They have done one thing: they have driven for sales and they have succeeded in making them and above all else they have looked after their own defence industry within their country. It may be said that we are bound by international law not to do the same. Self-interest is a very important and dominant factor in any nation's economy and I ask my noble friend to take notice of a memorandum prepared by the Electronic Engineering Association and submitted to him. Could he take counsel with Sir Keith Joseph and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to see what can be done to help our British industry to no greater extent but to no lesser extent than France and the USA look after theirs? If we could do half as well we should not be exporting £1,100 million or £1,200 million of defence equipment in the coming year but I believe we should be able to raise the figure to £1,500 million and to £2,000 million and perhaps even approach the level which France has succeeded in attaining.
I urge my noble friend to consider the consequences if we always buy in the
796
cheapest markets. If we do not look after our own industry we shall become a deindustrialised agricultural country again and in that instance this Government will not be in power and I suspect that the social democrats will not be in power either. We shall have an extreme Government of some sort in this country; we shall have serious unemployment and we shall no longer play a leading part in the free world. So I urge my noble friend to look at this memorandum, to consider its implications and to see what action can be taken to protect our high technology industries and make sure that they are kept usefully employed and exporting, as they have always done in the past.
Lord CARVER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether he has considered the point, which was frequently made to me by my French colleagues, when I was a Chief of Staff—that their forces suffered very considerably from the fact that the French Government put the needs of defence sales overseas before the needs of their own forces, and the forces were therefore forced to accept equipment which they did not want and which was designed primarily for overseas service? I would have said that this applied very much to French aircraft.
Lord ORR-EWING: Yes, my Lords. I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carver. The French build naval ships on spec hoping to sell them to overseas customers, and if they do not do so they are added to the strength of the French Navy. They may not be the ideal weapon, but they are at least something in the hand. I feel at the moment that it is better to have something in the hands of our troops, who are under-armed (and, where they are armed, it is not with the most modern arms) than to wait for the most perfect weapon which completely meets our operational requirement. So, although I am most grateful for the noble Lord's intervention, I think there is another side to the question.
4.18 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for introducing this debate. His speech was factual, cogent and short, and these are virtues in speaking which this House appreciates.

797
One of the things which surprises me as I look at the defence scene is how little we look at the experience of previous generations. The Romans said quite clearly,
"If you wish for peace, prepare for war"—
"si vis pacem, para bellum"—
and they knew something about running a world system. In today's debate I think that no speaker would deny that the actual selling of our defence projects abroad is not to our national interest. It involves 75,000 jobs; £1,200 million worth we hope will be sold next year. These are very important economic figures, and perhaps more important still is the fact that by selling some of our equipment abroad the unit cost of that equipment drops. Because of the very high cost of research and development and of production facilities, it is cheaper for us to buy our Rapier air defence system if we are selling it in larger numbers abroad. I wish to put four questions to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who is to reply to the debate. I give him due warning, and I think he might perhaps indicate what is the significant saving in cost to this country in perhaps one or two weapons systems, where we have been successful in selling abroad substantially, for instance, the Rapier air defence system and, say, the Lynx helicopter.
My second point is to discuss what my noble friend Lord Shinwell (who speaks much better English than I do) described quite simply as the "moral argument". I was going to use the rather more pompous phrase, "the ethical parameters of selling weapons abroad". It is quite clear that as a nation we cannot neglect our moral views or our national interest in selling weapons abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who has made an important contribution to this debate, made a point of praising France for her activities in the field of defence sales overseas. She has, of course, been very successful, but I doubt whether her ethical parameters are as narrow as ours.
One would perhaps draw attention to her selling a type of nuclear power station to Iraq, which she is attempting to force through, as an example of a very destabilising operation closely related to defence sales. For that reason we are not quite as limited as the French in our thinking when we come round to our defence policy
798
and selling abroad. It is quite clear that a very large amount of equipment and materials which we send abroad are morally neutral, defensive equipment, defensive clothing, anti-riot equipment and so on. There is a whole range of other equipment which is purely defensive.
But at a certain point we must start questioning what we do and what we permit our industry to sell abroad. Of course one sells to one's allies, and I want to talk about the two-way street in a moment. We sell to many neutral nations and one must question what we sell to them. We even sell to communist countries. Do not let us forget that we are supplying and helping to create a production industry both in Romania and China for the Spey engine, which is an absolutely first-class jet engine for use in military aircraft. We do this because we believe that our interest is to support the Romanian and Chinese defence industries. That is a most unusual exception.
Whatever we do in this field must be related first of all to national interest and, secondly, to moral attitudes within this country. No one is going to expect us to sell abroad tactical nuclear weapons, although I presume it would be within our power to do so. I think it would be very helpful in this debate if the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, would give certain indications—it is a very large subject, so he will want to limit his contribution—of what the ethical parameters are for the selling of weapons abroad.
The next point I want to make is again a comparatively simple one and contains a question. We enter into agreements with foreign nations to supply them with equipment and after-sales services and spares. Then the leadership of that nation collapses, the nation becomes unstable. We are left with vast unfinished contracts. I am thinking in particular of Iran. I should like to ask the noble Lord how, for instance, we are coping with the problem of the Shah-Iran tank. The Shah-Iran is a very important development of the Chieftain. It is a magnificent piece of military equipment. I expect that in the ordnance factories of this country there are pieces of Shah-Iran in all sorts of stages of production, from heaps of spares to finished vehicles.
Have we any policy for absorbing into our own armed forces half-finished equip-

799
ment which could be of value to our own armed forces, at considerably less cost than if we were starting from scratch, because a substantial part of the development cost and manufacturing cost has been paid for by some other nation? In particular in relation to this problem, I believe there is a fleet supply ship for Iran completed and awaiting dispatch, but apparently not being dispatched for reasons which perhaps we shall be told today.
I come to my last point. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, raised the question of the two-way street. Of course, it is not only the two-way street with America; there is the general collaborative effort we are bringing about with our allies within NATO. Is the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, satisfied that the collaboration is as close and as active as we would all wish it to be? We are, of course, having our successes; the Tornado, the Howitzer, and, of course, very interesting future development work, are examples of collaboration. In his summing-up would the noble Lord indicate whether the Government are satisfied that our allies are collaborating to the degree we would all wish to see?
4.27 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I also would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newall, on bringing up this very important subject, particularly at this time. An ex-agent of mine, now in his eighties, has just written a book which is called Twice in a Lifetime. When he deals with the Second World War he says that so many of his contemporaries who had also been in the First World War entered into it in a great sense of disgust at having been let down twice in their lifetime by our politicians who had not prepared them for the holocaust that was to come.
A successful arms industry is an absolute essential for being prepared for war, or even continuing one once we are forced into it. That is why I think we should do all we can to encourage our overseas sales of arms, so as to have, if and when war does break out, a successful arms industry for ourselves, as well as for equipping ourselves at the moment. What better way than encouraging the private sector? What better way than ordering
800
twice the number we need, for example, of ships, tanks, wireless sets, planes, et. al., for our forces so as to sell the surplus overseas? Of course, you can make a greater number more economically because you thereby reduce the unit cost.
What better way than encouraging industry to try out new ideas? Though it was not for sale overseas, the example we can all think of is the Spitfire and how it came to be developed before the last war in spite of official lagging behind. During the debate on 5th March we heard, for example, from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, how the countries which are now cited as the best prepared for civil defence—Switzerland, Sweden and so on—came to us for ideas and equipment, and that is what started off their civil defence. What happened to ours? We abolished it in 1967. We did not go on producing, except for a few minor smaller companies, because there was no longer the demand for the volume of equipment. Now when they come to renew, for example, their radiac equipment, they are quite likely to go elsewhere. Why should we not get back into the race by re-equipping those forces to which I have just referred and to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred, and at the same time get that industry going again and back into the export market that we had previously?
Other examples can be quoted which are on the borderline, for example, between military and civil matters. When we had the old civil defence organisation we had what was then quite a good fire-fighting machine. We abolished civil defence and we put the green goddesses into mothballs. As regards civil defence we do not have an up-to-date vehicle. But why not help ourselves and our exports by, if necessary, subsidising to a certain extent this type of equipment? Surely the best thing economically is to get up-to-date and to sell as much of our equipment as possible. Home defence forces are road bound and are equipped with two-wheel drive vehicles. Why not give an impetus to equipping them with what they should have—namely, four-wheel drive vehicles, which is the modern up-to-date equipment for regular forces and which could, in a way, be self-financing by selling a proportion. We have dropped behind, having lead the way in four-wheel drives. Those are only a few examples of

801
the way in which we could help our industries and ourselves to have a good machine and to be prepared.
Finally, pay no attention to the moaners of the "defence at all costs" school. Their taunts of being "merchants of death" are purely hypocritical. I remember an ex-Labour Minister of Defence talking to us—I think that I see the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, nodding his head—and saying that his strongest critics in another place would come to him privately and say, "What about a defence order to my constituency?" and so on. I hope that he told them, "You cannot have it both ways".
I hope that the Minister and the Government will take heed of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, and that we shall have in future Government assistance for defence arms sales to get us off the ground and back to where we were previously.
4.34 p.m.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, I should like to join with others who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Newall on introducing this extremely timely debate on arms sales overseas. At a time when our arms sales in various parts of the Middle East are severely hit by international crisis and various disagreeable events in Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is particularly appropriate that we should concentrate our minds on how the situation can be remedied.
If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to concentrate for a moment on what I see as the fundamental difficulty facing the United Kingdom in building an efficient and profitable arms industry at present. Let us face it: we are no longer the major arms producing country that we were decades ago. We are now a medium-sized industrial country and probably a less than medium-sized military country. It is very difficult for us to produce weapons profitably—given the difficulties that face British industry at the moment—from our present industrial base. The result has been what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing referred to as the one-way street with the United States—the sad fact that we sell to that country only one quarter of what we buy from it in the field of military equipment.
802
How can we right that wrong? How can we turn the one-way street into a two-way street? I shall suggest a possible solution to which I hope my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal will be able to give attention. He will recall that we have already been in correspondence about it. I am referring to a greater involvement on behalf of our partners in the European Community. The Community is, after all, the only comparable industrial market to those of the super powers, the only market which could—if a system could he worked out—enable us to produce weapons with the same sort of markets and the same sort of outlets, as the United States.
In the past we have tried to approach the problem of the narrowness of our market by the system of the consortium. With the aid of the Independent European Programme Group, we have set up consortia among our European allies bilaterally, trilaterally and quadrilaterally. But I think that it is generally agreed among producers of sophisticated arms in this country—including those who have taken part in consortia—that it is not the ideal way to produce the best weapon and the weapon that will sell the most and make the most profit.
Different countries have different systems of subcontraction and they will not undertake to purchase a weapon unless they, as part of the consortium, make part of the weapon. The result is often cumbersome. If it is said that a camel looks like a horse designed by a committee, I must say that a sophisticated weapon produced by a European consortium very often looks like a machine designed by a committee. No wonder the United States manages to outbuild us, outpace us scientifically, and out-sell us in this extremely important market.
Therefore, I should like to urge the Government and my noble friend to take another look at the whole question of European arms procurement. He will know that it has been considered in the European Parliament many times" in the past years and he will, of course, he familiar with the Klepsch Report. He will know of the debate last September in the European Parliament, when a broad consensus was felt among members from all member States that some Community element needs to he brought into arms

803
procurement as part of a common industrial policy. I do not mean a common defence policy; I mean an industrial policy of the Nine, which already exists in many areas, but which for the moment is excluded from the Treaty of Rome. It is particularly right that we should think about this at the moment because there is a new mood on the question of defence coming to the fore in the European Community.
I wonder whether your Lordships have read, for instance, the interview given by President Giscard d'Estaing in Le Figaro two weeks ago, in which he spoke in a way which no French President could possibly have spoken a few months ago on the question of European defence and European co-operation in defence. Until a few months ago that was anathema to every French party, but now across the Channel they are beginning to think about it and, of course, it needs little imagination to understand why they are beginning to think about it. The matter is now urgent. It must be considered and it seems to me that this is the only solution to the problems of middle-sized countries which cannot efficiently produce sophisticated weapons.
Therefore, can I ask my noble friend to give us his latest ideas on this subject of European co-operation? What has he done about the ideas expressed in the Klepsch Report? Does he still have a fundamental objection to participation by the European Commission in building a defence element into European industrial policy? It seems to me that very often there is something of a block on this subject—the question of involvement of the European Commission in the industrial base—in the Ministry of Defence.
Finally, I am not suggesting that the European Community should produce rifles and ammunition; this can quite simply be done on a national basis, provided that basic agreement can be worked out among allied countries about harmonisation. But it seems to me that just as in the field of energy it makes no sense for a country of our size to go it alone, so it makes every sense for us to combine with countries of similar industrial potential to pool our resources and build an energy policy. It makes every sense to have the JET project, with the help of
804
European industry, sited in one Member-State, which in this case happens to be this country. By the same token it makes sense to conceive a European element in arms procurement, not in order to produce small arms—such as revolvers—but in order to produce the underwater weapons, the satellites, the computers and the tracking equipment which only very sophisticated industry and very large investments can produce on a profitable and high-level basis. Can my noble friend please consider this matter and let us know his thoughts?
4.42 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for introducing this short debate and for the way in which he did so. As one of his colleagues said, he always speaks succinctly; it is a credit to him and I am glad that he has raised this subject. In a way it is rather a pity that we are not debating this matter when we debate the major Defence Estimates.
I understand the idealism in relation to European unity and the Community which prompts the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, but I take the view that the French should recognise that NATO is the main organisation for the defence of Europe and the West. Whatever the noble Lord may say about the French attitude, that is their problem and they should show more sympathy towards NATO. As he knows, there have been difficulties. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. who will be replying for the Government. will agree with me that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to strengthen NATO. The noble Lord. Lord Bethell, referred to the need to have a European arms organisation; that body should be within NATO, and quite separate from the European Community as such. I think that the noble Lord would probably appreciate this if he were to read carefully the treaty that set up NATO itself. I am not opposed to the EEC at all, unlike my noble friend Lord Shinwell. who takes a very different view from me. But I believe that defence should be in the hands of NATO and not in the hands of the European Community.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Peart,

