Sitting of 12 June 1980

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (CASTLEFIELD) BILL
Lords amendments agreed to.
BANGOR MARKET BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL (By Order)
STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL (By Order)
Read the Third time and passed.
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 17 June.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 18 June at Seven o'clock.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 17 June.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON WEST PIER) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Cross-border Security
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that a satisfactory level of cooperation in cross-border security is being maintained.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I am satisfied that co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and those in the Republic has become more effective during the past year, with significant results. I am determined that the impetus should be maintained.
    Mr. Farr: To what extent is that cooperation being threatened by lack of liaison between the police and Army authorities in Belfast? What new instructions in that regard will be given to the successor of the retiring security coordinator, Sir Maurice Oldfield?
    Mr. Atkins: Co-operation between the RUC and the Army has reached a high level, and I am entirely satisfied with it.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that a further car bomb exploded in Market Hill in the southern part of my constituency only two hours ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that that bomb was probably manufactured in the Irish Republic? Bearing in mind that bomb incident and the major gun battles on the frontiers of South Armagh in the past few weeks, how can the right hon. Gentleman continue mouthing platitudes about increased co-operation?
    Mr. Atkins: I am aware of the car bomb that exploded in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about three-quarters of an hour ago, although I do not have precise details of the damage caused. I was asked whether co-operation between the security forces north and south of the border is at a satisfactory level. I believe that I am right in saying that it is much more effective than it was. It can never be said to be completely effective until the terrorist activities have been suppressed.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that terrorist activities will never be suppressed until we have full co-operation from the Irish Republic? No doubt the Secretary of State is satisfied, in his ivory tower at Hillsborough Castle or Stormont Castle, but will he accept that many ordinary soldiers and policemen are. far from satisfied that the Government are taking appropriate steps to rout out the terrorists operating from the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Atkins: That is not what the security forces tell me. They say that co-operation between the two security forces is at a higher level than they have ever known. They believe, as I believe, that progressively the evil of terrorism will be suppressed.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, although he may be satisfied with bordei security and co-operation with the Irish Republic, the widows of county Fermanagh and the other border counties are not? Would not his time be better employed sealing the border effectively so that the IRA cannot cross at will?
    Mr. Atkins: No, Sir.
    Mr. John: Can the Secretary of State indicate what proportion of recent incidents relate to cross-border activities? Does he agree that, instead of hon. Members indulging in generalised attacks on the Government of the Republic, they should bring forward specific instances of lack of co-operation if that is what they want rectified?
    Mr. Atkins: I agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the earlier part, I cannot give him a figure on the proportion of recent incidents, but there is no doubt that attacks continue to be mounted across the border and I am convinced that it is by the two security forces, North and South, working together that that can best be prevented.

    Irish Republic (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to meet the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has
    776
    any plans to meet the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I have no immedate plans to do so.
    Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State next meets the Foreign Secretary of the Republic, will he discuss with him the land owned by the Gaelic Athletic Association which is being used by the British Forces as a helicopter base at Crossmagien?
    Mr. Atkins: The last time that the Foreign Secretary of the Republic and I met we discussed that matter and I was able to give him a date when the Army will no longer require any of the land owned by the GAA.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State accept that as I have said many times—though the Ulster Unionists seem to laugh at the idea—the solution to the problem of Northern Ireland is not a security solution, important as that is, but a political one? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and I tabled our questions in order to ensure that discussions go on between the relevant parties in Northern Ireland and the Republic? In view of the many attempts that are being made to put forward new policies, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that discussions will continue to find the ultimate political solution which will make the security solutions irrelevant?
    Mr. Atkins: My business is to discuss with the political leaders in the Province ways of making the political advance that both they and the whole House desire. I do not accept that I ought to discuss those matters with Ministers of the Republic, though, as I have said in the House before, because they are such neighbours it is only prudent to keep them informed of what is happening.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: If view of certain remarks of Mr. Lenihan, are toe Government considering with the Government of the Republic the institution of machinery for the British Isles to further co-operation between the two States therein, without prejudice to the sovereignty of either?
    Mr. Atkins: When the Taoiseach met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 May, they agreed that there is a unique relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that they will be seeking ways of giving effect to the uniqueness of that arrangement. My primary concern is to discuss with the political leaders in the Province how we can make political advance in what is a part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Wm. Ross: What business is it of the Government of the Irish Republic where Her Majesty's Forces operate from within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: The question that I was asked concerned the GAA football pitch in Crossmaglen. It is the business of the Government of the Republic and the Ulster branch of the GAA what we do with that land.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What!
    Mr. Atkins: Representations had been made to Ministers in the South who asked me what was happening. I told them what was happening. We are able to return to the GAA in Cross-maglen part of its territory that we have been using in recent months.

    Integration
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will take steps to accelerate the constitutional integration of the Province within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: No, Sir. Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority of the people of Northern Ireland so wish. But the policy of the Government is to transfer powers to locally elected representatives in accordance with the principles set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the "Working Paper for a Conference "—Cmnd. 7763—published last November.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the different constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom gives rise to hope among the IRA and the citizens of the Irish Republic that one day they will be able to detach Northern Ireland from the
    778
    United Kingdom and unite it with the Irish Republic? Does he agree that one way to reduce the turmoil that is currently taking place in the Province would be to put beyond doubt that Northern Ireland is, and will always remain, part of the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend undertake that any proposals that he brings before the House will make Northern Ireland more integrated with the United Kingdom and more like the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than less like it?
    Mr. Atkins: I said in my original answer that Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority of those who live there so wish. I have said that on many occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the House and elsewhere. I hope that it is now established beyond doubt.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we in the Liberal Party support his policy of trying to restore powers to the people of Northern Ireland to look after their own affairs as much as possible and we hope that he will stick to his guns on that issue while he is Secretary of State?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the Government's manifesto commitment to review the government of Scotland, will the Secretary of State accept that there will be deep resentment among Scottish Members if the Government bring forward constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland before making progress on the Scottish question?
    Mr. Atkins: Being responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland is quite enough for me, without getting involved in Scottish questions.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: Is it the Government's policy to integrate the Irish Republic with the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: My understanding is that that is not the wish of the majority of the inhabitants of the Irish Republic.

    Gas Industry
    4. Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his

    779
    estimate of (a) the total cost and (b) the cost to public funds of the discontinuance of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): Total capital costs associated with closure of those undertakings which have decided to cease supply of piped gas are estimated to be of the order of £78 million. The Government are committed to a scheme of assistance towards these costs. The details of the scheme are well advanced and I hope to be able to announce the complete package shortly.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the basis for the original assessment and decision has been transformed by the staggering burden of cost—I think that the figure given by the Minister represents only part of it—and by the discovery of fresh resources?
    Mr. Shaw: I do not consider that what I have announced discounts the original basis on which the decision was made. The estimated cost for the pipeline today is about £120 million, compared with the rundown cost that I have announced. As regards the discovery of alternative resources, there is not an immediate prospect to enable me to justify a review of the decision.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost that he has announced, plus the grant that he would have got from the EEC, would have been enough to establish a link with the national grid? Will he remember that the 50 per cent. grant that has been promised for the change of appliances will go only to those who are not able to change their appliances without the grant, because it is the working-class people of Northern Ireland who use gas for domestic purposes?
    Mr. Shaw: An EEC grant would have been at only about 40 per cent. and that factor was taken into account in arriving at our original decision on the non-viability of the project. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about a possible percentage of compensation, I must remind him that neither I nor the Government have made any official statement on the matter and none will be made until we have completed the current investigation.
    Mr. Fitt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the change from gas to other forms of energy will bring great hardship to poverty-stricken people, particularly in Belfast, but in other areas as well? As the people had no say in the decision to end the gas supply for Northern Ireland, should not the Government bear the full cost of the change to other forms of energy? The people had no say in the decision and, therefore, should not be asked to pay anything.
    Mr. Shaw: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision was an announcement by the Government not to invest in a gas pipeline. The decision to discontinue piped gas supplies has been a matter for the undertakings. With regard to discussions on those who are disadvantaged, I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's strong view that they should be specially considered in any arrangements we make for compensation.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that a detailed study of the Northern Ireland gas industry is about to be published by the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board following a thorough study by consultants of international repute? When it is published, will the Minister study it carefully and allow the House a full debate on the question?
    Mr. Shaw: I am obviously extremely interested in any publication offering new information on this project. No doubt this will be considered carefully by those concerned. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question of a debate is not a matter for me.

    Solid Fuel
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions have taken place between his Department and the National Coal Board regarding the use of solid fuel in the Province.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Following the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 22 November 1979, I met the senior marketing executive of the National Coal Board on 29 January 1980. We had a wide-ranging discussion on the coal situation in Northern Ireland. My officials continue to be in contact with the National Coal Board and the Northern Ireland coal trade and I

    781
    remain satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to meet requirements.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in this area of the United Kingdom market forces tend not to operate and the Government poke their nose into every convenient hole? Has the hon. Gentleman noted the recommendations made by the world coal study suggesting that between one-half and two-thirds of additional energy will need to be supplied by the coal industry? Will he ensure that coal becomes more established in those parts of Northern Ireland industry for which he is responsible, recognising the fact that when markets for coal are lost, pits shut and never reopen?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Northern Ireland is heavily dependent upon coal supplies and is a prime user of coal for energy. My answer indicates the prospects for increasing the market. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland will still require the bulk of its supplies to come from the National Coal Board.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister agree that the welcome improvement, both for transportation and the marketing of solid fuel in Northern Ireland, is in no way inconsistent with or inimical to the development in the Province of other sources of energy, where appropriate.
    Mr. Shaw: I agree entirely with that point.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister appreciate that Ulster people feel they are treated as second class citizens because the cost of lighting and fuel is higher than in the rest of Great Britain and the quality of the coal, although more expensive than in Great Britain, is lower than that available in other parts of the United Kingdom? What action does he intend to take to remedy that situation?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a consumer council is available to investigate complaints of this kind. With regard to the quality of coal, the last indication I had was that complaints were directed at coal imported from the United States and not to coal from the National Coal Board.
    Mr. John: Will the Minister accept that the family expenditure survey showed that families in Northern Ireland spend 50 per cent.
    782
    more on light and heat than their counterparts on the mainland? Does not that indicate two problems? The first is the problem of domestic heating. Will he bear in mind that coal from Great Britain is likely to prove more successful and give a better thermal value? The second problem is the cost of generating electricity. The frequent and constant rises in oil prices are making what appeared to be a good choice 10 years ago a very uneconomic one now. Bearing in mind the dual firing now being arranged at Kilroot power station, will the Minister arrange for a comparative study of generation costs between coal and oil at present prices?
    Mr. Shaw: With regard to the first part of the question, I accept the crucial importance of seeking to maintain in the Province energy prices that are bearable. I accept that, in many instances, they are not bearable. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the recent coal price increase of 10·7 per cent. is comparable with that in certain other parts of the United Kingdom.
    With regard to his second point, the dual firing at Kilroot is still at an investigation and recommendation stage and no decision has yet been taken. I accept that this is one reason why the thorough review of energy that we have set in hand is crucial to the future development of the Province.

    Constitutional Development
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to produce his detailed proposals for constitutional changes in the Province.
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks considering devolution of power to Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about constitutional development relating to the Province.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects of constitutional advance in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The Government have made good progress in developing their proposals and they will be published shortly. They will be based on the principles set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the working paper (Cmnd. 7763) and, I hope, will be the subject of the widest possible discussion. I am confident that they will be seen as a constructive and even-handed approach to the question of how power is to be transferred to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland. In the meantime, the present arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland must continue and an order extending the interim period of direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is being laid today.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to bring forward one Cabinet proposal for a Government of Ireland Bill that may or may not prove acceptable to the House? Or does he intend further alternative proposals and further public discussion? Is he aware that some of us feel that it is time for a decision?
    Mr. Atkins: The proposals that we shall bring forward will be more narrowly focused than anything we have discussed before. There will be an opportunity for further discussions and I hope that will be taken by all parties.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that, since the Westminster representation from Northern Ireland will soon be on parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be uproar in Scotland if he goes ahead with proposals for devolution of power for Northern Ireland but nothing is done for Scotland? As a member of the Cabinet, the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape responsibility. Will he initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Leader of the House to make sure that these discussions continue in parallel?
    Mr. Atkins: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and all other Cabinet Ministers.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of people, knowledgeable of the Province, both in this country and in Ireland, feel that the publication of a discussion paper at this time would not be helpful and that it would be better for the Government to continue with secret bilateral discussions and produce a White Paper in the autumn? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his intentions of publishing a Green Paper this month?
    Mr. Atkins: I note what my hon. Friend says. I hope he will find that the paper we publish will indicate clearly the direction in which the Government feel that it would be right to move. There remain some areas for discussion. I am sure it is right to continue talking with the parties to see whether we can get a high level of agreement on how to move forward.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since local government is central to giving the Northern Ireland people more control over their own affairs, is my right hon. Friend aware, from the Commissioner for Complaints, or anyone else, of widespread abuse of power by district councils? If he is, will he be ready to deal firmly with it?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, of course I shall. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any precise details about the number of matters referred to the Commissioner for Complaints, or other bodies, in the past few months or year, although I know that there have been some. I can, of course, give him details, and I shall do so in writing.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Are the Government simply to publish another discussion document, or is it their intention that, if the proposals they bring forward are accepted by a majority of the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, they will be implemented?
    Mr. Atkins: We shall publish the Government's proposals on the way that we think it is right to move forward. I hope that we can get a high level of agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland

    785
    about the right course. We shall then come to Parliament which, in the end, has the final say.
    Mr. Fitt: Will the Secretary of State refute the reports in the press recently that the Government are prepared to reinstate a majority Unionist Government? Does he recognise that if the Government attempt to do that the scheme will be doomed? Does he accept that while there might be urgency over bringing about a devolved system of Government, any rushed attempt, at a half-baked arrangement which would be defeated, because of the procedures and time limits applicable in the House, would be a bitter pill and a disaster for Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State take whatever time is necessary to ensure that any plan put forward has some hope of success?
    Mr. Atkins: I am sure that it is right to take whatever time is necessary to secure the agreement of the Northern Ireland people, to whom any arangements will apply. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. I advise him to wait for our paper.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to consult the Northern Ireland population as well as the people who purport to represent the people's views? Is he aware that if he does not do that the potential for further disaster will be ever present? I wish the right hon. Gentleman's proposals well. May I express the hope that he will match his proposals with the common sense approach which I suggest?
    Mr. Atkins: I agree that we should seek to ascertain the views of people throughout the Province. It would ill-become me to suggest that any hon. Member does not represent the people who elected him. Nevertheless, I take the point. That is why I said that I hope for the widest possible discussion.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State said that the Green Paper will indicate the direction in which the Government hope to move. After so many months of discussion with the few parties with whom he decided to discuss the future constitution of Northern Ireland, and after being in office for 12 months, is not it high time that
    786
    the Government were able to make definite proposals for constitutional progress in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: We are anxious to make proposals which command general support. I have to tell the House that there is not total unanimity of view in Norhern Ireland about the way in which we should go.
    Mr. Flannery: May I repeat the gist of the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)? Does the Secretary of State accept that, bearing in mind the communalist policies of Northern Ireland, if there is no power-sharing, and if all is left to the Ulster Unionists, Northern Ireland's position will remain as it is?
    Mr. Atkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study our paper with great care.
    Mr. Porter: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to put the minds of some people at rest by indicating whether his proposals will be on a provincial basis through the reimposition of Stormont—which would be disastrous—or are likely to be on an English, Welsh or Scottish county council basis, which would give some hope for the future?
    Mr. Atkins: I believe that our proposals will have close reference to the situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John: I hope that the Secretary of State is right in his last remark. When the paper is published will the House have reasonable time to study it before it is debated? Will the Secretary of State direct his attention to the editiorial in last Monday's Financial Times which makes it clear that the chances of a political initiative succeeding could be diminished while the economy is falling apart? Does he agree that too many people ignore the economic dimension of the constitution? I hope that the Secretary of State will not.
    Mr. Atkins: I take the point. The economic life of Northern Ireland has a great bearing on everything that we seek to do. However, I quarrel with the hon. Member when he says that the economy is falling apart. It is not. I agree that Parliament must have an opportunity to debate the proposals. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about that.

    Security
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Win. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Since I last addressed the House on 8 May, 43 people have been charged with serious crimes, including seven with murder and one with attempted murder. One of those charged with murder is alleged to have been involved in the bombing of La Mon House on 20 February 1978 in which 12 people died. The four people to whom I referred on 8 May, who were arrested in the Antrim Road area of Belfast, have been charged with the murder of a soldier. Also during the period, 14 weapons have been recovered together with 2,012 rounds of ammunition.
    One part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and four civilians were murdered by terrorists during the period, and a number of people, both civilians and members of the security forces, were injured. William Latimer of the UDR was shot while off duty in Newtownbutler last Saturday. Anthony Shields from Crossmagien was abducted and murdered and his body left surrounded by booby-traps in a particularly callous way. Councillor John Turnly of Carnlough was cold-bloodedly shot down in front of his family. Those responsible for all these outrages deserve and will get our outright condemnation.
    Damage to property has been comparatively light, though I understand that a car bomb in Market Hill, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), exploded this afternoon and caused extensive damage to a number of houses. Two weeks ago great inconvenience was caused to the people of Belfast by a widespread campaign of bombings and hoax bombings. The security forces are to be commended on the efficient way in which they handled this difficult situation.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep revulsion last weekend in Northern Ireland at the
    788
    callous, cold-blooded shooting and killing of Councillor Turnly, a member of the Lame district council and, at the other end of the Province, at the killing of Mr. Latimer, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
    Is the Secretary of State aware that Mr. Latimer is the fiftieth Protestant who has served in connection with the security forces to have been murdered in that area? Is he further aware that the murderers escape across the border and that so far only one murder has been solved, with the conviction of one person, since people who commit these dastardly deeds have safe sanctuary in Mr. Haughey's Republic? Will he take steps to deal with the border roads which provide an easy escape for the men who carry out these dastardly deeds?
    Mr. Atkins: All the murders arouse feelings of revulsion and horror in the House and the Province. The security forces are continuing, and will continue, to do everything that they can to prevent them and to bring to justice the people who commit them. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my answer. In the last four weeks 43 people have been charged with terrorist crimes, seven of them with murder. I hope that that shows those who contemplate committing murder that they have a decreasing chance of escaping justice. No matter how long ago the murders were committed the police will continue to seek out the murderers and bring them to justice. I am glad to say that they are having increasing success. I am ready at any time to consider suggestions that particular roads across the border should be closed to inhibit the movement of terrorists.
    Mr. Ross: is the Secretary of State aware that his answers this afternoon serve only to confirm that there has been no real change in security for several years. It is not time to consider new measures to deal with the hard core of terrorists who operate in Northern Ireland and to consider seriously the sealing of the border in a meaningful way?
    Mr. Atkins: I accept and share the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman but he must not mislead himself, or the House, by saying that there has been no change in the situation over the past three or four years. There has been a change. The situation is still deplorable. There

    789
    are still too many crimes and murders but, increasingly, the expertise and efforts of the security forces are containing the activities of the terrorists.
    It is the belief of the Government that the course upon which we are embarked is the right one. That course is to apprehend the terrorists and bring them before the court. As the hon. Gentleman knows, to seal the border is virtually—though not totally—impossible. I am prepared to consider anything that we can do to inhibit the movement of the terrorists while, at the same time, allowing the flow of legitimate traffic.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that prison officers still seem to be subject to attack? There was another attack recently although I know that additional security measures have been taken to protect prison officers. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that those officers are receiving all the attention that they reserve from his Office?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. There was a campaign a few months ago to kill prison officers. This is a completely inexplicable problem. The prison officer is a dedicated servant of the State, whose sole business is to deal with people who have been convicted by the courts. It is no concern of his why people are in prison. That they are in prison is his only motive for doing his job. I think that attacks on prison officers are particularly cowardly and deplorable.
    There was a lull when, apparently, prison officers were not the subject of attack. Another officer, however, was attacked the other day. I hope that the terrorists will realise that this kind of activity arouses disgust everywhere and will do nothing to weaken the determination either of the Government or the prison officers to get on with their job.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the percentage of terrorists recently convicted who have previously been sentenced for terrorism?
    Mr. Atkins: The information must be available. I do not have it in my head but I shall willingly send it on to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Fitt: As there is a tendency to believe that all the murders in Northern
    790
    Ireland are committed by the IRA—and one must recognise that the vast majority of them are committed by the IRA—will the Secretary of State put it on record that it is the belief of the Northern Ireland police that the people who murdered Councillor John Turnly were members of a Loyalist para-military association?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Terrorist activity is not confined to the Provisional IRA. But a terrorist is a terrorist and murder is murder whoever commits it. That is the basis upon which we operate.

    Coastal Containers Limited
    Mr. J. Enoch Powllasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he contemplates taking in view of the withdrawal of Coastal Containers Ltd. from Warrenpoint.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The withdrawal of Coastal Containers' cross-channel service from Warrenpoint is a matter, primarily, for the Warrenpoint harbour authority. But I have discussed this matter with the authority and I understand that the authority is continuing its efforts to attract other companies to the port to make use of the facilities which are no longer being used by Coastal Containers Ltd.
    Mr. Powell: Does not this regrettable setback to the expansion of this port provide an opportunity for a review of its future on a wide scale, taking account of the potential attractions of the port for cross-Channel services of a passenger and car character?
    Mr. Shaw: I admit that a withdrawal on this scale—roughly 20 per cent. of the volume of traffic—is a matter of concern to me and to the users and management of the port and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this will allow a wider review of the future of the port. But the immediate task is to seek to replace those customers who have been lost with new ones.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Why did Coastal Containers leave Warrenpoint? Was the reason financial? If it was, what aid can the Government give to attract the firm back?
    Mr. Shaw: Coastal Containers Ltd. left Warrenpoint due to a decline in economic

    791
    traffic on the one hand and the prospect of the closure of the port of Preston on the other. It is not the policy of the Government to intervene in commercial decisions of that character.

    Cross-border Roads
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will review his policy on cross-border roads with a view to increasing the degree of control over the traffic using them.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): The Government are fully aware of the need to exercise a measure of control, in the interests of security, over cross-border traffic. The measures intended for this purpose are kept under constant review.
    Mr. Miller: In the light of the concern about the use of cross-border routes will my hon. Friend look again at the position to see whether control could be improved either by moving police and Customs posts forward or by blocking roads as was done in 1961 and 1962?
    Mr. Alison: The number of closures of cross-border roads is kept under constant review. A substantial number of them are already closed and we keep the matter under exactly the kind of review asked for by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister of State pay particular attention to the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) to the effect that all of these roads were, effectively, closed in the earlier campaign of 1956–1962? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I shall be responding to the invitation of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and will be furnishing him this very day with a list of those roads complete with map references?
    Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman's list will, of course, be considered with great interest and sympathy. Decisions in this context are taken largely on the advice of those responsible for security, namely the police and the Army. We have to evaluate the balance of advantage and disadvantage that they lay before us.

  BETSHAM
  Ql. Mr. Bob Dunnasked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Betsham.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Betsham reject completely the policy announced by the Labour Party to the effect that a future Labour Government will force students in the independent sector to pay the full cost of university fees? Does not my right hon. Friend regard that policy as malicious and unfair?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) had a confrontation—if that is the right word—with my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My right hon. and learned Friend, normally a mild-mannered man, used some phrases which I could not better. He said :
  "I should have thought that that proposition is so vindictive, vicious and literally stupid as to be beyond the belief, even of the hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 10 June 1980 ; Vol. 986, c. 289.]
  I could not better that myself.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend is taking part in the meeting of the European Council in Venice.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that clause 16 of the Employment Bill, as at present drafted, meets in full the Government's commitment with regard to secondary action expressed at page 10 of the Government's election manifesto? If, as has been pointed out by many people, it does

  793
  not will the Government look at the wording of the clause again?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think it is fair to put my answer in the terms of the point made by my hon. Friend. Since the publication of the Bill the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Express Newspapers v MacShane has shown that the legislation of the previous Government created virtually unlimited immunity for secondary action. An immediate response to that was needed and in clause 16 of the Bill the protection of the law for those not concerned in a dispute has been greatly strengthened.
  Mr. Kaufman: That is a scandal.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) may think that it is a scandal but it happens to be a fact. I have stated the facts and I cannot see the scandal in that. I should like to make it clear, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's allegation about a supposed scandal, that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to publish a Green Paper later this year which will review the complicated question of immunities. That is the position and that is my answer to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Home Secretary undertake to make sure that the Prime Minister is supplied with a copy of the text of the speech made yesterday in another place by his right hon. and noble Friend Lord Thorneycroft on the proper limits that he believes should be set to pay increases for Members of Parliament? Will he invite the Prime Minister to compare that speech with her own speech yesterday about there being no guiding lights and no incomes policy? When will the sensible people in the Cabinet, such as the right hon. Gentleman, assert themselves in order to ensure that we have a sustained and agreed incomes policy with which to defeat inflation?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman believes that I am sensible. The answer to both of his questions is "Yes. Sir."
  Mr. Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement by Dr. Sakharov that every spectator or athlete who goes to Moscow for the Olympic Games will be lending indirect support to Soviet military
  794
  policies? So that there can be no possible excuse for any British athlete or member of the Olympic Committee keeping his head in the sand on this issue, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for us to have full and accurate information about the atrocities in Afghanistan?
  Mr. Whitelaw: At the risk of again causing what the right hon. Member for Ardwick says is a scandal, it would be reasonable to read what the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said on 17 March. I am entitled to read that because I am quoting what the right hon. Gentleman said
  "In short when the Olympic Games commence in July".—[Official Report, 17 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 50.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be fail all round. The right hon. Gentleman had better paraphrase the quotation.
  Mr. Whitelaw: To which I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that after all these years I should have known much better.
  I was going to say that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar made it very clear that he thought that, if there were to be an Olympic Games and if it was fully attended, all those who were there would have to realise that the guns of Afghanistan would be ringing in their ears at the time.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the Home Secretary have time to ask the Prime Minister to go to the House of Lords to have a word with Lord Carrington who is to produce another meeting of Olympic officials to make a yet further vicious attack on British Olympic athletes? Will he ensure that the Prime Minister asks for Lord Thorneycroft to be present at the meeting, to explain how his £150,000 contract with Lillywhite-Cantabrian for the provision of track equipment for the Moscow Olympics can be squared with his continued attack on the athletes? Is this not yet another case of pure hypocrisy and double standards by Conservative leaders who are busy lining their pockets while condemning athletes for competing in Moscow?
  Mr. Whitelaw: This point has been argued at considerable length. Those who are now deciding to go to Moscow must examine whether their actions are in the best interests of their country. That is

  795
  a decision for them. I do not think that they are in the country's best interests.
  Mr. Skinner: What about Thorney-croft?
  Mr. James Callaghan: Whether they are or not, will the Home Secretary tell us the difference between athletes going to Moscow and business men—whether Conservative peers or not—increasing their trade with that country?
  Mr. Whitelaw: The question of Conservative peers or not does not arise. The question of trade certainly does, but I would have thought that that had also been argued. Many people in this country have said, and will continue to say "Why should we give the Russians the propaganda success of the Olympics in Moscow for no good reason? "
  Mr. Michael Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that deep concern is growing throughout the country that the present terms of clause 16 of the Employment Bill are not adequate to satisfy the reasonable and necessary pledges that we gave at the election? In view of the late production of the clause, will the Government look at it once again to see whether they can get it right this time, since it is so important to most of us?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend said. I have promised that my right hon. Friend will produce a Green Paper. I shall certainly call to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. Sheermanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the Home Secretary take time today to confirm or deny the story in the Financial Times this morning that suggests that the Government are about to announce a complete stop—a moratorium—on all local authority capital expenditure which will affect most grievously council building of every
  796
  type—house, schools and perhaps hospitals?
  Mr. Whitelaw: It would be a brave Minister in any Government who spent his time confirming or denying all the stories that appear in the newspapers. I read the story. I know nothing about it. I do not understand what it said.
  Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend know, however, of the Soviet Union (Temporary Powers) Bill that I introduced yesterday? Will he accept that our athletes might be more open to persuasion if the Government accept the Bill which is based on the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I note my hon. Friend's comment and I note his Bill. I have nothing further to add this afternoon.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: In regard to the Cabinet meeting that is to take place on 16 July, will the Home Secretary understand that monetarist jargon never sounds convincing coming from his mouth? Will he, rather than repeat this jargon, trust his instinct and accept that the true discussions in these matters is of politics, not phoney economies?
  Mr. Whitelaw: It is for the right hon. Gentleman and the House to decide what sounds convincing coming from my mouth. I fully support and am strongly in favour of the policies being followed by Her Majesty's Government at the present time.
  Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend inform the Prime Minister that the Polish Government have instructed their agents in this country not to pay cash for goods, but to offer barter, and often to barter in textile goods, in complete contradiction to the good faith in which those goods were sold to Poland?
  Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall certainly see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. No one coming from my part of the world in the North can doubt the troubles and anxieties that cut right through the textile trade. They are justified. I am most anxious to make sure that anything that can be done to help should be.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the letter

  797
  that has been sent to the Prime Minister asking that any action should be taken to save the textile industry, which the right hon. Gentleman knows so well? Will he also—we shall be convinced by him—in view of the uncertainty and alarm that will be caused by the reports about the halting of council house building, give an undertaking that there will be no such halt, bearing in mind that I million people are now on waiting lists for local authority council houses?
  Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a meeting yesterday with various hon. Members about the textile industry. She undertook to follow up the various points that they made to her. In answer to the second part of this question, since I do not accept in any way what was said in the article, it is not for me to comment upon it.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am not asking the Home Secretary to comment. I am asking him to give an assurance that the Government have no intention of halting council house building.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have no evidence to the effect that that is so.
  Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the Government intend to honour their election pledge to curtail immigration from the New Commonwealth?
  Mr. Whitelaw: We took various measures in the Immigration Rules and I have nothing further to add at present.
  Mr. Foulkesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
  Mr. Foulkes: Has the Home Secretary read the report given by the Leader of the House to the Bow Group earlier this week and the predictions by industrialists that there will be many more redundancies and liquidations if the Government do not change their economic policies? When will the right hon. Gentleman and the other sensible men in the Cabinet overcome the monetarist fanatics?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Of course I read the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I thought that it was a very good speech.
  Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the press reports today about the threatened strikes by NALGO? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that trade union leaders should call strikes for the sole purpose of thwarting the wishes of a democratically elected Government on the issue of public expenditure? Does he agree that that action should be condemned by both sides of the House?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Trade union leaders are answerable for their actions. If they seek to bring out their members on strike for the purpose my hon. Friend has mentioned, I do not think that they will achieve any good, either in the interests of their members or those of Britain.

NUCLEAR EXERCISE (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
Mr. Rodgers (by private notice)Mr. Rodgers (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether American forces stationed in Britain, and assigned to NATO, will be involved in the major nuclear exercise announced today and planned for the near future, and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): No, Sir. It is a routine exercised announced a month ago, which involves United States-based strategic forces.
Mr. Rodgers: Despite the brief reply by the Secretary of State, does he appreciate that many who are loyal to the Alliance believe that in present circumstances it could be the wrong exercise, in the wrong place and at the wrong time? In reply to another private notice question on Monday the right hon. Gentleman said that American computers were coupled with computers in Britain. In those circumstances, will not the American exercise involve American forces in Britain? If so, will joint decisions be involved? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how decoupling can occur?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether, at a time when the world is poised in a state of great anxiety and when there are doubts about the authority of the American leadership, that exercise should take place, and whether it does not carry grave risks for us all?
Mr. Pym: On the contrary, it is extremely important that all the forces of all the members of the Alliance should be involved in training exercises. It is a routine exercise, and there have been many like it. It involves United States-based strategic forces. That is the position. It is entirely right that they should be involved. In the present uncertain state of the world, it is necessary for all military forces to be up to a full state of training.
Mr. Kershaw: Was not my right hon. Friend's reply rather short? Should he not have included a space in his reply for an expression of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) the Opposition spokesman on defence, who did not even know that the Labour
800
Party Left wing was to give a party political broadcast last night advocating the betraying of our responsibilities and the betraying of our allies?
Mr. Pym: I rather doubt that this is the moment to reflect upon a rather inaccurate, and certainly misleading broadcast.
Mr. Dalyell: In the Adjournment debate that I have been granted for tomorrow, on the issue of what went wrong on Tuesday 3 June and Friday 6 June, will the Secretary of State be in a position to give the explanation that he promised to the House on Monday, or is it too early to expect such an explanation?
Mr. Pym: I doubt whether I can give that explanation tomorrow. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility lies with the United States Administration and not this Administration.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) linked the American and British deterrents, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements to modernise the British nuclear deterrent, for example by Operation Chevaline, were made by Labour Ministers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I visited California recently I was informed that Labour Ministers had initiated the discussions with a view to the development of cruise missiles in Britain? In those circumstances, is it not the most nauseating humbug for the Labour Party in opposition to seek to frighten people about the weapons that the Labour Party in office was seeking to bring in to Britain?
Mr. Pym: We must continue to hope that the agreement that has existed between the two Front Benches on major strategic matters involving the national interest will continue.
Mr. Hooley: Was there any ministerial consultation within NATO about the exercise? If so, what views were expressed by the United Kingdom?
Mr. Pym: As it is not a NATO exercise, the question does not arise. The exercise refers to United States strategic forces.
Mr. Speaker: I shall call three more hon. Members from each side.
Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exercise is welcome evidence of the determination of the United States to maintain its defensive capability in a high state of alert? Does he further agree that that capability is important to the whole of the Western Alliance—contrary to the views expressed by the Labour Party during last night's broadcast, which practically tended towards unilateral disarmament?
Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the exercise. However, I say again that there is nothing special about it : it is a routine exercise. It is one of an ordinary series and should be looked at in that light. It is important to know and to understand, and for it to be understood by any potential adversaries, that we are in a state of great readiness and preparedness.
Mr. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State explain why it is necessary for Britain, alone of all the NATO Powers apart from the United States of America, to have an independent nuclear capability when other NATO countries do not find that necessary?
Mr. Pym: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, might call me to order if I were to set out, as I have on a previous occasion, the arguments for the Government's belief that it is highly desirable for the United Kingdom to have its own nuclear capability. That is probably beyond the scope of the private notice question.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents, and others who are affected, should be reassured by the fact that regular routine exerises take place? Does he further agree that if they did not take place, the whole deterrent effect of the nuclear weapon would not exist? Is it not sad, therefore, that the exercise is not wholeheartedly supported by the Opposition?
Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Cryer: Does not the Secretary of State think that it is highly inappropriate, after seven months in which there have been three computer errors leading to some stage towards a nuclear confrontation, that America should embark, yet again, on a nuclear tactical exercise?
802
Should not the right hon. Gentleman use his offices to tell the Americans that the world is looking not for more nuclear deployment but for a lower level of nuclear deployment and genuine negotiation with the Russians for multilateral disarmament to give us a secure nuclear-free future?
Mr. Pym: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—and no one likes the mistake that occurred last week more than he does—an unremitting effort towards arms control is a major pillar of our defence policy. At least we share that with the Opposition Front Bench. It is misleading of the hon. Gentleman to try to pretend otherwise. While we receive no response from the Russians, it is necessary to maintain adequate defences. As long at that is necessary, it is equally necessary to train and exercise those forces. That is the purpose of the routine exercise.
Mr. Kilfedder: In view of current world tension and the recent computer mistake, is it not insensitive and unhelpful for good international relations for the United States to launch a major nuclear exercise? Or is it a Presidential ploy in election year? What are the Government doing to point out to the United States that this is the wrong time for that sort of exercise?
Mr. Pym: The whole thought behind that question is a suggestion that the exercise is in some way a special exercise. As I have already told the House, it is not a special exercise but a routine exercise. It is important that all elements of the forces are trained and that they exercise their capabilities. It is wrong to describe it as a nuclear exercise. It relates to strategic forces based in the United States. My only attitude towards that is one of wholehearted encouragement.
Mr. James Callaghan Mr. James Callaghan rose——
Mr. Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition object if I first called the last Back Bencher?
Mr. John Home Robertson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the United States has had more than enough nuclear exercises already this month? Will he indicate to President Carter that

803
he does not need to behave like a cowboy just because he faces a superannuated cowboy in the presidential election?
Mr. Pym: I think that the campaign—if I can call it that—which seems to have quite a lot of support among Labour Members, to misrepresent this exercise, is extraordinarily unhelpful to the national interest, the Alliance, and world peace.
Mr. Callaghan: On disarmament, if Chancellor Schmidt's visit to Moscow should produce an indication that the Soviet Union is ready to enter into negotiations to withdraw the SS20 missile in exchange for the abandoment of the deployment of cruise missiles, would the British Government be ready to support such an initiative?
Mr. Pym: That raises a major and important issue, which obviously goes widely beyond this question. I do not think that this is the moment to reflect upon that. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, attached to the NATO decision in December for this deployment was a positive arms control initiative, which has been rejected. It was not taken up, and so far there has been only a negative response from the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union changes its tune, that is a totally new situation, but even the fact that it has refused to negiotiate so far has in no way prevented us from continuing to sit round a table and discuss with the Soviet Union in Vienna and Geneva what the possibilities are, so far without any result. If there is a response, full consideration will naturally have to be given at that time to what our response ought to be.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the necessarily curtailed nature of the Secretary of State's replies—because question and answer must necessarily be rather laconic—may T give notice that tomorrow you have given me an Adjournment debate so that we can return to these questions in more detail, which is surely more satisfactory?
Mr. Speaker: I did not grant the Adjournment debate for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman chose the subject.
Business Statement, Mr. Callaghan.
Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after business questions.
Mr. Thomas: It is related to this question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful Mr. Speaker. Under successive Governments this House has established and financed through the Estimates and the Office of Manpower Economics a deliberately independent Review Body on Top Salaries. That body is chaired by Lord Boyle, and is currently looking at——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not sound to me as though this is related to the business for next week. No hon. Member should jump the queue with points of order until after business questions. I think that I know the hon. Gentleman's point of order, because he gave me notice of it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows :
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Debate on the report of the Brandt Commission on a motion for the Adjournment.
TUESDAY 17 JUNE—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motions on the Redundant Mine-workers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Scheme) (Amendment No. 2) Order ; the International Development Association (Sixth Replenishment) Order ; and the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lome) Order.
WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: Debate on the disposal of Ferranti, on an Opposition motion.
At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