805
very briefly, may I ask him whether he appreciates that defence is not an isolated matter; it must be connected with the industrial base of allied countries? If one has a united industrial policy among the European Community, does it not follow that there will be overlapping with the defence procurement policies of those same countries?
Lord PEART: My Lords, we can still have a common industrial policy, but there should be no overlapping; NATO is the main body and should be responsible. The noble Lord shakes his head; I am sorry, but we disagree on this. I think that this has been a good debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, mentioned the value of defence for our people, with exports also affecting the employment of 80,000 people. Many parts of this industry employ skilled technicians; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is an example—he is a physicist and knows the industry. It is true that with the sophisticated methods that we now have, inevitably this industry attracts distinguished people and makes a major contribution to our country. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, asked whether we could expand our small-arms sales and mentioned that we import from different parts of the world. Reference has been made to how we import from the United States on a ratio of 4 to 1, which shows that we have a long way to go in the field of supplying equipment which is so important.
I know that we have had our successes. Tornado, which we debated recently, is one example, and another is the Harrier aircraft. Therefore, do not let us be too pessimistic. Let us remember that the arms sales' department is important. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, rather chided the previous Labour Government! we did set up an organisation; it was a Labour Government which started it. When my noble friend Lord Shinwell was Minister of Defence, generally speaking, he always got his way in a Labour Cabinet. Therefore, it is wrong for anyone to assume that this is a party issue. I have been a member of several Labour Governments and have played my part. not as a Minister of Defence, but as a Minister for another department. I can assure noble Lords that we always concentrated upon seeking to build up our defence position.
806
Therefore it is very wrong to drag up old arguments of who was responsible in the past. After all, I could go right back to the 1930s when Mr. Chamberlain ran this country, and mention the sorry mess that he made of it, including the AngloGerman Naval Agreement, and matters of that kind. But we must forget that; we must think in terms of building up an efficient sales organisation. I believe that this will be appreciated by many people and will improve our trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Newall, said that he wanted small-arms in an emergency. He asked about France; I have dealt with France; I think that France should play a bigger part in NATO, but so far she has not. There is no question about the home Government on this matter. I believe that the last Labour Government and the present Government are still seeking to build up our organisation. The Defence Sales Organisation exists. Mention has been made of the Iranian tank; there is also the marine defence sales, dealing with Vospers, Yarrow and Vickers, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom who, as noble Lords and I know only too well, is a very distinguished former Minister who has played a major part in speeding up the defence needs of our country. I pay tribute to him. I was only sorry that he left me at that time. Nevertheless, he still takes a passionate interest in this matter.
Then there is the question of a larger share of our market. My noble friend Lord Shinwell spoke about some of the moral aspects of the problem, and about those who oppose arms, and I agree with him. On the other hand, I recognise that we must have a correct balance. There is no question that in some parts of the world tractors are as important as tanks; I remember making a speech in the Council of Europe on this matter. But we need to ensure that we have adequate defences and if, at the same time as supplying our own industry, we can export, that is all to the good. I would argue that our country is well aware of the importance of this matter. Indeed, the Statement on the Defence Estimates mentions a figure of 200,000 people. It is a very admirable document and one of the best documents that I have seen emanate from the Ministry of Defence over the

807
years. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, that his colleagues have done well to produce this.
Mention has been made of France, how she dominates the Middle East, and her Mirage fighters, and how important it is that we should have a sensible diplomacy which will enable us also to play our part there. Whether this can be done, I cannot say. In this short debate I would only argue that we must try to do our best, and over the years we have been fairly successful. Some of our tanks have been sold in different parts of the world—the Chieftain is one example—and the aircraft which I mentioned. I am not going to waste the time of the House tonight. I believe that the noble Lord has made his case. There are others still to join in the debate, and I said I would be brief. We have nothing to apologise for, and we should not have any party policy on this issue.
4.51 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, I, like all other noble Lords, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for the fact that he initiated this debate and for the manner in which he did it. May I start by telling him that, as I hope I shall establish, we certainly are not complacent on this question of defence sales. Indeed, I am not even sure that it is true to say that we are wholly pleased. Nevertheless, they are an important and not totally unsatisfactory part of the defence scene.
I said before, when we were talking about the Harrier, that defence debates of this kind on comparatively minor issues make a contribution, and this was something that the acting Leader of the House was pursued about almost to the point of harassment earlier this afternoon. I believe that debates of this kind are extremely useful for clearing the air on specific issues before we get down to the major debate associated with the defence White Paper. I must not lose this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for the kind remarks he has made about the defence White Paper. I shall return in a minute to the question of dis-
808
closure of information, which is always a vexed issue in the defence world.
On a number of occasions in the past noble Lords have voiced concern about certain aspects of the arms trade. In a way, it is rather sad that those noble Lords who feel like this have not chosen to participate in this debate, because we have had almost total unanimity. I suppose I ought to be grateful for that, but in a sense it blunts the thrust of our debates when we get quite the degree of agreement we have had this afternoon on this issue. I am sure that underneath that surface there in fact exists a considerable body of opinion, which I believe we should respect, which differs from us on this issue. I shall try in a moment to deal with the ethical parameters of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, but may I start by addressing myself to the problem of human rights, which has occurred on a number of occasions, and this might give some indication of the ethical approach of the Government to this difficult question.
The views of our critics are strongly held and sincerely felt, and we respect them. We also have to accept that the sale of defence equipment is an emotive subject. It brings in all kinds of contentious moral and philosophical views. In particular, defence sales to countries where there are gross abuses of human rights inevitably raise controversy, and the Government recognise this. But the situation varies from country to country, and we believe that it is unrealistic and impractical to try to adopt a simple single rule of thumb by which we can measure the extent of these abuses which should, or should not, influence the sale of defence equipment.
Governments not only in this country but elsewhere are bound to take a more pragmatic view. This is not to say that in this country and in this Government we do not take full account of the character of the regime concerned in arms sales and its record on human rights and the use to which equipment is likely to be put. I am saying that human rights are a factor which is constantly in our minds in the consideration given to individual sales proposals and in the decisions which are reached upon them by Ministers. It would be too much to expect that noble Lords would accept that the Government always get the right answers, but I should like to assure noble Lords that human

809
rights are invariably taken into account and are given their full weight. Of course any United Nations' embargo is fully respected.
This gives me an opportunity to deal with some of the specific questions I was asked on 10th March in this House. Perhaps I can do a brief tour d'horizon of some of the countries concerned. First, Uganda. Once the nature of the Amin régime emerged, the current contracts for the delivery of armoured vehicles were cancelled and no further export licences for military equipment were granted. Secondly, the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is not here. British-made equipment may well have found its way into the PLO hands—perhaps they have a recognition of the superior quality of British-made equipment. But the sale of equipment by the Government to the PLO has not been, and would not be, considered, much less approved.
Thirdly, there is Ethiopia. Defence equipment has not been supplied to Ethiopia in the last two years or so and there is no intention that it should be at present. Fourthly, Argentina. The Government's view is that a general embargo on defence sales would not be justified. However, we continue to withhold approval for the supply of equipment which could be used against the civilian population in Argentina. It is in this sense that I referred, during the debate on 10th March, to withholding the supply of arms to those countries which were guilty of torture.
Fifthly, Iran. Here I am in a slight difficulty because the situation may have changed even since I got myself briefed for this debate. However, no arms or defence equipment have been sent from this country to Iran since the hostages were seized in November of last year. You have to remember that in taking action of this kind you run the risk of losing your credibility with the countries with whom you have signed contracts. Britain's reliability in their willingness to perform contracts into which they have entered is an important input into the likely success which you will achieve in arms sales.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom,
810
asked me—and I should love to duck the issue—about the question of the "Kharg". She is indeed completed. It is an embarrassment to us. She has not been delivered to the Iranians, and we sincerely hope that she will not be until the hostages are released—in fact, she certainly will not be. But it is a very difficult situation. A large sum of money is involved. The shipyard concerned stands to lose a lot of money on a day-by-day basis until the ship is delivered; and it is a contract that we are having to dishonour. We are doing our best to avoid this becoming a major disagreement with a country with which we believe ultimately we shall once again want to do business.
Perhaps this is a good moment for me to deal with another question that the noble Lord raised, regarding the frustrated contracts that were entered into with the Shah; and in particular the question of the large number of tanks. As is known, some of those tanks have now been sold to the Jordanians, and we are looking at the possibility of taking some of the improved version, of what used to he known as the Shir II and which is now known as Challenger into the British Army in order to give it the benefit of the Chobham armour with which they are equipped. There is also the Rolls-Royce engine. It is currently the engine for those tanks, and it is intended to be the engine to be used in the next generation of tank to be developed for the British Army. This is a matter which is not easy to accommodate within the defence budget, but we very much hope that we shall be able to do so, and a decision cannot be very long delayed.
Coming back to arms exports to certain countries, I should say that Pakistan has also cropped up. Pakistan now has 80,000 Soviet troops in neighbouring Afghanistan, and we believe that in these circumstances it would be imprudent for us to withhold the sales of appropriate defence equipment, should the Pakistanis look to us for it. Of course there is always the little matter of finance. So far as Indonesia, Singapore and Turkey are concerned, a refusal to sell defence equipment there would be totally at variance with our overall relationship with these friendly countries. Turkey's position as a member of NATO on the exposed flank

811
is an added consideration, but it is no secret, my Lords, that the Turkish economy is in a mess, and the Turks have no money. However, that particular issue is not the one that we are addressing this afternoon.
I hope I have indicated that the Government take a responsible attitude towards defence sales. I merely thought, particularly since the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, had raised the issue, that it was right to emphasise that this Government, and other governments, are bound to take into account a range of factors—political, strategic, security, in the world sense and in the economic sense—when considering our arms control and our international obligations. These also bear on the question of defence sales—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be great disappointment that he has resiled from the categorical statement that he made in the House on 10th March that we would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture? Is he also aware that that statement is readily monitored and policed, whereas the general assurances that he has given, following his predecessors, that we take into consideration human rights factors in the sale of arms, are very difficult to evaluate in particular cases? However, in the case of Argentina, which he was talking about the other day when he said that we would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture, does the fact that we would not sell arms of a particular kind where they could be used against the civilian population show that we recognise the truth of the assertions which have now been made—following many others, such as those by Amnesty International—in the recent report of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which indicated that torture is still prevalent in that country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the question of establishing the existence of torture and the definition of torture is inevitably a very difficult and an emotional one. After all, it is worth reminding the noble Lord that this country has been found guilty of practising torture. I think that we would be rather keen to deny that, but the fact is that we have been accused, and indeed
812
to a limited extent have been found guilty, of so behaving. So I believe that this matter is exceedingly difficult, and I dare say that under some definitions there are practically no countries in the world which do not resort to what some people would regard as torture. I suggest to the noble Lord that this is not a black and white issue. We must do our best to try to use a balanced judgment in a matter of this kind. If what I have just said disappoints the noble Lord, I am sorry, but it represents a statement of the Government's position on certain countries, one of which is Argentina. I should like to add one further point on this. Because we choose to do a trade in arms with a country, it does not necessarily mean that we are placing any kind of seal of political approval upon the complexion of the government in that particular country.
Perhaps slightly late in my speech I may turn to the more positive aspects of defence sales, which in fact have already been covered very well by a number of noble Lords. First, may I say that there is no doubt of the Government's view, with which I wholly go along, that there are substantial benefits for this country associated with defence sales. It is an obvious point that these sales make a contribution to both the economy and employment. Noble Lords have already produced a number of figures, but I think that they bear repeating. Defence sales overseas represent between a quarter and a third of the output of the defence industry of the country and over half the output of the Royal Ordnance factories. As the noble Lords, Lord Newall, and Lord Orr-Ewing, paid, the value of defence sales in 1979–80 was estimated at about £1,100 million, which represents about 2½ per cent. of total United Kingdom exports. It is worth making the point that the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, used have been corrected for the purposes of inflation, and in fact the figure for defence sales has remained remarkably steady, apart from a rise during the two years when we were selling to Persia.
It has also been said that defence sales are estimated to maintain about 70,000 to 80,000 man-years of employment per year directly, with probably as many man-years again indirectly, although that is of course more difficult to estimate—
Lord STONE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to put just one question? Have the countries referred to paid for all these items?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is referring to the countries involved in the defence sales of £1,100 million, or to the other countries that I was talking about. I would hope, and believe, that the general answer to the question is, Yes, but I have no doubt that the countries are not all perfect in this respect—and here I can think of one country in particular. However, generally speaking, the answer is, Yes, and, again generally speaking, fairly specific arrangements are made to ensure that the money is successfully collected. It is true that many of the Iranian contracts were paid for ahead, but perhaps we should not draw too many deductions from why that was done. The fact is that it was done.
We are saying that there are distinct benefits to be derived from defence sales, which we should not lightly cast aside, and they help us to maintain a vital industry for ourselves. I cannot give the figures for which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was asking regarding the effect on the unit costs to us of selling equipment overseas. This is not a very easy equation to work out, as the noble Lord will appreciate. However, I think it beyond question that any sales made overseas are bound to contribute to reducing the initial overhead costs incurred in designing the equipment and in setting up the productive capabilities for making it. Of course, having our own defence industry is an important safeguard for our own security; and, indeed, it is also a very valuable source of technical innovation which it is very doubtful we could achieve in almost any other way. The spin-offs that we get from research done for military purposes are extremely valuable and very considerable, and would probably be unobtainable were it not for having our own defence industry.
My Lords, I have dealt with the question of the contribution which is made by longer production runs, but it is difficult to produce chapter and verse and to give your Lordships an indication of what contribution this makes. There is a slightly less specific but nonetheless valuable benefit in terms of the political and
814
defence relations that we maintain with our friends and allies to whom we sell equipment, and I believe this is possibly an aspect which is of increasing importance as we witness the kind of Soviet aggression which we have seen recently in Afghanistan.
In the past, questions have been raised about the Government's general approach to the disclosure of information on defence sales and the details of individual transactions. This is one of those items which have traditionally not been answered by way of Questions in either House. This is something that was touched upon in the Question period on 10th March, and contrasts were drawn between our practice and that of the Americans. The release of information to Congress is a well-known feature of the American system, and potential customers are of course aware of this. They are prepared to accept the penalties—and they are penalties—which this involves. The fact remains that, as in the civil sector, the sale of defence equipment is a very competitive business, and we are in no doubt that, in general, our customers prefer to maintain the confidentiality of their transactions. There may be a number of reasons. There may be political reasons, there may be national security reasons or there may be commercial reasons which lead them in this direction; and, frequently, this is an attitude which is shared by the supplier of the equipment, as well. We seek to respect the views of both the supplier and the customer in this respect, but if they are prepared to release the information about their transactions, we take the view that that is a matter for them and it is not one in which the Government would wish to intervene. But in fact the Government do release rather more information in connection with defence sales than some people realise. We believe that, taken together, all that is available represents a considerable flow of information on the defence sales issue which enables those who are interested to study it.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the more specific issues about which I was asked. There was the question, which I do not think was asked in a wholly kindly way by my noble friend Lord Newall, about International Military Services, and whether we were about to restructure them. We see undoubted advantages in

815
the commercial approach to defence sales, and the IMS are well placed to bring this to bear. But consideration of policy of this sort involves questions of both commercial and Government accountability, and it takes a little time. As soon as we are able to announce anything on this, Parliament will be informed. Then the noble Lord asked me about delays in export licensing. The Defence Sales Organisation aims to provide general guidance in response to preliminary inquiries within about three weeks, and I really do not think it would be reasonable to expect this period to be shortened. But if my noble friend has examples of longer delays I should be very happy to look into them. The licence applications are a matter for the Department of Trade. We try to establish overall policies, but for reasons I have already explained it is not a very easy matter.
So far as concerns the question of German arms and the use by us of American small arms for our forces in Northern Ireland, these are not the same issue; and there was in fact a third issue of the SAS use of German equipment. I would say as a general point that it ill becomes us to be too narrow in our outlook about our willingness to buy better equipment when it is available abroad. If we are going to claim the right to sell our equipment abroad and expect people to give it a fair assessment, then it is difficult for us to say that we will not buy it if it is not invented here. So far as concerns the question of the manufacture of German-designed equipment in this country, to which the noble Lord has referred, I am bound to tell him that it is news to me but if he would like to give me some more details I should be very happy to look into the matter.
I ought perhaps to deal with the matter of the two-way street. It is true that the ratio between sales by the Americans to us and sales from us to the Americans is still between three and four to one, but one has to bear in mind in judging this that there is an enormous disparity in the industrial base and the purchasing power of the Americans. I do not think we do all that badly, but we are constantly seeking ways to improve this situation. I can assure noble Lords that some of the bargaining is tough and very long-winded, and they should never under-rate the
816
power of the American industrial lobby, which makes it exceedingly difficult. A lot of noble aspirations are mouthed, but it is very difficult to turn these into reality. Noble Lords who have had experience will know very well that there have been many disappointments down this road. There is one other point which my noble friend made. I thought my noble friend Lord Newall was rather over-sweeping in saying that arms buyers do not like negotiating with Governments. In fact, there are certain Governments, notably the Governments of the Middle East, who do not like doing business with anybody other than other Governments. One has to recognise that practice and attitudes in different countries vary to quite a substantial extent.
I turn now to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Bethell. With great respect to him, I do not think it really has a great deal to do with the question of arms sales. I do not think our view has altered, and I was grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peart, on this question. This is essentially a matter for NATO. The countries in NATO are different from the countries in the EEC. It is exceedingly difficult to see how you could relate having an armament industry policy in the EEC, which is one group—and goodness knows they are not noted for their ability to decide about anything—to a coherent policy within NATO—and it has to be said that even that is not too easy. I have said in this House before that the difficulty of collaboration on equipment goes up in geometric proportion to the number of countries engaged. It is very difficult to get collaboration with one other country; it is at least four times as difficult to get collaboration with two other countries, and I have no doubt that it will be 16 times as difficult to get collaboration with three. It is a much tougher proposition than many people would imagine. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that I would view with the gravest of doubts the prospects of getting involved in a major bureaucratic operation involving the EEC in an arms production policy for Europe. That is not to say that we do not recognise the need for standardisation and the many logistical benefits and production benefits that come from it if it can be achieved successfully.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, do we have to say that there is torture in this country in order to point out that there is a great deal of immorality about the sales of arms? I have been troubled about noble Lords saying that we have torture in this country.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I must tell the noble Baroness that I was not saying we had torture in this country. I was saying that other people have said that we have torture in this country; and I was saying that to indicate to her that assertions about the existence of torture are extremely difficult to establish and it depends on who you are listening to. Very few people would agree on exactly what constitutes torture in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, used the expression. That was my point.
The matter of the French. Very difficult. I was grateful for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Carver, nobly standing up, as no doubt he did in his uniformed days, for our services. The French services occasionally feel that they are having to take second place to their industrial lobby. As one who deals with the matter of equipment and who passionately believes in exports as a benefit to this country, I am bound to tell him that there are moments when I wish we had a policy more on the lines of the French policy so far as the relationship between our industry and our services is concerned. But it is not our present policy. Currently we aim to get the best equipment, and what we believe to be the most appropriate equipment, for our own forces and then to try to persuade other people abroad that what we think is good for us ought to be good for them.
I do not know that I should try to sweep up the various comments I have made because I should be in danger of repeating myself. Already I have gone on for too long. We try in all our examination of export issues to give the proper weight to all the issues, including those of human rights to which noble Lords have drawn attention, but at the end of the day—let us say it again—this is a trading nation and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is right that we must go increasingly for the sale of sophisticated equipment because that should be our expertise and this
818
country will not survive unless it maintains it.
5.23 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, with half an hour left of the two and a half hour debate there is a small temptation for me to go on a bit and say all the things I wanted to say and, perhaps, pick up some of the pieces. I can assure noble Lords there is no chance of that happening. I think that the subject of defence sales is undoubtedly a very controversial and emotive one. We have heard some good speeches. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, although, like my noble friend Lord Strathcona, I am rather sad that we have not had a fighting speech from somebody who thinks that the whole thing is totally wrong. Everybody who wanted to speak has had the opportunity. Many points have come out which I hope the Government will study. I am quite sure we have a long way to go before we get the picture right.
I know that the difficult question of human rights which has been mentioned recently by my noble friend Lord Strathcona is a very tricky one; but sometimes I think we ban the sales of arms to the wrong countries. However, I did not go into that in my original speech; neither did I discuss different countries; so, without further ado, I should like to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS
5.25 p.m.
Lord NOEL-BAKER Lord NOEL-BAKER rose to call attention to the speech made in Strasbourg in May 1979 by the late Lord Mountbatten of Burma on the subject of nuclear weapons and their use in which he said of nuclear weapons that "Their existence only adds to our perils"; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to a speech in Strasbourg in May 1979 by the late Lord Mountbatten of Burma. The speech was made to the Scientific Council of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, widely known as SIPRI. It was about the danger of a nuclear war. Some noble Lords knew the late Lord Mountbatten in greater intimacy than I, but I

819
worked with him when he was the last Viceroy and Governor of the Indian Empire and I was almost the last Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Together we prepared the Bill for Indian independence which I passed through the other place. So I had an opportunity given to very few to understand the historic value of his work as Viceroy and the genius and statesmanship which he displayed. I could spend an hour describing the magnificent achievements of his magnificent career. But your Lordships know it all.
I want only to stress this afternoon that by any test he was the greatest authority in the world on every aspect of armaments and war. His speech was a passionate protest against the present preparations to use nuclear arms in war. But it was not only a warning that we could not fight our wars with nuclear weapons; it was a warning that we must not fight our wars at all. His speech was a passionate plea that the arms race must be arrested and reversed and that the world must speedily and drastically disarm. He judged—rightly, as I think—that the present arms race has reached a point of frenzy, with some new and terrible device appearing almost every month: last year, it was the MX, the US mobile missile, and the Soviet SS20; in December, it was NATO's Cruise and Pershing missiles; three weeks ago in our Defence White Paper, it was our return to poison gas and germs and our giving guns to women a long step downwards to the pit.
Seventy years ago I lived through the arms race before the First World War. A great Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Earl Grey of Falloden, made desperate efforts to avert the outbreak of war. When it was over, he wrote his long-considered verdict on its cause: the arms race.
"The moral is obvious",
he said,
"great armaments lead inevitably to war. The nations must disarm or perish".
Today the Governments of the world have seven men under arms for every one that they had in 1913. They are spending 10 times the real resources on armaments that they were spending then. Their weapons are a thousand times as powerful and destructive. Like Earl Grey, Lord
820
Mountbatten judged that the arms race is not a policy that makes sense, increasing military expenditure every year, planning new weapons for the 1990s. It is not a policy, it is a drift to what he called the precipice. Seeking security by expanding arms, with each side saying that it can only negotiate from strength, is to chase a mirage in the desert sand. The arms race is not a policy; it is a drift. It is the paralysis of thought and reason, an acceptance of the unacceptable.
Lord Mountbatten began his speech with the sentence which was the key to everything that he said:
"Do the frightening facts of the arms race show that we are rushing headlong to the precipice, which make any of those responsible for this disastrous course pull themselves together and reach for the brakes?"
He argued in his speech that he had made his views quite plain when he was chairman of the British Chiefs of Staff. And so he had! In March 1961 the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth met in London. There were 13 of them. For three full days and some hours more they discussed disarmament. At the end they unanimously adopted a declaration of which I quote the first two paragraphs:
"(1) The aim must be to achieve total world disarmament subject to effective inspection and control.
(2) In view of the slaughter and destruction experienced in conventional wars and of the difficulty of preventing a conventional war once started from developing into a nuclear war, our aim must be nothing less than the complete abolition of all the means of making war of every kind".
The author of that declaration was Lord Mountbatten and so persuasive was he that it was adopted by the five Prime Ministers from the old Commonwealth—all Conservatives—and by eight Prime Ministers of the new Commonwealth, including Pandit Nehru and also Field Marshal Ayub Khan of Pakistan. Mountbatten held that view on armament.
But some noble Lords may ask: "Was it really Mountbatten's view? After all, he was a military man". Yes, my Lords, it was his view. Some years ago, in an earlier meeting of the Scientific Council of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute I took part with him in a disarmament debate. I made a speech in support of what Lord Selwyn-Lloyd proposed to the United Nations General Assembly in 1959: the reduction

821
of armament to the level at which no Government retained more forces and equipment than it needed to keep internal order, and to make a contribution of manpower to a United Nations peace force. Lord Selwyn-Lloyd defined his purpose in alternative words. Using the language used by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, he said:
"Reduction to the level at which aggressive war becomes impossible because no Government has the armaments to start it".
As we rose from the table at the end of the debate, I said to Lord Mountbatten, who had been sitting next to me, "Dickie, did I say anything you could not take"? He replied with warmth: "My dear boy, I agreed with every word".
Lord Mountbatten began his speech, as I have recounted, by his all-out condemnation of the disastrous course of the arms race which is rushing us headlong to the precipice. He ended it by reflecting on the great advances which science rightly used, could give to all mankind. He said that it is up to the people to make a moral and philosophic choice. It is up to mail to save himself from himself.
I conclude with two reflections on the present arms race. I have a young and lovely friend who has worked in recent times as a district nurse in Fulham. She has found things that have deeply shocked her: a family of six living in a single room; children so hungry that when they go to school they cannot learn their letters and they cannot do their sums; adults so permanently underfed that they are always ill. In the last great war the British people were united and I joined Sir Winston Churchill's coalition on the principle of fair shares for all. But no fair shares in our Welfare State in 1980. There are 800 million people in other countries who now starve. Millions and millions are spent on improving tanks and adding frigates to our fleet—perhaps irrelevant to the nuclear attack which the Government say that they think we must expect.
Secondly, I recall a paradoxical result of the Vietnam war. In that war the lovely forests of Vietnam were destroyed by poison gas and most forest people suffered with the trees. But the tigers flourished. They grew in numbers; they became more daring and aggressive, readier to invade a village and steal a baby from its mother's door. They had
822
learned the lesson of gunfire. When the firing ceased they hurried to the scene of battle and found fresh human corpses and helpless wounded men whom they could eat. There are others beside the tigers who batten on the arms race. They have become more numerous and more powerful, and they are attacking the basic right on which our democracy is built: the right of the citizen to know.
Twelve years ago the BBC made a film called "The War Game", which featured what would happen if an H-bomb fell in Kent. The film was never shown on the television screens by the BBC. Under some kind of pressure, sinister but unexplained, "The War Game" was suppressed. In 1978 a Special Session of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament was held. It was the greatest international conference that ever met. I was there. It had sensational front-page news for every paper in the world, but it went unreported. Under some kind of pressure, unexplained, there was a conspiracy of silence—so much so that most people in this country and in North America do not know today that the Special Session ever met.
In 1979 Lord Mountbatten's speech was by far the most dramatic and the most sensational utterance that was made; but not a single organ of the media reproduced a line, and they have not used it yet. The conspirators, the tigers, thought they had buried it for good and all. But Lord Mountbatten told his friends that he hoped to be remembered by this speech. It was his last gift, his last service to his nation and to the nations of mankind. The speech has been rescued from oblivion: It is becoming known to the nations of the world. In it he said that the peoples must make a moral and a philosophic choice: They must decide what they will do.
The speech is known today in every country. Thanks to Mountbatten, the peoples have begun to learn the frightening facts of the arms race. Thanks to him, they will make the moral choice of which he spoke. Thanks to him, they will decide that science will be used for human welfare and not for war. Thanks to him, we may yet see the magic transformation of our world society of which, for long ages, seers and philosophers have always dreamed. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, for giving us this opportunity of debating the great speech which the late Lord Mountbatten made in May of last year. I feel sure that most of your Lordships, like myself, will undoubtedly agree in principle with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, has said. Unfortunately, the possibility of world disarmament, controlled and monitored, is still far away. The limitation of armaments is nearer and in both directions but particularly in the latter, we should make every effort to make progress, even if we do not think it is likely to come about fairly soon.
In this short intervention, I should like to dwell on one inference only which may be drawn from Lord Mountbatten's speech. Your Lordships may perhaps recall that for at least 10 years I have held and expressed in this House, the view that, whatever the importance of nuclear power may be as a deterrent against the exercise by others of such power, the nuclear weapon itself is not one that could possibly be used with profit by the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance in a first strike in any circumstances whatever. I may be contradicted, but I believe that is the essential message which was conveyed by the late Lord Mountbatten and, if I interpret his words correctly, by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in his excellent piece in The Times last January.
I would go further and say that no such action could be authorised by any Head of Government who was not either crazy or the potential victim of a group of crazy supporters. It follows that the present NATO strategy of "flexible response", which involves the possible employment in Europe by the President of the United States of so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons on a first strike is no longer tenable, in the sense that only if the Soviet Government believe that the President of the United States may go off his head can it be regarded as in any way "credible". Perhaps they will not discount this possibility, but it still strikes me as a rather shaky basis for a long-term policy.
For it must be obvious, now that the Soviet Union has achieved nuclear parity, and in all probability nuclear superiority,
824
that the come-back to such an action would be immediate and devastating and that the resulting nuclear exchange would almost inevitably escalate. Conceivably, such escalation could, owing to the existence of the British and French strategic nuclear forces, be confined to central Europe but it would be rash to depend on this. What would be almost certain is that the two super-powers would see no advantage in bombing each other. Even the theoretical possibility that the Soviet Union could, on a first strike, eliminate all the American land-based ICBMs can probably be dismissed as much too risky. So, though a Soviet offensive might or might not be halted as a result of a nuclear exchange in Europe, the continent would undoubtedly he devastated on both sides of the dividing line, but chiefly on our side, owing to the greater density of population.
When I say "devastated" I mean largely destroyed, for even if the exchange—a neutral word beloved by nuclear strategists—were limited to military objectives, such as ports, airfields, ammunition dumps (and what would happen if they were exploded, more especially if they were nuclear dumps?) marshalling yards, command posts, barracks or communication centres or whatever, the damage done and the number of people killed or injured, however accurate the weapons might be, would be vast on both sides, so much so that it would be difficult in practice to distinguish between limited and all-out nuclear war, which would of course be so horrifying as to beggar all description.
It follows that civil defence against possible nuclear attack is a dangerous delusion: a delusion because even the expenditure, in peacetime, by a Government possessing what would have to be wartime powers for spending many billions of pounds could only notionally save the lives of a few million people, who would nevertheless find life intolerable after the holocaust; dangerous because it would create the impression that our Government could, with advantage to the nation, give the signal or acquiesce in the giving of the signal for a "first strike" of nuclear weapons in the event of general hostilities.
Now, happily, all this does not mean that nuclear war, or even a so-called

825
conventional war, is inevitable. There is no reason to suppose that—Afghanistan or no Afghanistan—the Soviet Government has taken leave of its senses. Nor does it mean that we should go in for unilateral disarmament, which, as I understand it, was rightly condemned both by Lord Mountbatten and by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. What it does mean is, first, that if for any reason there should be an unresolved clash between the super-powers anywhere in the world it could hardly be localised; and, secondly, that the West would perforce have to rely primarily for its defence on conventional weapons. If reason is any guide, first use by the Soviet Union of nuclear weapons should be discarded for pretty obvious reasons on which I need not elaborate. When you come to think of it, even a physical take-over of Western Europe by the Soviet Union in the event of success in a conventional war might present considerable disadvantages. I need not elaborate either on what those might be. They might involve the fall of the Soviet empire.
So, my Lords, within my allotted 10 minutes I approach a conclusion. It is possible, even if unlikely, that the Soviet Union may soon push things to a point at which some confrontation is inevitable. It is even possible that, out of fear or wounded pride, the United States might do the same. In either event, it seems probable that the Russians would embark on an offensive in Europe, relying on the likelihood of the West's not deciding to use nuclear weapons in its own defence. To guard against this possibility, the West must obviously now decide greatly to strengthen its conventional defences, which, if it set its mind to it, it could undoubtedly do over the next few years.
It is consequently on this, always assuming that no real progress is possible in negotiations for the limitation of both nuclear and conventional armaments, that we should now be spending money, rather than on the replacement of our own so-called independent strategic nuclear force which, though it may for the time being have a very limited deterrent effect, can, in practice, never be used independently unless we are prepared to wipe ourselves off the map, or unless we have been wiped off the map already.
826
Besides, if we really are considering spending half a billion a year for 10 years, and probably much more, on this useless project, we must presumably, in our present financial state, substantially cut either the BAOR and the Air Force in Germany, or the Navy, or both—something which would be in the nature of a national disaster. I need hardly add that, when and if it becomes clear that the Russians have little chance of winning a conventional war, the prospects of agreement on arms limitation of all kinds, for which we must all work, would be far better than they are at present.
Unfortunately, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Soviet Union may eventually gain virtual control of the entire world without firing a shot. For unless the West can somehow come to terms with the undeveloped and underdeveloped world—and Iran is very much a case in point—it is more than likely that these countries will turn in desperation to the Soviet Union. If this happens, then the West will experience great difficulties in obtaining the necessary raw materials and a persistence of the slump may well result in the emergence, even in the industrialised West—even here—of Governments only too willing to make some deal with Moscow.
I therefore end by quoting the wise words of Harold Brown, the former United States Secretary of the Air Force, repeated, very rightly, with approval by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in his powerful article,
"We must seek national security through other than strictly military means".
and, indeed, by repeating the noble Lord's own final words; namely,
"defeat is indivisible in a world of nuclear weapons".
5.55 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE of DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not need to remind you that rising to one's feet for the first time in this august Chamber is a daunting experience. I was present one afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, made reference to his experience when making his maiden speech here, and he spoke of the nervous anguish which he experienced at that time. I, for my part, could never hope to approach the splendour of his oratory, when that afternoon