805
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment.
Motion on the Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order.
FRIDAY 20 JUNE—Debate on the decline of industry in the West Midlands, on a motion for the Adjournment.
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Debate on the Royal Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. Callaghan: There is very great interest in the Brandt Commission's report We regret that the Government were not ready to table a positive motion, which would have enabled us to express our view. We should have liked a positive expression from the Government, which would at least have enabled us to welcome the report and to endorse its central theme, which called for renewed efforts to halt the world-wide escalation of arms expenditure and called on the Government for an increase in the transfer of resources from the richer to the poorer nations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider changing the decision to hold this debate on a motion for the Adjournment, so that we can test the opinion of the House on the motion to which I have just referred? I believe that such a motion would receive widespread support.
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been calls for a two-day debate on the Brandt report. If that is not possible, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has been able to consider the representations for extending the time for that debate—say, for two hours—in order to enable more Members to speak?
Finally, there have been two disturbing reports that I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to bring to the attention of his colleagues with a view to statements next week. One is the report that the Government are considering halting all council house building. It would be a disgrace if that were so. This matter can be cleared up only if the Government give a clear view on it. Secondly, there are reports that London fares are to be increased by 40 per cent. in a period of 12 months. If so, that is totally unaccep
806
able, and we must ask the Government to make a statement of policy on both those issues.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have seen the reports on those two matters, and I shall certainly bring them to the attention of the responsible Ministers.
I have already announced that the debate on the Brandt Commission's report will be on a motion for the Adjournment. I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman made but I think that the sentiments that he has expressed—with which I have a great deal of sympathy—can be expressed adequately in the debate. I am happy to say that in response to representations that I have received from a number of hon. Members, apart from the official Opposition, we can extend this debate until midnight, thus giving an extra two hours on this vitally important subject for the future of the world.
Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those answers, including his confirmation of the extension of time for the debate on the Brandt report. I am also glad to hear that he is broadly in sympathy with the sentiments that I expressed. In view of the international interest in the report, would it not be preferable if there were a positive expression of opinion by the House on an agreed motion? The motion to which I have referred is one that we intended to table. I am not trying to commit him, but the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not find himself opposed to it in substance. Let us please express our views as a House instead of as individual Members.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is much that is attractive in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but there are policy questions within the Brandt report that are still being considered within the Government and that would make it difficult to follow that sort of action at this stage.
Mr. Emery: May I remind my right hon. Friend—although I am sure that he does not need reminding—that the Lord Privy Seal gave the House an assurance that a statement would be made before the Vienna conference, which has already started—[HON. MEMBERS : "Venice".]—the Venice conference—that a Government statement on the Brandt Commission's report would be made to the House.

807
That has not been done. It is important that it should be done before Monday, because if it is made purely in the form of the Minister's opening speech the whole of the debate will be limited, as hon. Members will have no time to study the Government's position. As that assurance has been given, will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that the Government's position is known before the opening speech on Monday? There is still time for that to be done.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that there is some confusion here, not only between the cities of Venice and Vienna but because two summits are involved. There is the European summit and the world summit. The Brandt Commission report is more relevant to the world summit—the second summit. I have undertaken that there will be a debate in the House on the commission's report before the world summit. The opening statement will be made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and that will contain a clear statement of the Government's attitude.
Mr. John Smith: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement to the House at an early date about his failure to publish information about British companies paying salaries below the poverty datum line to their employees in South Africa? If that is too difficult, will he remind the Secretary of State for Trade that he could answer specific questions on the subject at Question Time next Monday?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have read the exchange between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman that was extensively reported in today's issue of The Guardian. I hardly think it will be necessary to draw this to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but in response to the hon. Gentleman's request I shall do so.
Mr. Neil Thome: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 691, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) about the effect upon Russian dissidents of the boycott of the Olympic Games?
[That this House congratulates British industrialists and others who have withdrawn financial support for the British Olympic Team to go to Moscow, and
808
does not doubt that this action will he equally welcome to dissident families in Russia such as the Rosensteins, who are either being forced by the Soviet Authorities to leave Moscow or are going voluntarily, because they are nervous of reprisals by the Soviets.]
In view of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, will my right hon. Friend consider holding an early debate on the matter?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that an early debate is necessary, because the Government's views on the matter are already well known in the House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement on the matter recently. We support the sentiments expressed in that motion. We welcome the British industrialists' action, as no doubt do those people in the Soviet Union who believe, as the Government believe, that the Games should be boycotted. The Government's policy on the Games was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the debate on 17 March, and also by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in two Adjournment debates, on 27 March and 21 April. I do not consider that another debate on the subject is necessary. We want a positive response from the British Olympic Committee.
Mr. Ifor Davies: Will the Leader of the House find time next week, or very soon, to discuss the industrial situation in South Wales with regard to the critical situation confronting the steel, tinplate and coal industries?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know about the grave unemployment situation in Wales. The Government have never disguised the fact that they believed that in the short term unemployment would rise. They have shown their concern for the Principality by making additional money available for the provision of factories and industrial sites in the areas affected by steel closures. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Shotton area was upgraded and given special development area status last December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will announce the outcome of the review of assisted area status in South Wales very soon. I hope that that will be of some assistance to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the Leader of the House received any representations about the debate on the Royal Navy? Is there any possibility of the date being put back a week or two, in view of the fact that some hon. Members will be attending a maritime conference in the United States on that subject?
Mr. Skinner: Why not go on a Sunday?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the answer to that is "Never on Sunday". These matters were discussed through the usual channels, and no objections were raised. I am sorry if there is a clash, but I am afraid that this situation arises from time to time because Members of Parliament are very busy people.
Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the proposals of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers on licensing law reform? In view of the wide social interest in this subject, would it be possible to have a debate on the matter, bearing in mind that the Errol report disappeared into limbo about 10 years ago? I declare an interest in this subject, not only as an avid consumer but because I have an interest in two licensed houses in the Midlands.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I wish that I could say the same. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall certainly draw the concern of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the plight of the textile industry, would it be possible to have an early debate on those EEC regulations that are mainly responsible for it?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Within the last few days my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a delegation from the textile industry. The problems of the industry were fully discussed and an undertaking was given that we would seek adequate safeguards for the textile industry on the expiration of the multi-fibre arrangement in 1981. Therefore, I do not think that an early debate is necessary.
Mr. Coleman: Returning to the point made by myright hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the cessation of
810
council house building, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House on the position in Wales?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the same question as was put by the Leader of the Opposition, but within the different context of Wales. I shall pass to the Secretary of State for Wales the representations that I shall make to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Budgen: In view of the Government's continuing difficulties in controlling public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the procedure used in considering Supplementary Estimates, so that the House, if it so wishes, may reassert its historic role of controlling Supply?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government have had considerable success in reducing and controlling public expenditure. That is a separate point from the question of the control by this House of Supply. On that point, I am more sympathetic to what my hon. Friend said. We need to examine this matter when we have disposed of the recommendations of the existing report on procedure. The next item on the agenda seeks a report on the way in which the House can more effectively discharge its historic role of controlling Supply.
Mr. Armstrong: Bearing in mind the complete collapse of morale and confidence in the Northern region about the future of manufacturing industry, confirmed by the Secretary of State for Industry in his statement on Monday on regional policy, and the announcement today that the steelworks in Consett will close in September, destroying a community, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the matter before manufacturing industry in the Northern region reaches a point of no return?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There may be an opportunity for a regional debate. I cannot promise such a debate next week. I read the account of the closure of Shot-ton, and I appreciate—[HON. MEMBERS : "Consett."]—Consett. I am aware of the difference between Consett and Shot-ton. A slip of the tongue is not necessarily a slip of the mind. However, this

811
is a matter for the British Steel Corporation to decide, and not for the Government.
Mr. Trippier: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 603, asking that the time limit on speeches, restricted to 10 minutes in Second Reading debates, should be extended to other principal debates in the House, other than Report stages of Bills?
[That this House believes that the present rule in operation that backbench speeches between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Second Reading Debates are limited to not more than 10 minutes should be extended to all other principal debates of the House, other than Report stages of Bills.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider extending that experiment?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That suggestion has occurred from time to time, but the whole purpose of introducing it in a limited way was to assess the feelings of the House on how it would work. As far as I can hear from the response to that suggestion, there does not seem to be overwhelming support for it.
Mr. Parry: The Leader of the House may have seen early-day motion 674, standing in my name, which has been signed by 158 hon. Members.
[That this House deplores the proposal of the Liverpool Area Health Authority (Teaching) to close the heart unit at the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital in spite of massive public opinion against the closure : and calls upon the Secretary of State to reject the Health Authority's proposal.]
As a matter of urgency, will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on proposed hospital closures in Liverpool? Such closures are affecting the aged, children, the partially blind, the blind, and women's care. These closures have met with massive objections from the general public. The area health authority is slashing health services in the city centre of Liverpool.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The closure of the pediatric cardiology unit at the Liverpool hospital is a complicated matter, but the closure of the hospital as such will be
812
subject to consultation with all interests, in accordance with the agreed procedures, at the appropriate time. Those procedures provide for ministerial involvement where there is local objection to a proposed closure that cannot be resolved locally.
Mr. Cormack: As the Soviet Union's actions constitute a far greater violation of human rights, humanity and international law than even the despicable acts of the Iranians in detaining the American hostages, will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the Soviet Union (Temporary Powers) Bill, which I introduced yesterday? Will he also bear in mind that it is perfectly drafted, as it is based entirely on the Act in relation to Iran that was recently passed?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is obviously a man of faith. I cannot guarantee or offer an early debate on this subject. However, I think that by the private enterprise that my hon. Friend has demonstrated he has shown his concern and the concern—I am sure—of many others in the House about the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union.
Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a full day's debate on unemployment as it effects the whole of the United Kingdom, so as to give every right hon. and hon. Member an opportunity of bringing forward schemes whereby some of us may do something about reducing the high numbers of unemployed?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise an early debate. The Government are continually aware of unemployment problems. It is no part of our policy to have permanent high unemployment. At the same time, we have always made clear that in the process of rationalising British industry and making it competitive, a period of short-term unemployment is unavoidable.
Mr. Adley: May we have an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement on her return from Venice—after which, Mr. Speaker, some of us will hope to catch your eye? In view of the quite proper priority that that conference is attaching to the attempt to find a way forward and a solution to the Palestinian issue, may I repeat my request to my right