827
he made us relive that terrible day in Hiroshima in August 1945, but I can hope to approach the nervous anguish of which he spoke. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if, like the loyal subjects of Duke Theseus in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
"I shiver and look pale, make periods in the midst of sentences, throttle my practis'd accent and even dumbly break off".
I am no expert in this awesome subject, and my temerity in rising to speak is by virtue of the strength of my feelings, not by virtue of my authority. I think it is true to say that there are two subjects which most of us dare not allow ourselves to dwell on. One is the prospect of nuclear war; the other is the plight of the suffering millions in the Third World. I wonder how often we consider the close connection between these two phenomena of our time. May I quote a few figures to your Lordships to illustrate my point, and may I ask the indulgence of those of you who, by your special interests, know them only too well already. I draw my information from a United Nations report which was published in 1978. I am afraid I have little reason to suppose that the situation will have changed greatly since then.
Half a billion human beings throughout the world are living at starvation level. Millions more are undernourished. Millions of children suffer from diet deficiencies, impeding physical and mental development which is likely to threaten the health of the next generation. Meanwhile, 350 billion dollars a year are diverted to military purposes throughout the world. The World Health Organisation spent 83 million dollars in eradicating smallpox from the world. That amount of money would not be enough to buy a single modern strategic bomber. The world spends daily about 9 million dollars for military purposes, twice the cost of eradicating malaria from the world. I understand that the replacement of Polaris with Trident would cost £5 billion.
The first wave of victims of the nuclear weapons was at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I suggest that the second wave are the hungry millions in the Third World now. If Voltaire had written a satire, in which he described how the resources of the world were being diverted from the mouths of
828
the hungry in order that the well-fed might exterminate themselves, we might think he was over-reaching himself, but I do not believe it is very far from the truth.
May I speak briefly about Lord Mount-batten's statement that the existence of nuclear weapons only adds to our perils. Few people would deny the need for a nation to maintain conventional armed forces adequate for its defence against a potential aggressor. In 1945, this traditional idea of minimum military necessity was convulsed by the advent of nuclear weapons. Quite simply, except on one notorious occasion, they were felt to be too devastating in their effects to be used. Yet powerful nations felt they must be in possession of them in order to threaten each other.
The new situation which grew out of this made some sort of sense until, I think, about the mid-1960s when an approximate nuclear equivalence was achieved between East and West. Then would have been the time to stop. Certain top experts in America then expressed the view that further testing and elaboration of nuclear weapons would produce the paradox of a decline and not an increase in national security. Mr. Robert McNamara was then Secretary for Defence. I should like to quote a few words spoken by him at the University of Chicago last May:
"The concept of security encompasses far more than merely military force, and a society can reach a point at which additional military expenditure no longer provides additional security".
In thinking about what followed, my mind constantly reverts to a picture once drawn by a pupil of mine. It was a large pencil drawing and it depicted a fort or gun emplacement in the middle of a desert. From every aperture of this structure there protruded the barrels of guns—of every size and shape, pointing in every direction—North, East, South, West, and heavenwards. The place was literally bristling with violent weapons, and all around was nothingness, emptiness, reaching to the horizon. I said to the boy, "Where is the enemy? Who is all this directed against?" and his answer was unhesitating: "Oh, there is no enemy; there is nothing. It is entirely imaginary".
I am not suggesting that there is no potential enemy for the West, or the East,

829
alas! What I am suggesting is that the arms race has been fuelled largely by fear, mistrust—almost paranoia, and that exaggerated reports of the strength of the other side have played an insidious part in it. I believe there was an example of this very recently in connection with the protests in East Anglia.
Since the 1960s, the world has gone mad. An arms race has developed to the point at which the powers are in a position to annihilate each other and the whole world many times over. What is the sense of this? How, indeed, can it do anything but add to our perils? Have we ever felt less secure? My own son has said to me, "Me and my pals must do our own thing because we expect to be blown up soon". There is a widespread sense of fatalism in the country—a most disquieting sign. What can we do? I am convinced that the remedy for these ills—the distrust and suspicion and alarmism and fatalism and sense of doom that hangs like an evil cloud over the world—is to work actively for peace in every way in which we, even as individuals, can. One thing—obvious enough—strikes my simple mind quite forcefully. It is this. In the whole of this formidable arms build-up since the last war, all the decisions affecting the lives of millions have necessarily had to be taken by very small numbers of men. This has always been so, of course; but never before, surely, has the fate of so many been vitally affected by so few. Government defence policies have to be shaped by the advice of military strategists, who in turn must listen to the scientists. So the sort of war we might have to face would be one involving the use of weapons, against which we know of no protection, which we do not begin to understand, which have effects we cannot conceive of, causing diseases of which we hardly know the symptoms.
How can we reverse this apparently irreversible process? Let me take a simple, if rather abstracted and generalised view of it. Let us say that we have reached our present plight for two reasons: because we have come to worship science and technology, and because we have relinquished our individual human responsibility to the gods of this new religion. If these propositions were true, what nemesis could one expect but precisely the one that threatens us?
830
Can we not, and must we not, then, reverse the process by reasserting our human responsibility and by demanding that these weapons be destroyed for ever? We are not, God be thanked, living in a State where individual human opinion is gagged and silenced. If enough human beings in the Free World demand strongly enough that there should be a change, surely we can bring about a change throughout the whole world. How else have the great changes of history taken place but ultimately by the will of the great mass of humanity?
I humbly suggest that this can best be done through the World Disarmament Campaign, already under way. The campaigners aim to place a mighty petition before the United Nations Special Session on Disarmanent in 1982, signed by millions. Perhaps then, if not before, each of the nuclear powers would agree to dismantle one weapon in the name of humanity. And perhaps this might begin a reverse process whereby funds will gradually be released to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, house the homeless. And perhaps we of the northern hemisphere will at last be able to enjoy true peace and security.
6.7 p.m.
Lord ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, I think we are all immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, for having initiated this debate and for having done so in so eloquent and moving a way. The matters to which he has directed our attention grow more and more critical as every month passes—perhaps, in the light of current events, as every week passes. Of one thing I am certain: Lord Mountbatten himself would have been very pleased had he lived to see his Strasbourg speech sparking off this debate.
Here may I turn to the brilliant and moving maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. He has left us with some very big questions. Whether or not—as I have been following both armament and disarmament for very many years—it is going to be possible to dismantle armouries in the way suggested is, I fear, debatable.
Lord Mountbatten wrote to me immediately after he delivered his Strasbourg speech—I have his letter here—to say that he was greatly upset by the fact that no

831
interest had been shown at the time. And by "at the time" he meant at the meeting—and not only at the meeting but at the Press conference which he held afterwards. He described the Press conference. It was pathetic. Yet look at the interest which has now been manifested in the matters which he raised.
Lord Mountbatten wanted to send his speech to the newspapers. It was on my advice that he refrained from doing so. In the letter in which he expressed his regret about the immediate response to his speech he said that I had been wise to prevent him from what he called "stirring up trouble personally"; it was the responsibility of SIPRI, a governmental body with an international advisory board, to go on publicising an issue whose immediate significance to the whole future of humanity transcends almost all others. I, certainly—and he, too—had clearly overestimated the impact which SIPRI would have on the world Press. In this letter he said:
"It simply was a damp squib and doesn't appear to have been referred to anywhere".
Well, as this debate shows and as matters have turned out, his speech has proved anything but a damp squib.
Lest it be supposed that this was the first time Lord Mountbatten had spoken out in the terms of his Strasbourg speech, may I remind your Lordships that in 1970, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg (who was in your Lordships' Chamber until recently) published an article in The Times of London criticising the then apparently new policy of NATO of so-called flexible response. Lord Mountbatten happened to be in Paris at the time, but he immediately arranged by telephone to have published a short letter in The Times, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to read it now:
"Lord Wigg's article in The Times on February 19, The Perils of Defence on the Cheap, exposes the fallacy of relying on tactical nuclear weapons. During my six years on the NATO Military Committee I never missed an opportunity of saying loud and clear that the actual use of tactical nuclear weapons could only end in escalation to total global nuclear destruction and for that reason no one in their senses would contemplate their use".
That is roughly what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said in the course of his speech today. I am referring to this letter because one or two letters which have appeared in the Press have rather
832
implied that Lord Mountbatten's Strasbourg address was an aberration, the meandering of a man in his 80th year. I worked with him closely over many years and I can assure your Lordships that these were views which he not only expressed loudly in military circles but which he encouraged.
I certainly shared the views which he expressed at Strasbourg. It was in February 1962 that Foreign Affairs carried an article of mine called Judgment and Control in Modern Warfare. It was based on a speech which I delivered at the annual meeting of the NATO commanders in the summer of the preceding year and, encouraged by Lord Mountbatten, it was published by permission of my friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, (who was then the Minister for whom I was working), and General Norstadt, then the Allied Supreme Commander. In it I expressed grave doubts about the place of so-called tactical nuclear weapons in any armoury if they were to be considered as real weapons which could be used in field warfare.
I have elaborated this issue in many places since, and I am referring to the matter now because the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan was questioned in another place as to the relationship of the views which I was expressing (being an official) to Government policy. Among others, he was pressed by Mr. Hugh Gaitskell and by the then Mr. George Brown, now in your Lordships' House; he was pressed as to whether the Government of the day had approved or disapproved of the conclusions in my article. Mr. Macmillan's answer was that my article was a contribution to the consideration of a very difficult subject and he thought it was of value that it had appeared. I looked up the exchanges the other day and was much amused to see that it was a contribution to a discussion such as we are having today.
Recently I had a letter, after the appearance of the article of mine in The Times, to which reference has been made, from a friend who was General Montgomery's G3. When he left the Army I think he was still the youngest major general, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carver, knows whom I am talking about. He played out one of the NATO war games in which I partici-

833
pated, in which the Russians had intruded into NATO territory. When the Russians play war games we intrude into their territory. In this particular instance he assumed that the Russians had come in and had made some considerable advance without the use of any nuclear weapons. They then dropped an armoured brigade into East Anglia. He chose East Anglia because it happens to be where I live, and he ended his letter: "How do we get them out?". I myself do not know, but I am sure that we shall not get them out with nuclear weapons.
It is absolutely important that this whole subject should be discussed properly. There cannot be a sensible discussion on these nuclear matters without more facts being more widely available than they are now. I have looked at this excellent production the Government's White Paper on Defence. Let me assure your Lordships that it is better than any of those in the production of which I played a part. It is much more colourful, and so on, but it provides very little information. I have looked through the section on theatre nuclear forces, and almost any American magazine carries better information on this subject than this document does. I cannot imagine there could be a useful discussion unless we have some better information available to us than it contains.
I think it was in 1968 that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, then U-Thant, convened a working party of which I was the United Kingdom member, to write a book for the United Nations on the effects of the possible use of nuclear weapons. There is no policy statement in this document; it is merely a statement of fact as seen by people who knew the facts. This report is now being updated by a different group which the present Secretary-General has convened. I have been fortunate enough to be shown some chapters in draft. It goes into much more detail than the earlier book to which I contributed, but it contains any amount of information which we treat as being top secret here. I do not know how this can be altered because when one wants to bring some fresh air into the discussion the only way one can do it without in any way contravening the Official Secrets Act is by talking to one's friends in the United States. I also have in my hand the December issue of Harpers magazine. If anybody wishes to see exactly where the
834
strategic arms race has got to they should read it. The facts in it are reliable.
What I should now make absolutely plain, because there has been some misunderstanding about this, is what Lord Mountbatten did not say. Lord Mountbatten was not pleading for unilateral disarmament. He was no more a starry-eyed unilateral disarmer than I am. I have never heard the proposition of unilateral disarmament coming from any quarter of the Soviet bloc. In his letter to me, Lord Mountbatten told how he had to reply to one of the questions put to him on this subject. It was not the reply of a unilateral disarmer and I want that to be absolutely plain. What we want is mutual disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, but we want it on a planned basis.
The tripwires of war are being spread everywhere at the moment. However much we seem to be able to tolerate the non-nuclear conflicts now taking place, the survivors of a nuclear war would never be able to comprehend the full horror or the reality of what had happened. Yet we cannot push the nuclear genie back into the bottle. What we must do is learn, and learn quickly, that the only value of nuclear weaponry is that of deterrence. We should continually remind ourselves that there are no political prizes, no benefits to be gained in the name of freedom, no enhancement of national dignity, no national face-saving that would be worth the price of the actual use of nuclear weapons. We all realise that nuclear proliferation is dangerous; we are party to the non-proliferation treaty. The nuclear arms race which now goes on between the two super powers is no less so. My Lords, once the threshold of mutual nuclear deterrence has been crossed there is absolutely no point in the continuation of a nuclear arms race.
6.21 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker for this opportunity of debating this extremely important question. Before I make a number of remarks about his speech, may I pay my respects, with the rest of the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for a most impressive maiden speech, and following, as I do, my noble

835
friend Lord Zuckerman, say once more how moved and impressed I always am to hear him speak on these immense matters with such authority and clarity.
My noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, with his accustomed eloquence and sincerity, once more voiced the mounting horror and alarm which all rational people feel when they observe the acceleration of the arms race, especially in nuclear weapons. This is a feeling that cuts across all parties and I believe national boundaries. He quoted a remarkable speech by the late Lord Mountbatten, remarkable for its content and also for its origin. Here was a former Commander-in-Chief of our Forces on land and at sea speaking about the dangers of nuclear weapons, and denouncing in the strongest terms the catastrophic folly of depending on the increasing arms race in nuclear arms for peace and security. He did not, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, reminded us, go on to a plea for unilateral disarmament in this department or any other department. What he said was that clearly we must come to an agreement to arrest the nuclear arms race and progessively to lower the level of armaments on a consistent basis of mutual equivalence. Indeed, there can hardly be any alternative to this policy if the world is to avoid the ultimate catastrophe.
The search for peace and security by the competitive escalation of arms, especially nuclear arms, must end in disaster. As more and more resources in manpower, money and machines are devoted to an upward spiralling of the arms race, there must come a point when one side or the other finds it impossible to continue without destroying its own economy and its own society. At that point there will be a temptation to supplement the arms race which they are losing by recourse to other, perhaps even more dreadful weapons.
The ban on biological weapons achieved since 1972, the partial ban on environmental warfare will go for naught, and the draft proposals for a ban on chemical warfare, which owe so much to the British initiative, will be aborted. As one side or the other finds that it cannot keep up with, let alone overtake, its rivals, it may well look around for other additional means of competing. But even before that point is reached, the very escalation and
836
proliferation in the nuclear arms race will in themselves multiply the possibility of accident. The next, the third and final world war, may well arise not from Sarajevo or Danzig but from something like Harrisburg. In a world heaving and seething with thermo-nuclear devices and material, human fallibility may let loose catastrophe which human purpose never intended. It may not be necessary to have a war to destroy the world; it may destroy itself through the actuarial incidence of human accident in handling these things.
The world is already spending the staggering sum of £200,000 million a year on arms, the greater part of it on nuclear arms, because they are more expensive, with all that means: the temptation to use, at the point when the choice is either pre-emptive strike or surrender, the possibility of accident, and the reduction of resources for social progress, especially in the underdeveloped world. But not only there. At hazard from the increasing diversion of resources to the nuclear arms race is not only the improvement of the conditions of the people in the underdeveloped world, but the survival, let alone the standards, of the populations of the developed world. This is something which is eating up the essence of production, and increasingly so, and threatening our survival in every part of the world, not only through the classic possibility of war as we have always defined it, but in itself because of its nature; because of the demands it makes on human effort and human wealth and the possibility that human skill may not always be able to control it.
So the alternative is not achieving a balance of power, a deterrence based on a balance of power, on an escalation—that way sooner rather than later disaster lies—but, as Lord Mountbatten explained, through a descending process of expenditure on arms, especially nuclear arms, so that we achieve an equivalence of power and therefore a deterrence, on a progressively lower expenditure of money and other resources on nuclear arms.
The speech that we are discussing and to which our attention has been especially drawn by my noble friend, puts this very clearly indeed. As my noble friend Lord Zuckerman reminded us, the solution is not unilateralism, but multilateral progressive disarmament, at each stage being

837
verified, and achieving at each stage a clear equivalence of power thus fortifying the feeling of security and confidence on both sides. That was put forward by my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Shore in another place when he spoke last January, I believe, of the process of not achieving equivalence upwards, but of achieving it downwards. I think that the Opposition has thoroughly grasped the point. I wonder whether the Government are as sensitive to the truth of this as one would wish them to be?
It does not lie in the mouth of anybody speaking in a debate of this type to accuse anyone of being inadequately sensitive to the threats that surround us in this department. One understands the sincerity of those who regard deterrence as being a kind of auction whereby you match the other fellow on an upward basis—an open-ended kind of Dutch auction. There is no future in that. Sooner or later one side or the other will not be able to keep up and will have recourse to action of the kind that I have tried to describe. One would like to have an assurance from the Government that they really do take this view and that they will apply themselves with vigour to the policy of seeking broad equivalence of power at decreasing levels between East and West. That—if there is a recipe for deterrence followed by disarmament—is the only recipe. The other, the spiralling theory of equivalence, may succeed for a time and it may have succeeded for the past 20 or perhaps 35 years. But, as we were reminded, with every week and month producing new horrors and new possibilities of horrific destruction, the time that we have ahead of us is very short indeed.
I would also welcome an assurance from the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government, despite the negative attitude so far of the Soviet Government to the December 1979 proposals of the North Atlantic Council, despite the Russian coolness on this matter, will persevere with our friends and allies in NATO with those proposals. Not every one of the proposals is above criticism, but the package contains some very useful, very hopeful and very constructive suggestions. For example, there is the offer to negotiate substantial reductions in the level of long-range theatre nuclear forces and that is all the more necessary, I suggest, in
838
view of the decision taken at the same meeting to modernise NATO's long-range TNFs by the deployment in Europe of United States' ground-launched systems. The "intention to modernise", as it is called, must be "counterparted" by the strong reinforcement of the proposal to reduce, otherwise our own posture will prove to be, and will be regarded as being, as negative as that of the Soviet Union has been so far. The other proposal was for an interim Phase 1 agreement in the MBFR negotiations with the aim of establishing a common ceiling in land force manpower for both sides of about 700,000 in Europe, or a combined air and ground force ceiling of about 900,000.
These measures, like those applied to the tactical nuclear weapons, would of course include effective monitoring provisions. The Vienna proposals, as I call them, the more conventional proposals, do have a relevance to our debate this afternoon because the present Soviet and Eastern European advantage of some 150,000 ground, conventional personnel in Europe, has obliged the West necessarily to fill the gap with a strategy of flexible nuclear response. The attainment of a common ceiling might remove the need for the West to insist upon a flexible nuclear response which in any case, as we have heard this afternoon, comes occasionally under very heavy criticism.
The third point that I should like to put to the Minister is that we welcome the Government's support for President Carter's clear statement that he looks to trying to get the ratification of SALT II as soon as possible despite the difficulties which recent events in Afghanistan have placed in his way. This is essential, because if we get SALT II ratified, then SALT III—which is even more important—lies ahead of us and can only be achieved if, in fact, SALT II has been ratified. Nevertheless, the negotiations about SALT III, can proceed now.
I should also like to ask what progress is being made on a comprehensive test ban and on the air control in space negotiations. Both of those show signs of being negotiable and of becoming facts of international acceptance. It is the possibility of agreement on extremely important matters like this which encourages noble Lords and others who work in the disarmament field to press for the

839
kind of policy that we have heard described this afternoon.
It is not impossible to get both sides to see the point of deterrence through equivalence by stages, because in a number of areas this has been done already. I refer to the biological warfare ban—that has been a fact for some years. It may be in peril now, but it was achieved. The chemical warfare ban, largely a British initiative, may well be achieved because the Russians and the Americans have taken the draft with them so that the "supers" can agree and then hand it back to the Geneva Disarmament Committee. The kind of apprehension that was voiced this afternoon about the possibility of Russian use of chemical weapons might thereby be allayed. There are other fields in which disarmament has proved to be at least partially possible. So there is no need to throw up our hands in horror and say, "It can never be done; all we can do is arm to the teeth until the time when even that is no good and catastrophe takes over". There is every reason to be hopeful and every necessity to be active, with all the skill and will that we can command, in negotiating with other countries deterrence on a basis of equivalence, proceeding downward instead of upward.
Once the momentum is achieved—however slow—and all the parties feel that the momentum is proceeding on a basis of assurance and there is a feeling of security, backed by proper verification, then the full objective will be in sight. The other kind of momentum is with us now. We are all hurtling together in competitive madness, trying to deter by mounting horror, and insufficiently aware that that cannot go on for ever, and that its only end will be mutual extinction.
6.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of TRURO: My Lords, I must confess that it was with some trepidation that I put my name down to speak today in this debate. I am not an expert in the technicalities of nuclear weapons, and over the years the more I have sought to inform myself, the more complex I have found them to be. But I believe that I should not have had such trepidations because the issues before your Lordships are not simply those of tech-
840
nology, military strategy or the relative merits of nuclear weapons. I believe that we must resist the temptation to be paralysed by suggestions that they are, and by other attempts which are made—I do not say consciously—to lull us by using neutral words to describe the horrors of nuclear warfare.
The issues are fundamentally ethical, and it is for that reason that I believe that a voice should be heard from these Benches today. It is about the significance of nuclear weapons for the ethics of defence that I wish to speak. I use that phrase deliberately, for although I believe that it is possible to speak in ethical terms about the existence of nuclear weapons for deterrence and what it is right for us to do in the situation in which we find ourselves, it is impossible to give any ethical justification whatever for their first use. I, too, welcome the opportunity given to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, for this debate and for enabling your Lordships to draw attention to the speech of the late Lord Mountbatten; not least because, particularly in his concluding sentences, he referred to the moral choice in which we are all involved.
It is not merely a question of abstract moral reasoning. As President Sadat has reminded us in the context of the Middle East, it is the will of the people for peace which matters; and it is to the desperately urgent need for us to encourage a responsible determination that a way should be found to achieve disarmament and peace that I wish to draw your Lordships' attention.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, to whose speech I should also wish to pay tribute, as I talk to ordinary people I detect on the one hand the growth of a disturbing apathy with a fatalistic acceptance of the inevitability of nuclear war—an apathy which can only serve to increase the likelihood of it occurring—and, on the other hand, a blindly optimistic hope that somehow, perhaps with the aid of technology, such a disaster will be averted in spite of the attitudes of men and women.
I believe that all who have the welfare of mankind at heart must strain every nerve to alert people to the appalling horrors of nuclear war, but do so in such a way as to evoke a sense of responsibility,

841
a will for the solutions of conflict by peaceful means, and a determination that a nuclear holocaust should not occur. As has already been mentioned in this debate, this will involve—particularly in this country—breaking the conspiracy of silence about the nature of such a war and its effects.
But how is this to be achieved? Here I must confess that Christians and others who believe that a new ethical dimension has been introduced because of the nature of nuclear weapons, are not altogether of one mind. Some are pacifist in the strict sense and in principle. Others maintain that nuclear war is so evil that it must be avoided at any cost, even to the extent of acquiescing in action which may well result in a situation in which freedom as we know it is not to be found and in which rights essential to human worth and dignity are denied. Others, accepting that nuclear weapons exist and while recognising the horrors of nuclear war, believe that the right course is, in the words of the late Lord Mountbatten:
"… to press for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and evermore costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint".
This will not happen unless there is a will and a determination that it shall happen.
The position of those who are pacifist in principle is one that I respect. Its single-mindedness and its insistence on one absolute principle has its appeal. But while some are called to adopt that position—to witness to us all, by their total commitment to non-violence, to the fact that we are all called to be makers of peace—it is the way of redemption by suffering, and I do not believe that morally a Government can call upon all to share that way. With regard to the second position I mentioned, I have two difficulties—one of principle and one pragmatic. I believe that a concern for quality of life—not just life—requires us to look for a middle ground between the gospel of non-violence and mutually assured destruction. Secondly, the adoption of the second view, with its minimising of the claims of truth and freedom, can have a very enervating effect upon our desire to achieve peace. A mere concern for survival without a concern for quality of life can, in fact, undermine our concern to preserve peace. After all, peace is not
842
an end in itself; it is to enable men and women to live fully.
I have sufficient faith in human beings—even though, as noble Lords will realise, I believe that we all need redemption—to believe that there is a middle ground in the choice before us, and that what matters is our will to achieve it. We must begin—and I apologise if at this point I appear to preach to your Lordships—by recognising the evil of aggression and the evil of the fear which springs from the threat of aggression at any level in human life. We must begin by a determination to resolve any disputes by fearless negotiation as rational beings, and neither by appeasement nor by confrontation. We cannot expect to have peace at the international level if we are not working for it at the national and local level, and at the personal level.
Secondly, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has destroyed any argument, if ever there were any, to prevent us from supporting all efforts which are made for progressive multilateral disarmament, and I believe it is our duty to support them in every way we possibly can. Thirdly, I would wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, that we must maintain an adequate level of conventional weapons; ideally, of course, under international control. I say maintain that level somewhat reluctantly, but we must be realistic. There probably will be disputes which negotiations fail to solve, and there must not be a vacuum which will then be filled by nuclear weapons. However, the most important point, yet the least spectacular, must be the constant encouragement of people in the world to take heed of Lord Mountbatten's words, to make the moral and philosophical choice for peace, not war.
6.51 p.m.
Lord CARVER: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, for initiating this debate on what we must all realise is an extremely important subject. I should also like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, on an extremely eloquent and moving maiden speech. I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what Lord Mountbatten said in his

843
speech, and I should like to draw attention to some parts of it.
First, he said:
"To begin with"—
that is, to begin with in achieving practical measures of nuclear arms control and disarmament—
"we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West".
I would note that he did not say "a military balance of weakness", but "a military balance of strength". I would also agree with him that any nuclear war, whatever you call the weapons used, leads to almost total devastation. Although it is a slight exaggeration to have said,
"In the event of a nuclear war there will he no survivors. All will be obliterated",
I think that is not much of an exaggeration. There will be some survivors, not everything will be obliterated, but it might be more humane if there were none.
Finally, I agree with him in his comment:
"I cannot imagine a situation in which nuclear weapons would be used as battlefield weapons without the conflagration spreading".
Where I find myself in disagreement with him is in his condemnation that it is in the existence of tactical nuclear weapons—or, as they are sometimes called these days, theatre nuclear weapons—that the main danger lies, and therefore the inference that if they were done away with we should be a great deal safer. Indeed, I feel exactly the opposite. It is not a concept which any sensible, responsible, military person now holds that you would fight a war in Europe with tactical or theatre nuclear weapons and thus avoid a strategic nuclear exchange.
That is one of the dangers in the concept which appears to be arising that there must be some sort of balance in theatre nuclear weapons. It was Helmut Schmidt's reaction to the results of a theoretical exercise of this nature when he was German Minister of Defence which led to a great deal of discussion in the nuclear planning group, and indeed to the initiation of the neutron bomb, the idea being that it would kill the enemy tank crews but not make so much damage to the countryside. Of course, the fallacy there is that you have to be certain that the other side will use it too. No, the
844
aim of the tactical nuclear weapon is to make the nuclear deterrence to war more credible. It had ceased to be credible in many ways because nobody could believe that if purely conventional forces invaded Western Europe there would be an automatic, immediate recourse to an intercontinental strategic exchange between America and Russia. What there would in fact have been is what the Germans fear most—what is called in NATO circles, a "decoupling" of the nuclear deterrent to war from that of a Russian invasion of Western Europe.
What the existence of the tactical nuclear weapon which is designed fundamentally to attack the enemy's military forces does is to maintain the nuclear deterrent to war of any kind in Europe. It makes it almost incredible that any sensible nation would indulge in it. It maintains the risk of any war in Europe turning into the holocaust and so it keeps high the risk of going to war at all. Therefore, it contributes powerfully to preventing the war taking place at all. It ensures that there is no doubt that the risks of war would be unacceptable to those who engaged in it.
If you abolish the tactical nuclear weapon, you return, as I see it, to a position in which the nuclear deterrent to war is not credible. If you abolish nuclear weapons altogether, you abolish a nuclear deterrent to war, and you have no other deterrent to war other than the sort of deterrent to war that has not worked previously, of the damage, the horrors of a conventional war. I certainly do not doubt—would your Lordships doubt?—that if there were not nuclear weapons in the possession of the United States and Russia today we should in fact be facing a war situation as a result of events in the Middle East, which at the moment, although it may yet be so, we are not.
Having said that, I strongly agree with Lord Mountbatten and with what my noble friend Lord Zuckerman, and the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said about the need. I quote Lord Mountbatten again:
"The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and ever more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint. Better still, by a reduction of nuclear armaments I believe it should be possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation".