813
hon. Friend, particularly in the light of the tremendous change of attitude by the House over the last 10 years, that we should give the Government an opportunity to listen to the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly Back Benchers? The issue remains one of the most sensitive and dangerous in the world.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on her return from the Venice summit. The Palestinian point, among others, will no doubt be relevant to the questions that you allow, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. George Cunningham: In view of the manifestly unsatisfactory state of the law left by the House of Lords' ruling today, whereby criminals may be legally entitled to retain the fruits of their crimes, will the Leader of the House indicate whether the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will make a statement about the Government's intentions to correct the law?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have received no request for a statement from either of my right hon. Friends but I shall certainly raise the matter with them to see whether they would like to apply to make a statement in the House.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is there any chance of extending the debate on the Royal Navy for perhaps an hour, in view of the great interest in the maritime strategic position in the Indian Ocean?
Has my right hon. Friend noted that there is now a clear majority of Members who have signed the early-day motion on whales?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to ban the import of all whale products and to work to secure a world wide ban on the slaughter of whales.]
Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to respond, as he ought as Leader of the House, to the manifest wish of a majority of hon. Members?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have seen the early-day motion and I have noticed the large number of signatures to it. What is perhaps even more important than my responding is that the Government have
814
responded very positively and are seeking to implement the aims of the motion.
As for the debate on the Royal Navy, I have heard my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I suggest that it be pursued through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss through the usual channels, with his ministerial colleagues, the appropriate Officers of the House and the trade union representatives of those who are employed on the staff of the House, ways and means of providing a fully subsidised canteen service for the low-income earners whom we employ, in parallel with that which is enjoyed by departments of the Civil Service and comparable with that which is available in commercial undertakings? There is an urgency about this matter.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is more a matter for the House of Commons Commission than for me. What we have endeavoured to do is to put the catering of the House on a commercially viable basis. If there are problems such as that which the hon. Gentleman has raised they should be considered by the Commission. I shall see that that is done.
Mr. Skinner: On the question of world summitry at Venice, will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the cost to the British taxpayer of sending so many people to that summit? We all appreciate that, according to The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister is a guest of the Italian Government, but the rest of the entourage is likely to be charged about £100 a night. When she was Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister used to say quite often that summitry was a waste of time and money. Perhaps we may have a full explanation, so that we can understand more clearly the Government's position on public expenditure, especially bearing in mind that for the pensioners the same Prime Minister has invented a new calendar year of 54 weeks, thereby depriving them of £13.70 per head. Will it be the old-age pensioners who will foot the bill for this summit in Venice?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The issues to be discussed at the summit are of such paramount importance for the future of this country, Europe, and the world that it is obvious that those who are there should have adequate back-up services. I suppose that the value that one gets from a summit meeting depends on who actually represents Great Britain at the summit.
Mr. Straw: When will the promised debate on the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget take place? With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's undertakings to the House yesterday on the responsibility of the Lord Privy Seal to answer questions on EEC matters, when will there be a statement on that matter?
Mr. St. John-Slevas: I think that the most convenient moment may be when the full documentation is available. This matter is being pursued through the usual channels.
Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the Leader of the House use his influence to ensure that the next time the Home Secretary deputises for the Prime Minister at Question Time he does not reduce the 15 minutes to a farce, as he did today?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry that I did not answer the second point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I shall bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. [Interruption.] I must be left to answer questions in my own way.
With regard to the answering of questions by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in place of the Prime Minister, I thought that it was a virtuoso performance, in which he commended a recent speech of mine. I think that it added to the lightheartedness of the occasion in a characteristic way.
Mr. Spearing: The Leader of the House has referred to the importance of the Venice summit. Why, then, did he restrict to one and a half hours last Tuesday's important debate on EEC institutions, following the report by the Committee of Three, leaving no fewer than nine hon. Members wishing to speak and an unresolved Question at the end? Will he now consider resuming that adjourned debate? In relation to the budget contribution and the question raised by
816
my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it is the Government's intention to have a debate on that issue, and not just to call it to the attention of the Lord Privy Seal?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Those matters must be discussed through the usual channels. I cannot give off-the-cuff undertakings when the wishes of the Opposition as well as those of the Government are involved. I am sorry that some hon. Members were unable to speak in the debate. Unfortunately, it occasionally happens that not all hon. Members can be called. However, that is no justification for having a repeat performance of every debate in which that occurs.
Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is being emasculated by his civil servants? In a rush of open government, the Minister promised to send me a letter explaining how his Department calculated the cost of the CAP to the United Kingdom. There have been various interesting reviews in bank journals, by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and in The Sunday Times. However, I have not received the letter. It has not been placed in the Library. The assurance has not been carried out.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Knowing him, I should have thought that he would carry out such an operation the other way around.
Mr. Ioan Evans: As the Prime Minister makes reckless speeches every week saying that there will be no U-turns, and as she has not made a speech about the situation now facing industry, may we have a two-day debate on the decline of British industry? We have received strong representations from industrialists and trade unionists.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have already announced that there will be a debate on British industry next week. I cannot promise a two-day debate on anything at the moment.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two short debates today. Many hon. Members wish to speak in those debates. I hope that points of order will be reasonably brief.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)
Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not have raised a point of order if I had not regarded it as very important. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not giving you sufficient notice. I was unable to advise you that I wished to raise a point of order before 2 o'clock this afternoon. I also advised the Scottish Office that I intended to raise a point of order relating to the exchange that took place at Question Time yesterday, between the leader of the Liberal Party, the Secretary of State for Scotland and me. The questions concerned the amount built into the rate support grant settlement for Scotland, in relation to salary increases. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) asked :
"To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that his allocation of 13 per cent. in the rate support grant ties the hands of the negotiating Committee?"
There was more to the question, but that was the relevant point. The Secretary of State replied :
"The figure that the right hon. Gentleman quoted is not correct, and in any case the allowance made in the rate support grant order was greater than that, and it also took into account the allowances for the Clegg awards."—[Official Report, 11 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 530–31.]
In column 532, the Secretary of State said that the allowance built into the rate support grant was greater than 13 per cent. In column 537, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—repeated the Secretary of State's assertion that the allowance built into rate support grant was greater than 13 per cent.
I am concerned not merely about the content of parliamentary answers but about subsequent events. I have in my hand a report that appeared in today's edition of The Scotsman, entitled, "Government firm on teachers' pay." The article reveals that following yesterday's
818
exchanges in the House at Question Time the Secretary of State issued a statement to The Scotsman in which he said :
"He is therefore not committed to any action in respect of the outcome of any such arbitration. What he has said to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is that he has set cash limits in the rate support grant settlement to take account of pay increases and that this limit (13 per cent) "——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I waited to see what the hon. Gentleman would say. It is clear that he has not mentioned a breach of our rules on which I can rule. I thought that I would let the hon. Gentleman make that clear, and he has now done so. It is unfair to the House if an hon. Member seizes an opportunity to put a point of view because he is indignant about a reply that he has received.
Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. All hon. Members know that it is not in my nature to take advantage of the House. Yesterday, the Secretary of State deliberately misled the House of Commons. He sought to correct the matter by issuing a press statement. I raised a point of order because I wished to ask you whether it was in the best interests and traditions of the House for a senior Minister to conduct himself in that manner.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Ministers must take responsibility for their replies.

MEMBERS' SALARIES
Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to wait until the end of any queue to receive your guidance. During successive Governments this House has established and financed—through the estimates of the Office of Manpower Economics—a deliberately independent Review Body on Top Salaries. That body is chaired by Lord Boyle. It is currently looking at the request of the Leader of the House and of the Prime Minister—in pursuit of a clear commitment given to the House—for the appropriate updating of hon. Members' salaries for the past year. I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the issue and to report to the House. I am not at all clear whether this is an issue of order or of privilege. Is it proper for attempts to be made to influence Lord Boyle to pursue that remit—which he was asked to do independently—in a way that

819
may suit the chairman of the Conservative Party or some other figures? Should he not discharge his responsibilities and commitment to the House in an independent way?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to write to me giving the details I shall consider whether privilege is involved. I cannot rule on the information that I have just been given.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  SUPPLY

    DISABLED PERSONS
    4.17 pm
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
    That this House, aware of the desire of disabled people to live independent lives in their own homes and of the economic advantages for the nation of allowing them to do so, deplores the Government's planned reduction in personal social services ; rejects the Government's decision to reduce the living standards of large numbers of the poorest disabled people by cutting the value of invalidity benefit by at least 5 per cent. from November ; and calls upon the Government to reverse policies that conflict with their manifesto commitments to the disabled and which are both self-defeating and inhumane.
    The House is often said to be at its best when discussing the problems of the least fortunate in our society and, by common consent, this debate is about people who are among the poorest and most vulnerable in Britain today. It is a debate that we have provided for in Opposition time and, if anyone thinks the debate is long overdue, let me emphasise that it would not be taking place at all if it had been left to the Government to arrange.
    We have three main purposes in the debate. First, we want to put it to the House and to the country that being mean to disabled people—many of this Government's policies are studiedly mean—is self-defeating as well as inhumane. Secondly, we want to make clear our contempt for a Government who give higher priority to tax cuts for the strong and fortunate—indeed to those at the very top of the income scales—than to protecting even the invalidity benefits of people who are below the tax threshold and whose working lives have been cut short by long-term sickness and disability.
    Thirdly, we wish to challenge the Government to answer questions which so far they have either avoided or evaded. For example, are the cuts that hurt the disabled reluctantly imposed by the Government as a sad necessity, as the Secretary of State seems to say, or are they welcomed as a matter of important principle, as the Minister with responsibility

    821
    for the disabled seems to insist? "Difficult, unpopular and unpalatable" was the Secretary of State's description of the cut in invalidity benefit for hundreds of thousands of disabled people. Yet the Minister with responsibility for the disabled seems not only to find it palatable but to delight in rebuking people who, although they may use stronger and more fitting language than the Secretary of State, agree with his right hon. Friend in criticising this very shabby cut. Will the Minister at least go as far as his right hon. Friend's criticism of the cut and describe it as "unpalatable"?
    As the motion says, disabled people mostly wish to live in their own homes ; and there are economic advantages to the nation in helping them to do so. That is why it is so utterly wrong that spending on some of the most essential services for the disabled should be cut by proportionately more than other services. If the Minister questions the scale and severity of cuts in the personal social services as they affect disabled people, let him consult the reports of the very disturbing surveys undertaken by the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Personal Social Services Council, the Spastics Society and other widely respected organisations that have been studying what has been happening since this Government came to power. Even the CBI, in a report of a county survey, has talked of cuts that cause real hardship.
    The findings of all these surveys form a devastating analysis of the effects of the cuts on chronically sick and disabled persons. In analysing what are the Government's unkindest cuts of all, they make the most damning indictment of Government policy. The surveys report cuts in spending on home adaptations, on home helps, on meals-on-wheels, on telephones for home-bound disabled people who are at risk, and on the provision of holidays that can relieve stress on families as well as enrich the lives of disabled people.
    At the conference of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR), which he and I addressed on 21 May, the Minister said that he wanted disabled persons to have an annual holiday under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. He nods his assent today. What action is
    822
    he taking, then, against those who are placing disabled people and their families under increasing strain by cutting back on the provision of holidays under the Act?
    A passage from the report of one of the surveys sticks in my mind particularly. It said that staff cuts at old people's homes in one locality meant that some elderly disabled people would be unable to get up at weekends, as there is no one to dress them. Does our economic survival really depend on causing humiliation and distress to elderly disabled people in this way? In another locality, the mayor's carol concert had to be cancelled because of the cuts. Even the unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge might have taken exception to that. Although Essex's rates are 5p below the national average, and it spends 12 per cent. less on its social services than the average shire county, disabled people in Essex are faced with the payment of 25p a day for attendance at day centres. Is that acceptable to the Minister?
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As always, I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's remarks carefully and with the greatest sympathy and respect. But does he really help his case by over-stating it? If a mayor's carol concert was abandoned because of the cuts, there is something wrong with that mayor. He should have been able, by way of some other funds, a charity or good will, not to have deprived those people. The right hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate.
    Mr. Morris: I am not exaggerating. I am quoting from the report of an important survey that was undertaken by the Association of Directors of Social Services. The directors reported faithfully what has been happening in localities throughout Britain. The case that I quoted was by no means an exception to the rule of vicious cuts as disclosed in the report. I agree with the hon. Member that many of these cuts beggar description. But the House of Commons should be fully aware of what is happening. If a charge of 25p a day in Essex is not acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman, what action did he take after Peter Large of RADAR drew it to his attention in his important letter of 3 June? Is the Minister aware that the proposed charge has been bitterly condemned in

    823
    the county as being more akin to the morals of robbing the poor box than to any well-considered policy of a modern political party? Will he now say unequivocally in this debate that he regards the proposed charge by Essex county council as unacceptable and morally indefensible?
    In a parliamentary reply on 2 May, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had already made it clear to local authorities that he expected—
    "… priority to be given to the needs of the seriously disabled, even at a time of great financial stringency."—[Official Report, 2 May 1980 ; Vol. 983, c. 720.]
    Every study of cuts in personal social services has shown that many local councils looked for quick savings and, in the words of the Personal Social Services Council, there is
    "… little evidence of any attempt to protect vulnerable groups"
    including the seriously disabled. That may look like straight defiance of the Minister, but will not the offending local authorities reply that he is the very last person to ask for priority for the disabled in times of financial stringency? They may well ask what sort of priority he is giving to disabled people who live below the tax threshold on invalidity benefit? The answer is that, from November, he is cutting their living standards by at least 5 per cent. in a brutal act of discrimination against disabled people. So how can he possibly expect anyone to take him seriously?
    The Minister's total lack of credibility is self-inflicted. Speaking in the House of Commons as a Labour Minister only a few years ago he said :
    "…if sacrifices are to be borne, the broadest backs must bear the heaviest sacrifices."—[Official Report, 15 March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 622.]
    Now he says, as a Minister in the present Government :
    "The disabled cannot expect to be exempted from the sacrifices necessary…"
    Either he was wrong before or he is wrong now. If he was walking upright before, he is walking on his head now—and that can be a very compromising posture. What he must not try to claim is that he was right then and that he is still right now, first, because his two statements, imply deeply contradictory philosophies, and, secondly, because no one will believe him.
    824
    By saying that the disabled cannot expect to be exempted from sacrifices, the Minister implies that everyone, including the disabled, is carrying an equal burden under the present Government. Yet that is palpably untrue. While cutting the services and cash help available to the disabled, the Government have crammed £1,500 million into the pockets of the richest 7 per cent. of taxpayers. That is not equality of sacrifice. It is barefaced bias in favour of the strong and fortunate at the expense of many of the most unfortunate people in our society.
    I referred earlier to the letter sent to the Minister on behalf of RADAR by Peter Targe on 3 June. In that letter Mr. Large strongly repudiated the Minister's claim that disabled people were being asked to bear
    "… burdens equal to everyone else."
    He told the Minister that reductions in benefits for the disabled, allied to increases in VAT on essential aids, appliances and services—which non-disabled people do not need—and an inflation rate of more than 20 per cent., made a mockery of the Minister's claim about equal burdens. He went on to say that disabled people are, in fact, hit twice by the Government's policies :
    "… once as ordinary citizens and a second time on account of their disabilities."
    RADAR is not the only major organisation to make that point. The report of the Spastics Society's recent survey says, and I quote from the June 1980 issue of "Spastics News" :
    "… rising food prices, increased rent and rates, higher charges for gas, electricity, fares and petrol are hitting the handicapped harder than anyone else in the community."
    Some of the effects of this in individual cases are spelt out in the report. I invite the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to listen to these examples. We are told, for example, of the case of the 76-year-old mother doing the washing by hand for her doubly incontinent 45-year-old son because she cannot afford a washing machine. Then there is the 50-year-old woman in a wheelchair, living alone, frightened of the central heating bills and having to borrow money from the home help to pay for the shopping.
    The Minister must not, therefore, try to claim that he is only in dispute with the Labour movement. He has been

    825
    criticised by one national organisation after another and with increasing stridency. The Royal Association, for example, has today issued a check list of no fewer than 17 Government attacks on the disabled. He has also been strongly criticised by individuals who have to live with the consequences of his policy. I ask him to listen, for example, to the view of the father of a spina bifida child. In the opinion column of the journal of the Association of Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the father said that the Minister
    "… ought to be fighting for a more humane and caring society, not encouraging a selfish one."
    That is a very bitter comment. There is a similar comment from a hard-pressed woman who wrote recently to her Member of Parliament about the Minister's decision to cut the value of invalidity benefit. She wrote :
    "My husband is 44 and disabled by multiple sclerosis. He is a very sick man and yet his invalidity benefit is to be cut by at least 5 per cent. I wonder if Mrs. Thatcher knows, or understands, the burden of an incurable illness on a poor family. If she does, why add to our punishment?"
    That is not a letter in which the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister can take any pride. Nor can they take any pride or pleasure in the Disablement Income Group's description of what they have done as not just "appalling" but "cruelly unfair".
    This is a Government who kick people if they are down. What makes it even harder for the victims to take that treatment is that the Government's spokesman in this debate is a man who, for more than a generation, argued the Socialist case that, especially in times of economic difficulty, the broadest backs must bear the biggest burdens. He is now an apologist for a Government who pile extra burdens even on people with broken backs. That is why the disabled and their organisations speak so bitterly.
    Voluntary organisations, so blandly assumed by the Secretary of State to be able to step into the breach, cannot possibly make good the cuts inflicted by the Government. They are being starved of funds locally as local authorities cut their grants and as more and more people tighten their belts because of rampant inflation.
    At the election, the Secretary of State said :
    826
    "… charities would benefit as people found that they had more money to give to the charity of their choice after tax cuts."
    That comment looks pretty sick today, yet the voluntary sector is exhorted to play an ever-greater role with ever-decreasing funds.
    In their election manifesto the Conservative Party promised to concentrate help on the sick and disabled and others in greatest need. In office, the Government have gone out of their way to cut the living standards of hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who, as well as being poor, have little prospect of ever returning to work. They are mostly very worried people.
    A further worry for many disabled people and their families is that the Government may be planning to abolish the 3 per cent. employment quota at a time when job prospects for the unemployed but employable disabled are becoming more and more daunting. May we have a plain assurance from the Minister that the quota will not be abolished?
    One other very big worry is the statement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science about his White Paper on the form that new legislation might take to deal with the recommendations of the Warnock committee. In his statement, the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the impression that he thought that the majority of the Warnock proposals were addressed not to him but to local authorities.
    I have been asked by many, including Professor Peter Mittler, to seek a clear assurance that the Government will not shuffle off their responsibilities. Effective implementation of the Warnock proposals will depend very heavily on Government encouragement. Unless the Government take a clear stand, matters will drift on and the level of provision will suffer drastically in many parts of the country. When he replies, I hope that the Minister will address himself to this deeply important matter for disabled children and their families.
    Labour's manifesto commitments to the disabled were more than fully met by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, that Government went very much further than the terms of their commitments in improving both the well-being and the status of the disabled in contemporary society. As was made clear in a recent

    827
    parliamentary reply, the Labour Government increased their spending on cash help specifically for the chronically sick and disabled from £474 million when they came to office in 1974 to £1,574 million in 1979. That was an increase of £1,100 million.
    Again, spending on centrally financed services for the disabled almost trebled. In real terms, they were very substantial improvements and they were achieved in economic conditions of great dfficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should read again some of his speeches as a Labour Minister in the previous Government.
    It is because we did even more than we were pledged to do that we are now entitled to condemn the flat contradiction between the Government's manifesto commitments and the policy that they are now pursuing. We are also entitled to compare what they are doing with the continuing progress that there would have been if the previous Labour Govenment had stayed in office.
    We were pledged in our manifesto last May to introduce a new and comprehensive benefit for the disabled that would vary according to the severity of their disabilities and that would specifically include the blind.
    Mr. James Dempsey: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Morris: A consultative document was being prepared on the new benefit even before the election. As Ministers have no access to the papers of their predecessors, I can assure Conservative Ministers and the House that a great deal of valuable work had been done on what would have been an important document for the disabled.
    That work was immediately discontinued by the present Government, who claimed that no resources would be available in the foreseeable future for any new benefit for the disabled.
    Since then the Government have cultivated two myths in their response to almost all the representations that they have received from or on behalf of the disabled. The first myth is that they inherited an economic mess from the Labour Government, whereas the fact is that the mess is very much of their own making. They know, as we do, that the Government inherited from Labour
    828
    an economy that, even by their own criteria, was in much better shape than any economy that a Labour Government have taken over from a Conservative Administration.
    The Government inherited an economy in which industrial output was high. Inflation was only half what it is now. It was 3 per cent. lower than when the Tories left office and only 1 per cent. above the average for the major industrial countries. Borrowing as a percentage of output was well below the average for other European countries. Unemployment had been falling for 18 months. Living standards had risen by nearly 8 per cent. over the previous year.
    So let the Government stop trying to pass the buck. The buck is theirs. They are faced with their own economic mess, and it is a mess that will worsen if they adhere to the disastrous policies that they are now pursuing.
    The second Tory myth is that the Government's purpose in trying to tackle inflation, which gets worse every day, is to protect the old, the sick and the disabled. On 22 May, when speaking on the Social Security (No. 1) Bill, the Minister had the temerity to say in this House :
    "Therefore, when we put the fight against inflation as our top priority, we are doing it, above all, on behalf of the pensioners, the widows, the chronic sick and others in greatest need."—[Official Report, 22 May 1980 ; Vol. 985, c. 815.]
    That argument, as the Personal Social Services Council has said in a report to be published next month, but from which happily I may quote this afternoon, is at best a half-truth. Indeed, it is barely a quarter-truth. No one denies that the disabled are especially vulnerable to rising costs. But the implication that the options can be reduced to a straight choice between cutting social benefits or economic disaster is essentially false.
    The PSSC's report goes on to stress that the Government have made provision for growth in services such as defence and law and order and for more modest cuts in other services, and that it is thus :
    "… quite unreasonable that the personal social services should be given the lowest priority."
    If the Government's main concern had been to protect the old, the sick and the disabled, they would not have smashed

    829
    the link forged by Labour's Social Security Act 1975 between social benefits and earnings. Nor would they be cutting invalidity benefit from November even for sick and disabled people who are well below the tax threshold. One does not prove one's concern for people by putting them at the top of one's hit list.
    The truth is that, under this Government, the claims of the old, the sick and the disabled, come well below those of the top taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are facts galore to prove that proposition.
    The Labour Party also pledged in its manifesto at the last election to work for the fuller implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It is now 10 years since my Bill received the Royal Assent. The Bill became law entirely without party animus. Indeed, it won the active support of both sides of both Houses of Parliament. It was a Bill designed to improve not only the well-being but also the status of long-term sick and disabled people in contemporary society. Millions have been helped by its provisions, directly or indirectly, since it was enacted in 1970.
    To give just two brief details about services provided under section 2 of the Act, more than 100,000 telephones have been installed in the homes of disabled people and well over 300,000 home adaptations have been made, ranging from a ramp or a stair lift to a complete extra room. I do not, however, want to catalogue the Act's achievements today. My concern is rather to ensure that the battle for full implementation of all the Act's provisions is won.
    In this regard, it is disturbing to note the comments of Mr. Peter Westland, who is responsible for social services at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and who spoke immediately after the right hon. Gentleman at RADAR's meeting on 21 May. Mr. Westland said :
    "We have heard this afternoon the usual Ministerial plea ' Don't blame central Government for local aberrations ; we have told local authorities to protect the most vulnerable.' The most vulnerable, of course, alter to fit the Minister's audience. At the same time, Ministers cut the estimates for the personal social services by 7 per cent.
    "This is sheer double-talk. The facile advice to local government by Ministers, at a succession of meetings, is something which
    830
    local government really ought not to tolerate for very much longer…
    "To attribute to us the moral decisions which the government is backing out of is really not acceptable and ought to be rejected totally."
    I am now often asked about the advice that I received on the legal effect of the Act when I was Minister for the Disabled. It was quite unequivocal. Once a local authority has accepted that the need exists in respect of one of the services listed in section 2, it is incumbent upon the authority to make arrangements to meet that need. Furthermore I was advised, as I said in a public speech at Ebbw Vale in 1977, that services provided under section 2 may not be withdrawn if there is no reduction of need. Again, as the Ombudsman made plain in 1976, successive Ministers have been advised legally that a local authority cannot plead lack of money as a reason for not meeting need under the Act.
    Some local authorities, no doubt because of this Government's deplorable attitude to the personal social services, now appear to be flouting the law. The Director of Social Services for the borough of Trafford wrote to Mr. Paul Walker, the executive director of the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain, to say :
    "I am sorry to tell you that there is no money available for the provision of this lift during the current financial year…it became necessary to call a halt to all aids and adaptations to avoid overspending on the budget. Whilst I have every sympathy for this particular case, I very much regret that there is no further action that I can usefully take during this financial year".
    The case was that of a boy with muscular dystrophy whose father had already had a heart attack from carrying him up and down stairs. The case was publicised in the Manchester Evening News and the following day, the Trafford lottery awarded the local branch of the Muscular Dystrophy Group £1,100 for the provision of the lift.
    When the case was referred to him, the Minister replied that the need had been met and so the local authority was not breaking the law, although presumably the general policy still stood leaving many others with unmet needs.
    This Government have given several well-informed people the impression that they have decided to apply a self-denying ordinance never to use their default

    831
    powers. If Ministers have so decided, I am advised that they themselves may be acting illegally.
    What the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is all about is enabling disabled people to be a part of and not apart from society. It is about helping them to live in their own homes. To frustrate the Act's central purpose is to face many disabled people with the biggest cut of all, that of being cut off from the families they love. For them Tory freedom, as practised by some local authorities, can mean having to sacrifice their independence because of so-called economies on the aids necessary to keep them in the community.
    Giving disabled people the right help in the right place at the right time is as much in the interests of taxpayers and ratepayers as it is of the beneficiaries themselves. What so often happens if disabled people lack adequate financial support and services is that they are forced into hospitals or other kinds of institutional care. And it costs a great deal more to look after them there than it does to help them to look after themselves at home.
    That was one important justification for the Labour Government's rapid and substantial increase in spending on disabled people. It also explains why the present Government's policies are so widely feared and resented among disabled people.
    Mr. Jack Hanson, the Director of Social Services for Dorset, said in a letter to The Times earlier this year that, as cuts in public expenditure on the personal social services began to bite, there would be many instances of home adaptations for disabled people being delayed or refused. He went on :
    "The risk of breakdown, leading to expensive health care not only for the disabled individual but also for other members of the family, is heightened. Is this what society wants? It seems far more constructive—and cost effective—for social policies to aim at strengthening families rather than tearing them apart."
    "Tearing families apart" is perhaps the gravest charge to have been made against the Government. Yet Mr. Hanson was not writing from any political viewpoint. His pen is that of a socially concerned public servant of wide experience in the field of helping disabled and other disadvantaged people.
    832
    He knows, as I do, and as the House as a whole should know, that some of the Government's actions are shortening the horizons, humbling the ambitions and demeaning the dignity of disabled people. That is morally wrong ; and it cannot be politically right. It is also extremely sad and disturbing—and an issue that warrants support for our motion from all parts of the House.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weathe rill): Order. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.47 pm
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): I beg to move, to leave out from "so" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
    "recognises that, as two of the largest spending programmes, Social Security and Health and Personal Social Services must make some contribution to the inescapable reduction in public spending required by the economic situation inherited by the Government last year ; welcomes the valuable and increasing services for disabled people provided by the voluntary sector ; and looks forward to the Government giving a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people when additional resources become available.".
    The problems of disabled people have been discussed in the House on many occasions in recent years. A general feature of them is that the debates have been bipartisan, with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House with concern and experience in these problems joining together in trying to find a joint answer to them. It is very sad that the Opposition have seen fit to put on the Order Paper a contentious motion, apparently leading to a Division, moved in the exaggerated language to which the House has just listened.
    The bipartisan approach still prevails throughout the country. It prevails on dozens of social services committees of local authorities on which members of all parties work together without party division. It prevails—and I am glad that it does—on the all-party disablement group of this House, in which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House work together in co-operation and without partisanship.
    I put it to the Opposition that, whatever pressure they are under from militant elements outside the House to step

    833
    up their attacks on the Government, if they make pawns of disabled people they are doing a disservice to them. It is a matter of very great regret that they have gone down this road.
    Let us look at the two main points in the Opposition motion. The first is the reference to the 5 per cent. abatement in what otherwise would have been the uprating for invalidity benefit next November. I shall discuss it fairly briefly as hon. Members will not want to go over the debates that took place when the Social Security (No. 2) Bill was before the House recently.
    I have described the proposal in language similar to that of my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members. My notes were prepared before I came into the Chamber, and they contain the word "unpalatable". It is a word that I have used many times. This proposal and others in that Bill were unpalatable to all of us but were a necessary part in reducing social security expenditure under the Government's economic strategy. As such they were accepted by the House by a large majority, and are now being debated in another place.
    The specific proposals for a 5 per cent. abatement in the uprating of invalidity and other benefits were seen and described as temporary expedients until we can introduce a proper system of taxation for those benefits. My right hon. Friend has given assurances that we see the abatement as temporary, and it will be changed when circumstances alter.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, even in a time of economic stringency, some services should not be cut? How can he justify cutting these services while supporting increased defence expenditure?
    Mr. Prentice: I could make a long speech about why I support increases in defence expenditure, particularly in view of what has happened in Afghanistan. However, I shall not do so now. The choice of cuts in the social security budget was difficult. They were made with great sensitivity, avoiding unnecessary hardship to the poorest in the community.
    The Opposition motion refers to
    "the Government's decision to reduce the living standards of large numbers of the poorest disabled people".
    834
    That is not true. The poorest disabled people are eligible for supplementary benefits, which will be uprated in November, without the 5 per cent. abatement, in line with the expected rise in prices. That safety net remains immune. In addition, disabled people in receipt of supplementary benefit will now be able to move from the short-term to the long-term in one year instead of two. They will also get the benefit of the much higher levels of assistance with fuel costs, announced in recent weeks. Making calculations based on the merging of the middle and upper rate of benefit and on the very much higher upper rate of £3·40 a week, many disabled people will benefit to the extent of £78 a year. The poorest disabled people are better off as a result of the measures taken by this Government than they would have been under the arrangements that we inherited.
    Mr. Stanley Newens: Local authorities such as Essex, by increasing charges, for instance, for those attending day care centres, and spending that money on telephone charges, are hitting the very poorest, and that is a result of this Government's policies. If the hon. Gentleman does not want the poorest to be treated in that way, will he say that he disagrees with the policy of the Essex county council and other local authorities?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's intervention had nothing to do with what I was saying. I shall come to the role of local authorities and the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I was dealing with invalidity pensioners and state benefits.
    The power to make charges has been part of the legal provision since 1948. Many local authorities have made charges. However, they also have the power to remit or reduce them for those with the lowest incomes. I hope that, if local authorities see fit to impose charges for, say, attendance at an occupational therapy centre, they will be sensitive to the position of those on the lowest incomes in order to make sure that people are not prevented from getting the services that they need. I believe that 99½ per cent. of councillors throughout the country would agree with that view.
    Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I may have to re-write my speech in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's

    835
    answer. The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State states clearly in a letter that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will not meet the extra cost of home helps. That is a real cut. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that that decision no longer stands?
    Mr. Prentice: There never can be a situation where automatically the Supplementary Benefits Commission is expected to pay for a service that local authorities do not pay for. There can never be total integration. We have made our view clear. Local authorities should not make charges for home helps for people on supplementary benefit. The hon. Gentleman's intervention gives me the chance to reiterate that.
    The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) concentrated most of his speech on the other element of the motion. The key words are
    "the Government's planned reduction in personal social services".
    There has been no overall planned reduction by local authorities so far. It is unfair for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, for party political reasons, to raise anxieties among vulnerable people. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said provided evidence that there was a planned reduction. I was waiting for evidence to support what he said in The Times yesterday, when he spoke of a 7 per cent. planned reduction in expenditure. He referred to that figure in his speech.
    Let us put the matter in perspective. The Government have asked local authorities throughout Britain to rein back on their original spending plans and play their part in saving public expenditure. Within the social services budget there is often scope for savings that will not affect services to the vulnerable individual. For example, North-hamptonshire county council plans to make a reduction in its headquarters staff in order to administer services more economically. It plans a modest charge for attendance centres, similar to that suggested for Essex, but has decided to maintain in every particular the services available to the chronically sick and disabled.
    It is typical of local authorities throughout Britain that the county council has reflected the repeated requests of my
    836
    right hon. Friend, my colleagues in the Department and myself to avoid cuts that would affect the most vulnerable—not that I think that they needed to be asked, because councillors are just as committed and concerned as is any hon. Member.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: When I used the figure of 7 per cent., I was quoting Mr. Peter Westland, who is an expert on social services with the AMA. That was the figure that he gave at the RADAR conference at which the Minister spoke. In the London borough of Redbridge, part of which is represented by the Secretary of State, there is a charge for home helps for those on supplementary benefit. The Minister has said that he is in total disagreement with such action. Will he advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to go to Redbridge and repudiate that authority's action?
    Mr. Prentice: If what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend. If it is not correct, I shall have another word with the right hon. Gentleman. If we believe in local government, and I should have thought that every democrat does so, we must accept that there will be variations. It is easy, but unfair, to conduct such a debate by generalising from the worst examples.
    I turn to the overall picture. The 7 per cent. figure was extracted from last year's public expenditure White Paper. Anyone who has studied the history of such White Papers will recognise the simple truth of what Treasury spokesmen have said under all Governments, namely, that figures written into such White Papers, particularly those relating to local government expenditure, do not reflect policy or even Estimates. They are working assumptions of what it is felt is likely to happen.
    We can now look at what has happened. The real level of expenditure on personal social services in 1979–80 rose by about 3 per cent. compared with the previous year. If one wants to make a party point, that year was approximately the first 12 months during which the Government were in office.
    The figures for local authority projects for 1980–81 show a further increase. I say that with caution, because we are still in the first quarter of that financial

    837
    year and in a demand-led service one cannot tell what has been spent until the year is over.
    However, at present, I can say with some confidence that there will be some increase—I do not want to put a figure on it—in 1980–81. In other words, what has happened in the recent past is happening now and is likely to happen in the near future is a modest increase—not as much as most of us would want to see in an ideal world—in the provision made by local authorities for those with whom the debate is concerned.
    Mr. David Ennals: Is the right hon. Gentleman rewriting the White Paper published in November, or is he saying that there are some new figures, different from those in the White Paper, which are being studied by the Select Committee?
    Mr. Prentice: Anyone who has studied public expenditure White Papers over the years, irrespective of which party has been in office, will realise that many figures turn out to have been wrong. That is even more likely when the Treasury writes in figures related to policies implemented by local government rather than by central Government. Obviously the Cabinet has a more direct control over the central Government expenditure. I am stating the present picture as accurately as I can. The facts contradict the Opposition motion.
    The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has been a success story. I have often paid tribute to the part that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe played in the inception of the Act and I am glad to repeat the tribute, though he will agree that there were members of all political parties in the House on his original list of sponsors, that the proposal was accepted with universal support in both Houses and that the implementation of the Act over the past 10 years has been carried out under Governments and local authorities of both parties. It is a success story which reflects credit on, above all, local government.
    If we have to play party games in these matters, and I wish that we did not, I can say that the fastest increase in the growth of provision under the Act took place during the period of office of the
    838
    Conservative Government of the early 1970s. The increases in the three years following 1971 were 11 per cent. 17 per cent. and 15 per cent. In the five years of the succeeding Labour Government, when the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was the Minister responsible for the disabled, the increase was 10·7 per cent.—less in five years than in any one of three successive years of the Conservative Government. Therefore, the Opposition are not entitled to put on their usual act of pretending to have a monopoly of compassion in these matters.
    Of course, much more is needed. The Act proclaimed standards that it would take many years to realise in practice. Indeed, they have not yet been realised. There is a long way to go. I repeat the Government's total commitment to continue to make a progressive success of the implementation of the Act. We are as committed to it as have been any Government of either party in the past 10 years.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: If that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why his party opposed the modest amendments to the Act that I proposed in a Private Member's Bill?
    Mr. Prentice: I shall gladly do so if the right hon. Gentleman, who held office in the previous Government, will explain why that had to be done in a Private Member's Bill.
    Amendments have been suggested from both sides of the argument. The Association of County Councils has suggested an amendment that would lessen the reserve powers of the central Government in relation to the activities of local government. The association has not pressed that suggestion in recent months and I assure the House that we have no proposal for an amendment along those lines in the forseeable future.
    The intention of the right hon. Member for Salford. West (Mr. Orme) was to strengthen the power of the central Government over local government. I would vigorously resist such a move. The increase in the provision of services over the past 10 years—they have almost doubled in real terms—has been basically a triumph for local government. I do not believe that Ministers and civil servants in London are better able to deal

    839
    with the detailed problems of Brighton, Manchester, Liverpool or Salisbury.
    There would have to be local administration and a director of social services in every locality in any case. I do not believe that the service would be better if those officials were simply district officers of the DHSS. It is much better that they should be responsible to locally elected councils. If we accept local government, we must accept that there will be variations and that there will be bad examples as well as good examples. Generally, I think that the better local authorities have acted as pacemakers for the others, and that is a healthy situation.
    If it were a uniform, national service there might be less variation, but I believe that the average provision would be worse and such a system would be a blow to the democratic principles in which we all believe.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I share the view that, as far as possible, local authorities ought to be allowed to run their own affairs. The best is the enemy of the good in this area. However, would he not consider intervening when an abysmally bad local authority completely ignored the needs of the disabled?
    Mr. Prentice: If, to quote the hon. Gentleman, a local authority is completely ignoring the needs of the disabled, it is in breach of a statutory duty and there are default powers that can be used. I have had no need in recent years to make increased use of default powers. On the other hand, if one is in a grey area where local authorities are not thought to be doing well enough but are not necessarily in breach of a statutory duty, this is surely what local democracy is all about. Local councillors are responsible to local communities. People within those communities can make their views clear and, if necessary, elect different councillors. This relates to the subject we are discussing or any other responsibility of local government.
    We are discussing a period of time in which provision, in real terms, has approximately doubled. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe gave some examples. I should like to give more. In terms of personal aids for the disabled individual, at the beginning of the decade
    840
    about 118,000 had been issued. The latest figure available is 237,000, twice as many. In terms of homes to which structural alterations have been made, the figures have moved from 28,000 a decade ago to 68,000. The number of occupational therapists employed by local authorities was almost nil 10 years ago. Today there are over 500. Many authorities are trying to make new appointments but find that not enough trained people are available. This progress is continuing because of the overall figures that I quoted to the House.
    A debate on disablement could cover a great many other topics. I want to refer to some. The Opposition speak as though the Government have been working against the interests of the disabled. I should like to list a few of the achievements that we have made in spite of overall economic restraints. I have already mentioned two achievements—the large improvement in help with paying fuel bills, and the fact that people were moved from the short-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term rate in one year instead of two.
    A third achievement has been the raising of the mobility allowance by a total of 45 per cent. in the two upratings announced by this Government. Fourthly, there was the phasing in of the mobility allowance for people aged between 60 and 65 in one tranche instead of two as proposed by the outgoing Government and more rapidly than they had proposed. Fifthly, there was the removal of value added tax from cars leased by Motability, and, sixthly, the exemption of war widows' pension from income tax.
    Seventhly, there has been an improvement in war pensions appeal tribunal procedures. Eighthly, there has been an extension of war pension entitlement to amputees who developed cardio vascular disease. Ninthly, there are proposals, still in a consultative form but published, to alter and improve the industrial injuries scheme so that a greater part of the benefit goes to the most severely disabled. It will be carried out on a nil cost basis and reallocated in a fairer way for the severely disabled. Tenthly, changes were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget to help charities, many of whom do invaluable work in helping disabled people.

    841
    Five further achievements include maintenance of the real value of grants made by the Department to the voluntary bodies and an increase in the real value of joint funding schemes between the Health Service and local authorities. I have recently initiated work in discussions with British Airways and aircraft manufacturers to improve facilities for disabled people travelling with airlines. There has been continued progress on access to buildings in close consultations between the Department, the Department of the Environment and the committee on restrictions against disabled people. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has accepted proposals of the Warnock committee for handicapped children.
    The "Fit for Work" campaign launched by the Manpower Services Commission is supported actively and personally by Ministers in the Department of Employment, the Department of Industry and the Department I represent. Thousands of employers have been reached with the message that they could do more to offer employment to disabled people who have a contribution to make to production in this country.
    Those are 15 examples—I could give more—but none was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. The right hon. Gentleman is totally oblivious of the real world in which he lives : Alfred goes on burning the cakes.
    To those who ask whether this is good enough, my reply is that of course it is not good enough. We never have done enough for disabled people. We can and must do a great deal more. That is why the Government amendment, in its closing words, speaks of
    "giving a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people when additional resources become available."
    That is a pledge in the clearest terms. It is probably the best among many good reasons for making sure that this country earns more resources so that we can carry it out.
    Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before calling the next speaker, I remind the House that the debate is due to end at about 7 pm. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I have no auth
    842
    ority to limit speeches, but speeches of not more than 10 minutes will enable most people to be called.
    5.17 pm
    Mr. Jack Ashley: We have just heard a speech that will discourage, depress and dismay many disabled people all over Britain. It was one of the most remarkable speeches that I have ever heard. All those disabled people who see reports of the speech will find it incredible that the Minister contrived to make it appear as if the Government were acting like Santa Claus for the disabled—the man in the red cloak with the white beard handing out gifts to disabled people. It is remarkable how the Minister could distort the facts. Disabled people will be incredulous that he could make a case defending cuts in their living standards.
    It does not matter what excuses are made. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is an instrument of a Government making a complete and far-reaching change in policy towards the disabled. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the all-party approach, I regret that such an approach cannot be maintained. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has done as much for disabled people as any hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House and, indeed, in the whole House of Commons. We have worked together in the all-party group. The Minister is the man responsible for breaking the bi-partisan approach. The change in policy is not the fault, as he states, of militants who are seeking to stoke up the fires. Those people who walked with me yesterday did not really walk. They were pushed, they were carried, They were wheeled. They were not Trots. They were not Reds under the bed. They were simply disabled people expressing their concern about Government policy. That is quite different from what the Minister stated, that they were militants. Perhaps I was duped. Perhaps they had come from Russia and wiped the snow off demonstration. Perhaps I am not deaf, but blind, and could not see the snow on their boots. Possibly they were KGB agents—but I do not think so. The demonstrators spoke to me during and after the march.
    The Minister said that the demonstration was phoney. I arrived at the