845
I support most wholeheartedly every word of that. But if you were to abolish nuclear weapons I believe that you would have brought back a situation from which we certainly suffered in my youth, in which the risks of going to war appeared acceptable to statesmen and leaders of nations. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, you cannot put the ink back into the bottle. The knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons, the basic physics of it, is now known to every schoolboy. Therefore, if you open up again the risks of going to war you will open up a serious situation in which sooner or later, even if you have theoretically abolished nuclear weapons, they will reappear. I can imagine no international situation more dangerous than one in which you have a large number of nations with a small number of weapons. That would be instability and danger indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, in his maiden speech, asked, have we ever felt less secure? I believe that yes, indeed, we have. I certainly have. I felt less secure in 1939, and on a number of occasions between 1939 and 1945. I believe that at the moment a great many people have confidence that because the risks of war among the major nations are so high, they would step back from the brink, if they ever considered going to war.
So I believe that peace depends on our being prepared to face the possibility of war, but with the knowledge that if it does occur, it must be limited in aim and limited in the methods by which it is conducted, and I am absolutely certain that peace will not come about by unilateral disarmament.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? Am I to understand from his speech that what he is saying is that so long as somebody else has the bomb, we have to have some kind of equivalent deterrent? Is that what the noble Lord has been saying to us this evening?
Lord CARVER: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not got it quite right. I believe it is a good thing that both sides should have it.
7.1 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, for which we are very grateful, and may I say to my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker how much this has contributed to what is the aim and object, certainly, of those of us who are with him in the campaign for world disarmament. I am also very grateful for, and acknowledge my admiration of, the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. At least I have a half namesake. I am very grateful not only for his speech, but for the fact that, in case there should be any confusion, he and I are, I believe, practically speaking the same language. So if he gets my cuttings, he will not have to take libel action.
I believe that this is a great occasion because in a very real sense it provides a landmark by bringing on to the record and into debate in your Lordships' House the quite remarkable speech of Lord Mountbatten. It is also some consolation for those of us who were in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament all those years ago to find that the manifest truths that we were declaring over 20 years ago have now become conventional wisdom, which can be rationally—seriously—debated in your Lordships' House. Lord Mountbatten's speech at Strasbourg was in fact the justification of the main contentions that we were making all those years ago. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, strongly disagrees, as does the noble Lord, Lord Carver, with unilateral disarmament.
I would remind your Lordships that 25 years ago unilateral disarmament in the British sense was a real option; that is, that at that moment if we in Britain had decided not to pursue, or persist with, the nuclear bomb, recognising manifestly what has proved to be true—that we could not afford it, and would in fact become only a surrogate nuclear power—we would, by that demonstration, have profoundly influenced the course of world events. We would then have been in the position of renouncing something. Now it does not matter. If we renounce the nuclear bomb, or even the British component of the NATO forces, all that would happen is that we would be instantly replaced by the Germans, who would be co-opted to

847
fill the vacuum with their nuclear contribution. I am speaking now about the opportunities that were lost. I am not saying that we in CND were wrong, but that the opportunity was lost. We opposed, and we still do—all of us who are involved in these matters; certainly from my point of view—the fallacies of the deterrent. Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Carver, has said, with great authority and with effective argument, there is something which is the deterrent. Anyway, we can say we have not had a nuclear war. But all that can be said is that the deterrent has deterred the deterrent. That is all. It has not prevented the wars over the last 30 years in which over 10 million people have died, since the end of World War II.
The deterrent, which means the threat to use nuclear weapons, has proved of no avail in Indo-China. It has proved of no avail in rescuing the 50 hostages in Iran, nor in preventing a potential confrontation, the invasion of Afghanistan. It will not rescue the Soviet Union from its Vietnam—because it is going to have a Vietnam in Afghanistan. It will not relieve us from the situations which are generating our misery today. It is the elephant and the mouse, and the eagle and the flea, or the dinosaur too massive to manoeuvre, and sinking under the weight of its own armour into the bog of helpless uncertainty.
Conventional power politics, the ploys of diplomacy, have been paralysed by nuclear psychoses, by the apocalyptic absurdity of overkill, by the mad maunderings of first strike, counterstrike, this, that, the next thing, and all the wrap-up words about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro was properly complaining. We have masked the real meaning behind these phrases.
Today one cannot see a better demonstration of the failure of the nuclear deterrent, with all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Carver, than is contained in the situations around us. Short of just deciding to obliterate mankind, there is no way in which there can be a nuclear take-out of any situation. You cannot deliver the hostages—we have failed even by implicit threatening to rescue the hostages—as you will not stop the kind
848
of crisis situations which, as in the case of Saudi Arabia today, can be provoked by a television programme.
There is a reduction of the human capacity to manage a situation. It is a reduction to absurdity. Diplomacy has gone. Politics have gone. We are in a mad world in which we are relying upon things which are not even available for us to handle, except at the moment of complete and utter madness when we decide that we have had enough of it and we are committing suicide. Where is the human capacity to control? Judging from the way we are going, it is certainly not in the people who have been mismanaging, or even, if I may say so, in the military staff or their political masters. It may be—and with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro and the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, I hope it is—that the capacity is still with the people. I think that we can still mobilise the capacity to prevent this craziness. We can get back to Salt III. We can get back to an area of complete disarmament in which we can really conduct ourselves rationally.
It is an appalling thought at this moment that, having gained possession of the secrets of nature and of nuclear energy, having exploded an apocalyptic bomb, having now even got to the stage where we can manipulate the secret of life (through DNA and so on) we are fumbling like dotards. Think of all the wonders and marvels, such as the micro-chip and everything else that we have at our disposal. Yet we have not the ability to run our own affairs. The inventive ingenuity of Man the Maker, Homo faber, has outstripped Thinking Man, Homo sapiens, the moral and political being. Thinking Man has lost the capacity to behave like a thoughtful person. Now we have to come back to the truth that we are living in a nuclear nightmare which is of our own creation.
There is nothing to fear, as Roosevelt said, except fear itself, and it is a fear that we ourselves have deliberately created and from which, at this moment, we cannot see a way to escape. This was the most powerful argument in Lord Mount-batten's speech; and, with all deference to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, there is the new thinking and

849
the new awareness on the part of the younger generation, who are experiencing something of the dilemma of the 1950s. All right—at that time it was not apathy, it was fatalism. There was no future; they had no future. All the meaningfulness had gone from their lives, and that is when they marched. Now we have got to get them, all over the world, to march again.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, it is St. George's Day. We have neglected our patron saint to such an extent that I hardly think he will respond to a call this evening, as he might have done, conceivably, in other circumstances. According to Byzantine iconography, his destruction of the dragon was a posthumous miracle carried out on behalf of a persecuted village. If he were to come back this afternoon in response to our prayers, I am inclined to think that the dragon to which I would invite him to pay his attention, or one of the dragons, would be the dragon which I would describe very nearly, but not quite, as defeatism. Defeatism is not part of our make-up, and it has certainly played no part in this afternoon's debate; but something not unlike it has, I believe. One might describe it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, as a sense of doom which hangs like a cloud over the world. I think I have his words right from that memorable and moving maiden speech which we were privileged to hear him make earlier in this debate.
My Lords, I do not know how it has come about but for the last few months only, I believe, there has been a strange pessimism evinced in printed articles and in speeches in high places, in Parliament and elsewhere, indicating the inevitability of war. We hear references, not to "a" Third World War as a possibility, but to "the" Third World War, as though it were a kind of pseudo-certainty; and with that go references to the nuclear Third World War, or at any rate an implication that this war, when it comes—and it is more or less certain to come—will be a nuclear war.
I do not know what the justification is for either of those points of view, which I do not hold or agree with in any way myself. Of course I know the dangers.
850
Nobody could possibly fail to be aware of the horrors and the perils which have been spelled out this afternoon by one and all, practically, from the noble Lord who initiated this debate onwards. We know these things, but they have not suddenly become more perilous—unless, that is, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is right, as indeed lie may be, in supposing that the sheer numbers of weapons have given rise to the actuarily far greater possibility of accidents. This may or may not be so; I do not know, and, with respect, I am not quite sure that he knows, either, though it seems a reasonable argument, I agree.
But, my Lords, we have not had a war. Certainly, 10 million people have been killed in wars, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has pointed out; but I believe that without nuclear weapons, without nuclear fission, the Third World War (if I can refer to it with the definite article) would have started in 1946. Certainly there have been several other occasions since then, in various parts of the world, when a world war could have been started and when, without the nuclear bomb, I believe, would have been started. But if we did not have it at all we should, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has said, have been at war by this time, and we should have been defeated, if not destroyed, because we cannot fight a successful defensive war on what I prefer not to call conventional grounds.
This is not an argument in favour of nuclear weapons, by any means. This is a horror and a nightmare with which we have to live. Nor is there anything to be said in favour of what is referred to as the nuclear arms race. There is no point whatever in continuing to make more and more bombs, or almost no point, once you have enough to frighten the other side, which is what it is all about—both sides being mutually deterred by fear of what the other side might do. Once you have got to that point, the continued proliferation becomes not only pointless but lunatic, except in one conceivable respect, and that is that the more you have the less likely it is that what you have will be put out of action by one shot from the other side before you are ready.
That is certainly a strategical consideration, but that is not the one on which this so-called race is based. I think it must

851
be conceded and agreed that this is altogether a lunatic situation, and by all means that we can consider should be brought to an end. But it should be brought to an end as part of a general reduction in armaments, and I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, mentioned that earlier speech made by Lord Mountbatten in which he referred to this—a speech to, I think (I am not quite sure; he will correct me if I am wrong), the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—because in the speech which forms the subject of this debate (unless I read him wrongly, though I do not think I do) he refers only to nuclear disarmament. This, I believe, was not his point of view; and, indeed, if he had said it I should have risked the displeasure of Lord Noel-Baker by saying that he was mistaken. But I do not think he said that. One thing he did say, though, which I am emboldened to disagree with slightly, is that the existence of nuclear weapons "only adds to our perils." I do not think it "only adds to our perils." I have probably indicated already that I think they have in fact kept us safe for 30 years, and that their reduction would have greatly increased the dangers to which we were exposed.
Nonetheless, let them be done away with, together with all armaments. But, in the meantime, we have to live with what we have got, to use the phrase, in a slightly different context, of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I think. We must try to live without fear. This is the evil that is placed upon us. Fear itself is an evil, and it is no good for the leaders of the country. The generality of the public may be exposed to fear and cannot escape it, but fear must not be a guide for anybody who has charge of the conduct of affairs. In the words of Emerson, I think:
"Never strike sail to a fear. Come into port greatly, or with God sail the seas".
The point of view which is probably the only constructive one (in the sense of anything likely to hold out a real hope of producing a positive result) that I have heard lately, and that includes this afternoon, comes from an historian. We have heard very little history in the course of this debate, and I cannot imagine any subject which would he more vital for its prosecution. I refer to an article by Professor A. L. Rowse, printed a week ago
852
and published, I think, in the Daily Express, on Wednesday, 16th April. He was speaking about Soviet Russia, and mentioning the majority of peoples in the Soviet Union who are, as he put it, held down, including—and I am now quoting him—
"some 40 million Ukrainians; Kirghese, Kazaks, Turcomans—all those Moslem peoples of their southern borderlands; not to mention Georgians in the South, Finns in the north by the White Sea; and the Baltic peoples of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, who had their national freedom between the two German wars.
"The historian can see a fundamental trend in history which offers the Americans, and the West as a whole, hope.
"It is this: when peoples arrive at a certain degree of maturity"—
and this is in italics—
"they demand to govern themselves".
Here, I think, my Lords, lies a hope on which we must pin some of our faith. It requires patience, it requires endurance. We have got to live with this, and to a certain extent sweat it out while doing what we can to bring about mutual agreement on the reduction of arms. In the meantime, if we withdraw from this position in any way, I hope that we shall not do so from fear itself, because, of all the weaknesses that flesh is heir to, fear is the most dangerous because it is the one, the only one, which neither gods nor men forgive.
7.20 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, on what was one of the best maiden speeches that I have ever heard. We shall all want to hear him again, soon and often. May I first say on the debate something which has been said before and apparently there is still doubt about it. It is that the Campaign for World Disarmament is not for unilateral disarmament. It is squarely based on the decision of the General Assembly. It is for agreed and verifiable disarmament; in other words, it is for détente, SALT II and SALT III, and so forth. No doubt it will be supported by unilateralists (as they are entitled to do) but it is not for unilateral disarmament.
I was somewhat shocked by the fact that the late Lord Mountbatten's speech was, in effect, refused entry to the British Press—in effect, suppressed. I must own to a bias here, for all my life I have been pretty violently in favour of freedom of

853
speech. I was the first chairman for some five years of the organisation which publishes an index on censorship, a record of every country's state of affairs in relation to religious and political opinion and a subscribing member of CAPA, the Campaign Against Psychiatric Abuse, on which I have written to Mr. Brezhnev on this habit of the Soviet Union of thinking that anybody who does not agree with the party must be mental, taken to a psychiatric hospital and forcibly given drugs treatment.
Here, having had the pleasure of knowing Lord Mountbatten, it seemed to me extraordinary that, with one exception, his speech was never reported or referred to in any national newspaper. Does anyone doubt for a moment that if Lord Mountbatten had made a speech saying that we were getting behindhand in relation to the Russians and that we must have more and more nuclear arms, that would not have been published? I said, "with one exception". The Times is the exception because The Times was not being published at the time the speech was made. Therefore, I wrote to Mr. Rees-Mogg and suggested The Times might like to publish the speech. He said it would want some special occasion; and he said he could not. Ultimately, it was published in The Times, but only as a paid advertisement. It seems extra-ordinary that people must pay The Times to put in the speech of a man of this character. I gladly agreed to the campaign to send a copy of his speech to all Members of Parliament with a brief note from me. I have had a good many replies, some rather odd. One was from a noble Duke writing from his ducal castle who said that as soon as he saw the speech, lie thought it a clear sign of senile dementia.
What has disturbed me is the number of letters suggesting that the whole case against nuclear war was very much exaggerated and that only if we had enough civil defence, if only we had enough fallout shelters, we should get through it all right. I think that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, would agree that the whole concept of deterrence from nuclear weapons would itself be reduced if people began to think they could get through a nuclear war all right.
I have taken a little trouble to obtain
854
for this debate the latest thinking in the United States upon this point. It is a report which was made at the request of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and produced by the Office of Technology Assessment. It has been available to Members of Congress only since May and to anyone else only since August. It answers a series of questions of "What would happen if …". What would happen if one large bomb was dropped on Philadelphia; or one large bomb was dropped on Leningrad? What would happen if the Soviet Union attacked all the silos of the United States; or vice versa? What would happen if there was an attack by the Soviet Union on all the oil refineries in the United States; or by the United States on all the oil refineries of the Soviet Union?
The results, of course, are very much the same. They take into account the state of civil defence in both countries and every known factor. In the case of the oil refineries, they found that some 64 per cent. of all the oil refineries of the United States would be destroyed and some 77 per cent. of those of the Soviet Union. Then they take the case of an all-out nuclear attack by one against the other. In dealing with the supposed attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, they first point out that it would be mainly on towns; and they say:
"The majority of urban deaths will be blast induced, e.g., victims of collapsing buildings, flying debris".
I stress that sentence because fall-out shelters are useless if the main damage is to be by blast. Then, under the heading, "The First Few Hours", they say:
"Rescuing and treating the injured will have to be done against near unsurmountable odds. Fire and rescue vehicles and equipment not destroyed will find it impossible to move about in any direction. Fires will be raging, water mains will be flooded, powerlines will be down, bridges will be gone, freeway overpasses will be collapsed, and debris will be everywhere. People will be buried under heavy debris and structures, and without proper equipment for lifting such loads, the injured cannot be reached and will not survive. The fortunate ones that rescuers can reach will then be faced with the unavailability of treatment facilities. Hospitals and clinics in downtown areas would likely have been destroyed along with most of their stocks of medical supplies. Doctors, nurses and technicians needed to man makeshift treatment centres are likely to have been among the casualties".
They sum up the general effect in this one sentence:

855
"The number of deaths and the damage and destruction inflicted on the US society and economy by the sheer magnitude of such an attack would place in question whether the United States would ever recover its position as an organised industrial and powerful country".
This is the danger we face. It does no service to anyone to pretend that there is any defence against a nuclear attack. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, I am persuaded that if we go on with nuclear armament, it is only a question of time, and probably only a very few years, before there is a nuclear war whether by design or by accident. I think it not at all unlikely that it will start by accident. It was President Eisen-hower who made it plain that we are not going to get the Governments of the world to agree lightly unless the people of the world insist on it. That is the object of the campaign.
7.30 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I want first to pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, which, as other noble Lords have said, was a remarkable one. I too hope that the noble Lord will intervene again soon in the debates of your Lordships' House, and do so regularly thereafter.
I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate. The threat of nuclear war and the terrible results which would follow the use of nuclear weapons are the subject of great public concern just now. It is entirely appropriate that the basis of our discussion should be the late Lord Mountbatten's remarkable speech made in Strasbourg less than a year ago. That speech deserves to be read widely and carefully. It is also appropriate that this debate should be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker. His efforts in the cause of disarmament have been widely recognised over very many years.
Lord Mountbatten's speech ranged widely over nuclear security issues. In commenting on his thoughts and on the points which noble Lords have raised, I should like to base my remarks on the twin principles of our nuclear security policy: namely, maintaining effective deterrence on the one hand, and pursuing balanced and verifiable measures of arms control and disarmament on the other.
856
Our starting point must be the recognition that nuclear weapons today form a vital part of the fabric of European security. We have to take account of the fact that the Soviet Union is continuing to devote massive resources to its military forces, including its nuclear forces, far in excess of what is required for any legitimate defensive needs. Moreover, the Soviet Union is a closed society. We cannot judge with any certainty what Soviet intentions may be. We and our allies are therefore obliged to base our defence policy on what we know of their military capability and the use they make of it, rather than on what they say. In recent years Soviet nuclear weapons programmes have been especially fast growing. In the strategic nuclear field they have achieved parity with the United States. In the theatre nuclear field they have recently introduced new and highly sophisticated missiles and nuclear capable aircraft of particular concern.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to equality, will he make it plain what he is talking about? Is he talking about warheads, or what? Is there not a large United States' superiority in the number of warheads—about 50 per cent. more?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I will come to that in more detail later. In the theatre nuclear field they have recently introduced new and highly sophisticated missiles and, as I said, nuclear capable aircraft of particular concern. They are also continuing to modernise their shorter range nuclear weapons.
We are thus faced with an unrelenting nuclear build-up. In these circumstances we believe the best—indeed the only—strategy to preserve peace in Europe is one based on deterrence. We must impress on any adversary that the potential gains of aggression are far outweighed by the potential losses. To do so we must maintain the full range of military forces which will enable us and our allies to meet any aggression at any level with an appropriate response. A potential aggressor must not be allowed any illusions about the nature of the response an attack might provoke or how the conflict might develop thereafter.

857
To this end, for the reasons which were explained in another place on 24th January, the Government have stressed that they intend to maintain the effectiveness of our strategic deterrent. On the same occasion, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced a major improvement programme to the present Polaris force that will ensure that it remains effective into the 1990s. We intend to make certain that our strategic deterrent remains effective for as long as required thereafter. This is not the occasion to go into the options that are being considered. As has been made clear, decisions are likely in the fairly near future.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I briefly intervene? The noble Lord has made a statement of very considerable importance. He will recall that in the debate in another place on 24th January the Government were specifically pressed to make sure that there was full investigation and full debate in the House and in the country on the question of a possible post-Polaris programme before a decision was announced. The noble Lord has just said that a decision is imminent. We would take very grave exception indeed—very serious exception—to a decision which was announced to the country as the decision of the British Government to proceed with a post-Polaris programme without first ensuring what I have described as a full investigation of the need and of the options, and a full debate based on the kind of full information that we heard the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and others, refer to.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that the Government's consideration of this matter will be carried out with the utmost care and depth. I will also undertake that whatever undertakings were given in the other place—and I do not have them in front of me—will of course be honoured and respected. However, I do not think that the noble Lord wants me to go into those details now.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope that I have made the point. It is not that I expect the Government to give adequate consideration to this matter. What I am pressing for—as my right honourable friend did in another place—
858
and what we shall go on pressing for, is full consideration and debate by the people of this country, armed with the necessary information before the Government come forward with a decision.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not going to be pressed to give any more undertakings than were given in the other place on this matter. In the last resort, these decisions must be taken by the Government, and they will be.
Lord Mountbatten commented on tactical or theatre nuclear weapons. He rightly drew attention to the likelihood that the use of these smaller nuclear weapons would lead to nuclear escalation. Many noble Lords have repeated that this evening. Of course any use of nuclear weapons would be horrifying, and could lead to a devastating nuclear exchange. For that reason, it has long been recognised that the use by the Russians of their medium-range missiles could unleash a strategic nuclear war. It is precisely this fear of escalation which Lord Mountbatten identified. It is the prospect of response in kind and of escalation which in our view serves to deter any potential adversary from resorting to aggression in the first place. This is the essence of deterrence and, if it is to be effective, it depends on NATO maintaining its ability to respond at every level.
Lord Mountbatten also recognised the importance of maintaining a military balance between East and West. The alarming increase in Soviet theatre weapon systems has put the previously existing balance seriously at risk. In these circumstances, we have played a full part in the recent Alliance decision on the modernisation of NATO's long range theatre nuclear forces. As part of this decision we have agreed—as has already been announced—to the basing of 160 American ground launched cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, starting in about 1983. We regard this recent NATO decision as a vital step in preserving the full range of deterrent forces at the disposal of the Alliance.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to the possibility of NATO's first use of nuclear weapons. We are fully aware of the supreme importance of ensuring that nuclear weapons never need to be used.

859
But a ban on use is not a practical measure for Western countries in Europe where nuclear weapons form an essential element of security and stability. NATO's strategy of flexible response envisages that NATO would respond to an act of aggression at the most appropriate level. Any undermining of the credibility of this policy by pledges of non-use or no first use would, we think, increase the chances of miscalculation and instability.
This requirement to maintain adequate deterrent forces is only one part of our nuclear security policy. The Government are also committed to pursuing measures of arms control and disarmament. We share Lord Mountbatten's view that it should be possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation. The Government have confirmed their commitment to achieve greater stability through arms control, despite the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In the nuclear field, the Government have supported the SALT process. This represents a major attempt to control the nuclear arms competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. We understand the reasons which have led President Carter to defer the SALT ratification process. But we hope that the SALT II Treaty will be ratified in due course and that in the meantime both sides will continue to abide by its provisions. A world without SALT would not, in our view, be a better place. It would, on the contrary, be more unpredictable and more dangerous.
We have also supported the American offer to negotiate with the Soviet Union on threatre nuclear forces in SALT III. This represents a further serious attempt to expand the scope of SALT to limit medium range systems of both sides. We and our allies have made it clear that we are prepared to modify the Alliance programme to modernise its theatre nuclear forces in the light of results of such negotiations. There are still about three years to run before the first deployments of the American systems in Europe. With political will, this allows time for negotiations. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union has so far rejected the American offer, but it remains open. We hope that in due course the Russians will be prepared to discuss these issues without the
860
unacceptable preconditions which they have so far attached, namely that the Alliance's modernisation programme should be halted while Soviet deployments of new systems would effectively continue in the meantime. I hope that meets one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. I do not want to detain the House but, having been "non-detentive" on the Polaris issue just now, perhaps I might be allowed to express my pleasure at hearing these assurances from the noble Lord. They are of immense importance that, despite Soviet negativity, the motives for which may he various, nevertheless this offer, this package, remains on the table; that NATO, and we with NATO, are determined to press forward with these very constructive proposals.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged. We are also continuing negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive test ban. We want to secure a treaty that will help curb the development of new types of nuclear weapons without adversely affecting security, and assist in strengthening generally the non-proliferation regime. I am sorry to have to say that progress, particularly on verification, has been regrettably slow.
Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to new countries is a basic objective of British nuclear arms control policy. There is no technical solution to proliferation; we must continue to tackle it through political action. The non-proliferation treaty lies at the heart of our efforts to allow peaceful nuclear technology to flourish while preventing nuclear weapons following in its wake. The treaty now has 115 parties and we, as a depositary power, are actively seeking more. We are also deeply involved in preparations for the important Treaty Review Conference in August.
Like Lord Mountbatten, we cannot but be disillusioned by the lack of progress in nuclear arms control and disarmament so far. The horrors of nuclear war are self-evident, and have been described by several noble Lords today. The urgency is daily more apparent. I would only make two comments: one by way of caution and the other of ex-

861
planation. First, in our desire for progress I think we must all try to avoid unrealistic expectations. Nuclear arms control is a matter vital to national security. It is unrealistic, however desirable, to think in terms of quick and sweeping results.
Secondly, we have to consider the realities of the Soviet attitude to which I have already referred. The Russians, as we are today only too well aware, continue to attach the highest importance to their military effort, which permeates every sphere of their activities, whether in terms of their economic priorities, their relationship with the United States or in their influence with the Third World. Hardly surprisingly, in arms control and disarmament matters they frequently appear more interested in rhetoric than in substance, in gestures rather than in real negotiations. This is true whether we look at the nuclear or the conventional field. This latter, although not the subject of this debate, is of particular importance in Europe. Moreover, as I have mentioned, Russia is a closed society. The Soviet Union's refusal to contemplate adequate measures of verification, which must accompany any serious measure of arms control, is all too often the greatest single technical barrier to real progress.
I should now like to deal with one or two of the points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, asked me about the mutual and balanced force reduction talks which are going on in Vienna. These continue despite Afghanistan, and the Western goal remains the agreement of verified common ceilings on both NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. Such an agreement would do much to lessen the risks of nuclear war by removing the important military balance between East and West. However, as in the talks at Geneva, progress is not very fast, I am afraid.
The noble Lord also asked me about the chemical warfare treaty. The United Kingdom, as he knows, is committed to seeking a verifiable ban on the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons. We believe all Governments should support efforts to this end; but the Russians are unwilling to accept the essential measures of verification, and thus I fear we cannot hope for early progress. In the meantime, the
862
Soviet possession of a very substantial chemical capability poses a serious threat to the United Kingdom which we cannot ignore, and it is in this context that the whole subject of chemical warfare is being kept under review. I do not have available the information about the latest developments on that particular front, but perhaps I can look into it further and let the noble Lord know.
The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, in his admirable opening speech, rightly stressed the need for disarmament under effective inspection and control, which has been mentioned several times. He also emphasised the need for complete disarmament. The Government share the view of all other members of the United Nations that general and complete disarmament, under strict and effective control, is the ultimate goal of arms control efforts. But that ultimate aim cannot be achieved quickly, and we think it is more realistic to take a step-by-step approach through specific and verifiable measures of arms control which maintain the balance of security at progressively lower levels of military capability.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, to whose excellent maiden speech I have already referred, and also the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, referred to the World Disarmament Campaign. The Government welcome proposals for arousing public interest in arms control and disarmament, and will continue to play their part in spreading information on this work, for example, through the Arms Control and Disarmament Newsletter. We shall study with great care any proposals put forward by members of the World Disarmament Campaign.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and also the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, referred to the fact that unilateral disarmament cannot be contemplated, and I think I have now said enough to make it clear that I endorse that sentiment.
In conclusion, I think it would be appropriate for me to return to the words of Lord Mountbatten, in answer to the question which he posed himself: how should we set about achieving the practical measures of nuclear arms control and disarmament? He said:
"To begin with, we are most likely to preserve peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West".

863
Those words were quoted, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Carver. Lord Mountbatten went on to say:
"The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever increasing and ever more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint. Better still, by reduction of nuclear armaments, I believe it should be possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation".
This is a view which lies at the heart of the Government's two principles which I have described and which we fully share.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question which arises out of a point that I made—
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that this debate is due to end at five minutes to eight and there is a facility offered in the programme for the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, to withdraw his Motion. Therefore, I do not think it would be for the convenience of the House to have further questions.
7.51 p.m.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a very valuable debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Ritchie for his remarkable and brilliant maiden speech and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner who, with his great authority, has added much, as has my noble friend Lord Ritchie, to the value of tomorrow's Hansard. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who has answered for the Government, for what he has said about the Government's acceptance of general and complete disarmament as the ultimate objective, and for what he said about the World Disarmament Campaign.
I reiterate my profound belief that only the general and complete disarmament of the world to the Selwyn-Lloyd level, and the reallocation of resources to welfare, constitutes a realistic system of national defence. I add that the very purpose of Lord Mountbatten's speech, as of the article in The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, was to show that nuclear weapons are not a real deterrent.
In withdrawing my request for Papers, may I express a desire? Lord Mount-
864
batten's services to the nation were fabulous in every regard. The key lay in his command of his flagship, the destroyer "Kelly", which was sunk off Crete. The noble Lord who will next address your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was sunk with Lord Mountbatten. They swam together for hours in the oil-covered sea before they were picked up. In view of all the services which Lord Mountbatten rendered to Britain, to NATO, to India and to the world, I wish that the Government could agree to print his speech at Strasbourg as a Government paper, and to give it the widest possible circulation by official means. Subject to that desire, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.54 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am glad to note that my name is Ross and not Hutchinson. I am not the next one to speak. But if I may just strike another note, there were many occasions on which I had to pass on the opinions of Lord Mountbatten to the War Cabinet offices, because I was, for quite a time, his special signals officer. I was certainly in full agreement with many of the things that my noble friend said about Lord Mountbatten.
This is a short Bill and it applies only to Scotland. Its purpose is limited, seeking to end an anomaly in the concessionary travel legislation as applicable to Scotland, which has been to the disadvantage of certain handicapped persons North of the Border. The Bill gives to regional authorities and islands authorities in Scotland exactly the same discretionary powers to offer concessionary travel to handicapped persons as are already available in England and Wales. So that we are not seeking to steal a march on England and Wales. What we are doing is, seeking to catch up with England and Wales, and to do justice to a deserving group of people in Scotland. It will, I hope, help to clarify the law of Scotland on this subject,

865
and end this injustice which is affecting the mentally handicapped and certain groups of physically handicapped persons in Scotland.
This anomaly has existed since about 1974—it has developed since that time—and it came to light only just over 18 months ago. Perhaps it will be as well for me to explain how the anomaly arose, the extent of the anomaly and how the Bill seeks to remedy it and, indeed, to ensure that in future Scotland will not be left behind in such desirable welfare provision.
The Travel Concessions Acts of 1955 and 1964, and the Transport Act 1968, had United Kingdom application, applying to Scotland as to England and Wales. They empowered local authorities to offer concessionary fares to the elderly, to blind persons and to those suffering from disability or injury which was seriously impairing their ability to walk. But these schemes did not include the mentally handicapped and certain other groups of handicapped people. So they were without this right to concessionary travel until 11th February 1974, when the Secretary of State for Social Services further empowered local authorities in England and Wales to extend concessionary travel schemes to physically and mentally handicapped persons who were not covered by the existing concessionary travel legislation.
He did so by direction in a circular D/N.120/8 of 11th February 1974, and therein specified the categories to whom it would now apply as well—the blind, the deaf or dumb, other persons substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity and those suffering from mental disorder. He also made it clear that it included "those who are partially sighted" or "who are hard of hearing". That power of direction stemmed from Section 29(1) of the National Insurance Act 1948. That was the revolutionary Act which was a great advance, and which ended the Poor Law and listed the welfare services that were available to those in need, under the National Assistance Board and under the local authorities. I think it was Part III of that Act that listed those matters for the local authorities.
Your Lordships may ask: "It was a United Kingdom Act, so why was this not applied to Scotland?" I stand here
866
draped in sackcloth and ashes. In 1968, Scotland made a tremendous advance—I was reminded of it when the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was speaking last night on a very important amendment—because we instituted the Social Work Act in Scotland, which was much more comprehensive than that which followed later in England. But in doing so we repealed, so far as Scotland was concerned, Section 29(1) and restated the duties of local authorities in much more general words. We did not specify them, as had been done in the 1948 Act. The terms being less specific, there arose doubt as to whether or not concessionary travel would apply in Scotland as it did in England. That has been the cause of the trouble. I do not know whether at that time the Scottish. Office thought that it did.
One must remember that the extension applied to England and Wales from 1974. It was not until 1978 that the question arose in Scotland—I think in Strathclyde where the father of an adult person who suffered from mental illness was refused a travel warrant in respect of his son, so he got on to his Member of Parliament. The question was also raised by, I think, the Lothian regional council who got on to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. They contacted the Scottish Office.
It was appreciated that something needed to be done and the result is this Bill. It was a Private Member's Bill introduced by Mr. Ian Campbell, the Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, on 29th June of last year. There is something to be said for the way in which we in Scotland deal with legislation. Very few Private Members' Bills have come from another place, and they have been sandwiched between the Abortion Bill and the Seat Belts Bill. However, this one Scottish Bill got through because we have a special procedure which is to the advantage of Scotland; in another place there is a special Scottish Committee that can deal with Scottish Bills. So it is the one Private Member's Bill which has survived, and it has all-party support, the support of the Scottish local authorities and the blessing of the Government. I should like to pay my own tribute to the Scottish Office for their help in the drafting of the Bill and in other ways.
I think your Lordships will agree that it is desirable that we should close the