    843
    demonstration at 10.45 am, before most people. At that time a man in a wheelchair had arrived from Wales. He had left home at 6.30 am and was driven to London with his young son. He had taken all that trouble to be present at the demonstration against the Government's policy towards the disabled. He planned to return home to Wales that night, and he would have arrived home exhausted after a day in London. There was nothing phoney about that.
    I met a group of young spastics. Their bodies were shaking uncontrollably. Most of them could not speak. There was nothing phoney about them.
    I told a group of blind men what the Minister had said in Westminster Hall. Most of the blind people were indignant, but one was not. He smiled rather sadly, handed me his white stick and said "Tell Reg Prentice that there is nothing phoney about that".
    The charge that militants are stirring up trouble about the Government's policy on the disabled is totally unjustified. I repudiate the Minister's assertion that the demonstration was phoney. It was not a large demonstration, and I should have liked to see more there, but it was genuine and sincere. The Minister should be more careful before making wild allegations.
    The Minister's speech revealed a striking failure to appreciate the appalling problems of severely disabled people. If he wants to argue about what disablement really means I am prepared to argue with him. However, I wonder whether he really understands the burden, the difficulties, the heartbreak, the humiliation, the frustration and, above all, the costs of disablement. Cuts in any service for disabled people are doubly damaging. They are far more damaging than similar cuts in services to able-bodied people. That is why disabled people are speaking out clearly and strongly.
    How can one tell a paralysed man who is imprisoned in a wheelchair that he must accept his share of the nation's economic burden? How can one tell a badly crippled housewife that she must accept the philosophy of everybody standing on his own two feet? How can one indicate to a mentally handicapped child that if he is patient social services
    844
    will be improved as the balance of payments improve?
    Disabled people have been buffeted throughout the ages. They have been the victims of public neglect, indifference, disdain, scorn and even contempt. From time immemorial they have heard excuses about the inability to act now. There is always a reason why they cannot be helped now. Sometimes the excuse is that more research is necessary, or that more anomalies will be created. Sometimes it is that improvements to their lot will deprive other deserving cases. Sometimes the excuse is the state of the economy. Clichés roll of the tongues of Government spokesmen.
    Under the Labour Government massive increases in benefits were given to the disabled. I do not want to bore the House with figures. Four major benefits were given and over £1,000 million was paid out in cash benefits. I am prepared to use the statistical argument, but I do not want to. The Minister went through a list of 15 benefits for the disabled which his Government had granted. I can beat that with 16 damaging actions by his Government. I did not intend to read the list because I wanted to make a short speech, but I must give tit for tat. One of the many failings in my character is that I cannot turn the other cheek when attacked. In exchange for the 15 examples of the beneficial effects of the Government's policies, I shall provide 16 aspects of policy which damage disabled people. I could give more.
    The first damaging action is the breaking of the link between benefits and the rise in earnings. The second is the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit. The third is the change in the linking period to make it more difficult to qualify for invalidity benefit. The fourth is the increase in VAT from 8 to 15 per cent., which hits disabled people with small incomes, in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
    The fifth damaging action is the increase in prescription charges from 20p to £1. The sixth is the abolition of exceptional needs payment for disabled people who are not drawing supplementary benefit. The seventh is the failure to make good the shortfall in benefits arising from the miscalculation of the rise in earnings and prices. The eighth is the reduction

    845
    in the long-term rates of supplementary benefit.
    The ninth damaging action is the abolition of the additional supplementary benefit to pay for a local authority home help. The tenth is the abolition of earnings-related supplements to sickness benefit. The eleventh is the abolition of space standards for council housing—the Parker Morris standards—which will make houses even less accessible for wheelchairs. The twelfth is the removal of the duty on local authorities to report proposals for wheelchair and mobility housing.
    The thirteenth damaging action is the reduction in the number of skillcentre places. The fourteenth is the abolition of occupational guidance units. The fifteenth is the failure to provide money for integrated education. The sixteenth is the reduction by 7 per cent. in planned expenditure on personal social services.
    I am sorry to have rushed through that list, but we were challenged by the Minister. I am indebted to Mr. Peter Mitchell the splendid research officer of RADAR, for help with that list.
    I do not like this tit-for-tat argument. We must try to get down to the nub of the problem, which is how we can best help disabled people. How can we, between us, somehow further the solution of their problem? It is a question of the attitude of the Government. I am fed up with the repetition of the phrase—the right hon. Gentleman repeated it today—that members of the Opposition do not have a monopoly of compassion. The House will know that I have a special interest in the safety of drugs. I have been pursuing that question for almost five years on the issue of reporting adverse reactions and on the work of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
    We had a debate on that subject a few weeks ago, and the Under-Secretary, who I hope will answer this debate, managed to drag in the same irrelevant phrase. He said that I must not believe that I had a monopoly of compassion. I have never claimed that. I raised the question with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about six months ago, and he said that I must not pretend that I had a monopoly of compassion. Lo and behold, I had not even spoken this after
    846
    noon when the Minister said that I must not assume that I had a monopoly of compassion.
    I do not claim that. I am just trying to help disabled people. If we are to assess the basic philosophy of the Government, let us take—I hope that I shall be challenged if I misquote or take remarks out of context—the words of the present Minister with responsibility for the disabled, who said on 26 July 1979 to the Royal National Institute for the Blind :
    "I would not insult disabled people by suggesting that they can contract out of Government problems."
    To judge from the right hon. Gentleman's performance so far, there is no danger of his insulting disabled people in that way. I believe, however, that he has insulted them by his failure to advance the provisions for the severely disabled.
    The major problem is the shortfall in invalidity benefit. That is only in the short term. The more serious long-term problem is the severance of the link between retirement pensions and prices and earnings, whichever is the higher.
    I believe that the harsh climate that has been engendered by the Government is damaging. The Association of Directors of Social Services has given evidence that directly contradicts what the right hon. Gentleman said today. They are the men who are working at the grass roots with the disabled and with local councils. I appreciate the Minister's argument about no long waiting lists, but those directors of social services have given voluminous and overwhelming evidence of the failure to provide adequate services for the disabled.
    The greatest danger is that the harsh climate engendered by the Government means that we may emasculate the strength of and the help, little as it is, given to the severely disabled. There is a possibility that all disabled people, but especially the severely disabled, will succumb to pressures. They may become demoralised and give up.
    I hope that they will not do that. I hope too, that they will not be deterred by Ministers calling them phoneys. I trust that they will make their voices heard and that they will express their anger and their indignation. I hope that they will demonstrate with

    847
    the spirit with which they demonstrated yesterday, and I hope that they will not be satisfied until they have secured justice and independence.
    5.35 pm
    Mr. David Price: As I think the whole House knows, I am a member of a disabled family. We do not have many debates on disability and it is tempting, therefore, to try to make a major contribution in a discussion of the way we try to help our disabled fellow citizens.
    As the House knows, disability comes in many shapes and sizes. However, I shall respond to your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be brief. I take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that we should attempt to find points upon which most of us can agree.
    One of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there is a great deal of unfulfilled need among the disabled. We cannot argue about that. I believe that it is also correct to put that fact into juxtaposition with points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) which highlighted the progress that has been made. It is a curious thing that as we make progress we identify more and more need among the disabled. I believe that those needs are virtually unlimited.
    That leads me to the substantial point on which I hope I can carry the House. Our object must be so to arrange matters in our society that more and more of our severely disabled fellow citizens can be accommodated as full and equal members of society. That would mean going a great deal further than the mere provision of physical facilities.
    The shorthand for achieving that honourable objective is integration. It is reasonable to ask what we mean by integration in this context. The briefest and most succinct way of describing to the House what I mean by integration is to quote from the report of Lord Snowdon's working party. Lord Snowdon and his colleagues said that
    "Integration for the disabled means a thousand things. It means the absence of segregation. It means social acceptance. It means being able to be treated like everybody else. It means the right to work, to go to cinemas, to enjoy outdoor sport, to have a
    848
    family life and a social life and a love life, to contribute materially to the community, to have the usual choices of association, movement and activity, to go on holiday to the usual places, to be educated up to university level with one's unhandicapped peers, to travel without fuss on public transport. Whatever their different circumstances, all disabled people yearn for a society which palpably recognises their common humanity with the handicapped."
    It is my view that the key to all this lies in the words "common humanity."
    To me this means that disabled people must be able to retain their integrity however restricted their physical or mental capabilities may be. They must be helped by society, but they must not be patronised by society. That is a subtle but important difference in our approach to these matters. I put it to my right hon. Friends that the ideal is contained in Disraeli's great vision of one, rather than two, nations.
    The numbers we are speaking of are massive. Right and hon. Members will know that Amelia Harris in her report produced a figure of over I million disabled people. She was not, of course, including children. I think, therefore, that a fair figure is of the order of 1,250,000 disabled people. That is a massive proportion of a population of 58 million people.
    It is also clear that, although the numbers are massive, the needs vary equally massively. The difference between the requirements of the blind, the requirements of the spinal paraplegic and the requirements of the serious schizophrenic are all different. I, therefore, suggest that what we require is not a single, but a comprehensive approach to disability. I do not make a party point when I say that if ever the word comprehensive was capable of being used as a description of public policy, it is in relation to the disabled.
    I suggest therefore that this demands a continuing partnership between central Government, local Government, the voluntary societies, the families concerned and, above all, the individual disabled person. Therefore, by definition, there is no simple textbook answer to how we as a society should look after our disabled fellow citizens, especially at the level of central Government.
    I agree very much with my right hon. Friend the Minister about the role of local authorities in this matter and about the

    849
    many ways in which they could be more sensitive to immediate needs. However, there is one message that comes through loud and clear from every national report, from every personal study of disability and from all our personal cumulative experience. It concerns the financial needs of severely disabled people. It is to the central Government that they turn.
    Put simply, disability means loss of earnings, extra cost and severe restrictions on the quality of life. The first two aspects of that statement are obvious. The third may need more explanation, however. There is much evidence to show that money widens the range of choice for the disabled person, because that person is then equipped to buy the services that may be needed to make life more tolerable and even enjoyable. The present arrangements for providing financial help for disabled people have no logical foundation. Two people with equal handicaps and equal needs can receive widely differing financial help to meet those needs. Thus, although some disabled people obtain reasonable financial help for their disabilities through, for instance, the war pension scheme, the industrial injuries scheme, or, if they are fortunate, through compensation through the courts, many do not.
    I am sure that many hon. Members have read the comprehensive study of The Economist Intelligence Unit entitled "Whose Benefit?". It is an essential work for anyone who wishes to express views on how to improve public policy towards the disabled. Nobody who reads it can disagree with the conclusion reached in it that the present system is
    "a rag-bag of provisions based on a variety of principles, some of them relating to a bygone social order."
    All of us who have studied these matters for any length of time and in any depth know that The Economist is profoundly right in that definition. I therefore invite the Government to implement one of the main proposals of the report of The Economist that
    "a new Beveridge is needed."
    In short, we need a wide-ranging independent report upon how the whole system of financial help to the disabled, or the lack of it, should be restructured, and we need an understanding from the
    850
    Government that the findings of such a report will be implemented.
    I realise that this is not a particularly favourable moment at which to invite my right hon. Friends to consider spending more public money upon the disabled. Eventually, however, more money will have to be spent, both proportionately and absolutely. Anyone who studies this area of public policy is driven indisputably to that conclusion. I therefore invite my right hon. Friends to acknowledge this fact, however unpalatable it may be.
    This is, however, a favourable moment at which to conduct a new Beveridge inquiry along the lines that I and The Economist would like. Inquiries take a bit of time to carry out ; and I would hope that by the time the report with its conclusions was in the hands of my right hon. Friends the economy would be in such a flourishing condition that they would have not the slightest difficulty in implementing it immediately.
    Although on this occasion the Government have erred in the treatment of invalidity pensions, I reject the Opposition's charge that they have irretrievably put fiscal rectitude ahead of human compassion. There is nothing immoral in treating invalidity benefit the same as the old-age pension for tax purposes. It was an error, however, to jump the gun on the uprating figures for this autumn. That I regret.
    Certainly we on the Conservative Benches will expect my right hon. Friends to rectify this error in the years to come, especially if that can be done in the context of a gradual move towards a new and properly structured disablement benefit scheme. We will naturally expect my right hon. Friends to honour their amendment on the Order Paper and to ensure that they give
    "a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people."
    I invite the Government to be good Samaritans. The good Samaritan was a good neighbour, but I have no evidence that he was also an improvident spender. After all, he spent his own money. I can therefore accept the Government's qualification
    "when additional resources become available."
    I invite the House to do the same.
    5.45 pm
    