867
gap and make this provision, and I am perfectly sure that I shall have the full support of the House. I had better explain the clauses, for many a time I have complained about people not explaining clauses. It is a short Bill.
Clause 1 enables local authorities to extend the concessionary travel arrangements to those handicapped who are not already covered in respect of their own transport system, if they are a transport authority, in respect of passenger transport executives—there is only one in Scotland, the Greater Glasgow Transport Executive—or in respect of other transport authorities: for instance, the Scottish Bus Group. Clause I also gives the power to co-operate with other authorities and to take over their burdens with regard to the payment of cost.
Clause 2 is important. It is the interpretation clause and it reinterprets the handicapped persons to whom this will apply. They are the handicapped persons who are not covered by previous legislation. Then, just to make sure this time, it more or less takes the specified list from the 1948 Act, as brought up to date by the Mental Health (Scotland) Act of, I think, 1960 and also introduces the assurance which was given by the Minister in his circular reply to the partially sighted and the partially deaf. So we in Scotland now have exactly the same power as exists in England. In addition, we make sure that we shall not be left behind by giving the power to the Secretary of State to prescribe further disabilities, if they come to light in the future, without the need for primary legislation. But any extension in that way has to be done by regulation, and that is subject to the negative procedure in either House.
So far as finance is concerned, the power is discretionary. I have heard it said that the number of people who might be involved might number 8,000, but when one takes into account that not all of them will be able to avail themselves of public transport and, secondly, that there may not be any public transport where they live—which is one of the serious weaknesses of the concessionary travel legislation—your Lordships will appreciate that the cost will not amount to very much. Indeed, it is entirely in the hands of the local authority as to whether or not to apply
868
it. I think that most of them will. But then, they will have to appreciate that they must abide by the cash limits, as laid down, and fix their own priorities in respect of them.
The concessionary travel legislation has been of inestimable value to many people who would otherwise be isolated. Because of the rehousing which now takes place in towns, old people are separated from their grandchildren by miles and miles. Taking into account the state of affairs at the moment and the rise in fares, without these concessionary travel arrangements they will not be able to afford it. It really is an injustice, one which we must put right as soon as possible, that a very deserving group of people should be left out. It has been incidental and it has been accidental, and it may not he a great injustice, but it is an important one which I trust noble Lords will put right by giving a Second Reading to the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ross of Marnock.)
8.7 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure from these Benches to welcome this little but valuable Bill, one which, if I may say so, is compassionate and indeed Christian in its provisions. On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and his honourable friend in another place for having brought forward this Bill since it is indeed very much needed by certain classes of disabled persons in Scotland. It has also been a fine sight to see the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, discarding his sackcloth and shaking the ashes out of his shaggy locks!
In giving this welcome to the Bill, may I please ask the noble Lord one or two questions, and even ask the Government one or two questions. May I also draw your Lordships' attention to one or two points that arise as a result of the Bill. I follow the way in which the categories of disabled persons have been enlarged. To the blind, to those who are impaired in walking and to old-age pensioners, we have added those who are disabled in other ways, including those who are mentally disabled.

869
We have said that any local authority may contribute to any cost incurred by other local authorities, and any local authority may contribute to the costs of this scheme. However, I am still a little puzzled as to how post buses and rural buses are covered by this scheme. I have tried to follow this by means of the references to the Acts mentioned in the Bill, but I have been unable quite to follow the authority which allows post buses and rural buses to use this scheme. I am satisfied that these services are using this scheme for the other categories of disabled persons who already benefit from travel concessions, but I am not quite clear how this Bill ties in with the various Acts mentioned relating to this question.
There is an anomaly which arises from the use of a post bus, because a post bus goes only in one direction. For instance, the post bus which goes to Altnabreck goes from Altnabreck in the morning to Halkirk and Thurso but there is no return until the following morning, so that if you want to get back to Altnabreck you have to go on the train. When one is forced to use a post bus, it seems a pity that there is no way of being able to complete one's journey, to go to where one wants to go, do one's shopping and return.
I have tried to follow something else and found it extremely difficult because, as I followed back into the Transport Act of 1968 and the Travel Concessions Acts of 1955 and 1964, I found that very large chunks of these Acts had in fact been repealed. I did my best to find out where the money was coming from and how this was affected by such things as cuts in local authority expenditure and so forth. I am really asking this from the point of view of clarification, because it seems to me that if we read the Bill as it is written these provisions appear to be cut-proof. Expenses will be allowed to provide money for
"… any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act".
So this particular one seems to me to be cut-proof, but as I am not quite clear how the provision of the finance works I feel that at this stage I have to ask somebody how it does work.
The other point that arises in this connection is that of course all these
870
provisions are discretionary. Local authorities may or may not apply them; they may apply them to a greater or to a lesser extent. In fact, at this moment if you are a disabled person and you happen to live in the Lothians region, you are extremely lucky because within your region you get free transport; but if you happen to live in the Highland regions you are not quite so lucky because you only get half of the cost of the fare.
I think that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is worried about this and would prefer to see a little more uniformity in the way in which these concessions are given as between one region and another. Clearly, it is easier for a region that already owns the buses to give concessions, but I do not think that ought to be the only criterion. If we are trying to do away with the disadvantages which disabled persons suffer from, then we should try to do away with the disadvantages wherever they may hurt the disabled person and, to the same extent, wherever that disabled person may happen to live. Having asked these questions and made that particular point about the anomalies between the different areas, may I say how greatly we welcome this measure and that we consider it to be an advance that has been truly desired and will he greatly appreciated.
8.15 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that at this juncture it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to make the announcement that, by agreement with all the speakers who were going to take part in the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, this will not be proceeded with this evening but on a future occasion.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I should like to ask a question. May I say, as one of the speakers and one who is so docile that I will agree to anything, however absurd it may be, that I think it is monstrous that this very important Question should be treated in this way? I hope there is no sense of complacency about the situation. A number of speakers, highly expert, have been mobilised tonight to speak on this Question and now, by some extraordinary misarrangement of the business, the whole thing is off.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to make it quite clear that this initiative has come from the speakers themselves. It was not the intention of the usual channels to arrange the business in any other way, but those who were intending to participate have now sought to withdraw.
The Earl of LONGFORD: But, my Lords, this is a rather important Question, and I think a lot of people are shocked by the arrangement. They are only thinking of withdrawing because of the failure of the Government managers to give them a possible time to come on. When I last inquired, I was told that the debate would come on at 9.15. That is just an example of a muddle; I cannot put it more plainly than that, but I should not like the Government to think that in some mysterious way this whole initiative arose from the speakers and that they were very happy at the way it had been managed.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think there are many precedents when an Unstarred Question has come on at quite a late hour—sometimes as late as 10 o'clock. This is really a matter for the Procedure Committee and I shall be happy to pass the matter on through the usual channels for them to deal with.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, I should like to make only one very brief point which relates to the manner in which we do our business in this House. I had no intention of taking part in the debate, although I am interested in the subject and might have been interested to hear what was said about it; but I do not really think it is quite good enough for an announcement merely to be made to us that some piece of business will not be proceeded with. I think that when a case of that sort is presented to us an explanation should be given to us at the time when the announcement is made. The explanation should not have to be drawn out of the Minister piecemeal as it is being done tonight.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, think I made it clear that what has taken place is with the consent, agreement and wholehearted support of all the speakers. The business managers in this case are acting on the advice of those who were intending to participate.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, far be it from me ever to defend this Government in anything they ever do, but I must say that this was a very difficult situation. I think that, as the people who were to participate in the debate did not wish to proceed, the Government Whips really had no alternative, and I think we ought to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his courtesy in interrupting the previous debate so that nobody stays unnecessarily.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, as somebody who over the last 20 years has been continually mischievous about Unstarred Questions, I find the passage that we have just heard extremely interesting. I hope that the Procedure Committee will apply their minds to it and to the point that Unstarred Questions are important contributions to the proceedings of the House and they should be watched very carefully.
One great thing about what has happened is that we in this important little debate do not need to feel under pressure to hurry on because we are keeping people waiting. Therefore, it enables me to speak for a little longer than I had intended.
I want to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, on introducing this important little measure and on his robust treatment of the whole thing. I am reminded of an occasion when I was travelling in a ship which sailed from Castlebay at 3.30 in the morning and I joined a party in the saloon at breakfast time at the island of Coll and a fellow passenger said to me, "You are a Conservative, I can see." I said, ".Yes, I am." "Och," she said, "Willie Ross is the man for me". Well, on this occasion, Willie Ross is the man for me and I support this Bill wholeheartedly because indeed I have some experience of the problems of handicapped folk in rural areas in Scotland, and I support any scheme which can be devised to provide concessionary travel for such folk as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has described. It will be interesting to see how the noble Viscount's questions are answered.
It is not my intention to take much of your Lordships' time, but I ask myself, and I ask the Minister, about the paucity, indeed the complete absence, of public transport in many rural areas. In East

873
Lothian there is a scheme of tokens available for old age pensioners, and I think Lord Ross will confirm that that does not extend to handicapped people unless they are old-age pensioners. These tokens, collectable twice a year, are accepted by the buses and the railways in complete settlement of the fares required for the journey to be undertaken, and it is—or was if it is not still operating—a most acceptable concession and to be highly commended. But, my Lords—and this "but" is what I want to draw to your Lordships' attention—sometimes there is no bus service at all or a very infrequent bus service.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, the post bus concession is a very good one, but it only goes one way in the day, and when there is a public bus service it is very often at very awkward hours for old or handicapped people. There is generally a neighbour who has a motorcar and who would help if petrol could be provided. I say it that way because in any case my experience has been that a lot of handicapped and aged people are proud and are unwilling to accept or to seek favours from neighbours, but would not hesitate to do so if they could contribute by providing petrol. Is it possible that a scheme could be evolved which would enable the local authority to issue some sort of voucher convertible into fuel at a petrol station? I cannot think how it could be done. Perhaps someone could work it out.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I do not know if the noble Lord is asking for an answer. I believe that, totally illegally but pragmatically and thriftily, certain people in the north and west of Sutherland used to cash their tokens in with the garage and get petrol in exchange; the garage would then cash the tokens in with the bus company when it filled up the buses. This would be one way in which you could do it. I am sure it is totally illegal. It could only be done in the Highlands.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, that is a most interesting angle and I am looking forward to what the Minister is going to say in reply. I am convinced that if something of this sort were possible it would provide really helpful assistance to the handicapped, in addition to the
874
assistance with public transport fares. I am not suggesting that it should be in substitution, because assistance with public transport fares is of immense use to the handicapped in urban areas. With those remarks, I support Lord Ross's Bill.
8.24 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the Government welcome this Bill, which will give Scottish local authorities the same discretionary powers to offer concessionary travel to handicapped persons as are already available to local authorities in England and Wales. It is clearly appropriate that Scottish local authorities should be in the same position in this matter as the local authorities south of the Border, and the Bill simply seeks to rectify a legislative anomaly which came to light recently, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Despite the need to effect expenditure economies, I believe that Scottish authorities will welcome the availability of powers to take such steps as they see fit, of course within the available resources, to assist the disadvantaged members of the community to whom this Bill especially relates.
My Lords, the Government are very glad that the scope of the Bill as initially introduced in another place was widened in the course of its passage through that place to include not only mentally handicapped persons, on whose behalf concern was originally expressed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested parties, but also to certain other groups of disadvantaged persons, such as the deaf, the dumb and those substantially and permanently handicapped by illness or by injury. This again simply places the Scottish local authorities in a similar position to those in England and Wales. By giving sympathetic consideration to this Bill, your Lordships' House will be able to show that it is concerned about vulnerable members of the community and is willing for Scottish local authorities to have a discretionary power to offer these concessionary travel facilities to a group of people whose needs are clearly greater than those of others among the general public.
We should like to congratulate the honourable Member for Dumbartonshire West in another place for his special efforts in introducing and promoting this

875
legislation. The House will also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for the admirable way in which he has described the purpose and content of this modest and humane Bill. We are also grateful for the support from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and from my noble friend Lord Ferrier. I think I would not wish to add anything to what I have said, apart from pointing out to them that this Bill is simply giving to the local authorities discretionary powers to grant these concessions. It is, as I have said, a simple Bill, but we wholeheartedly commend it to your Lordships.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken and given their support to the Bill. I was touched by the thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, would in any way be inhibited; I have never appreciated that he could be inhibited whether by time or anything else. As far as the paucity of public transport is concerned, all I can do is agree with him. But I cannot see any local authority providing, under any piece of legislation which at present exists, tokens for transport on buses that do not exist. This is the great weakness of his scheme, albeit illegal, and it was a very unwise man who rose in this House to declare the illegality of what was happening—I do not believe it for a minute—in the north of Scotland.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, did raise the question of categories of transport. I can assure him that they are all covered. If he looks closely at Clause I and that subsection which gives them the right to make arrangements in respect of their own transport, it says:
"… and other transport provided by other persons".
That could include any private purveyor and also, of course, the post buses that he mentioned.
So far as money is concerned, it is one of the great tribulations of a Private Members Bill to get any money. It is all right if there is some fund there; then you can get away with it. This Bill could not have proceeded unless the Government had agreed to this particular formula. It is the usual formula; it just means that the money the local authorities get for the general purposes under the rate support
876
grant can be used for this particular purpose. As to whether or not they will use it, I point out that it is not mandatory: it is discretionary and the extent to which they give the concession is entirely up to them.
The noble Viscount touched upon a point which is a sore point with many people. Different kinds or forms of concession are given by the different local authorities in the different regions. I remember that in Ayr, under the old authority, the pensioners—of whom I am one, but I never made any claim—were issued with so many free tickets and, when the free tickets were used up, that was it—it was finished.
Now with the general Strathclyde procedure it is a question of getting one's particular card. It may well be that they are more careful in Strathclyde than in the more northern parts and the tickets are not transferable or cannot be reduced to cash. But it is not true to say that it is only available where local authorities own their own buses. It is much wider than that. My regret, of course, is that in certain parts of the country there are no rural bus services and so many people are denied this extremely useful and very desirable concession. But I think we shall agree that it is right that this should go ahead and I very much appreciate the support that has been given to the Bill in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
  JOINT VENTURE PROJECTS: NEW DELHI DISCUSSIONS
  JOINT VENTURE PROJECTS: NEW DELHI DISCUSSIONS
  PRISON CELL ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENTS
  PRISON CELL ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENTS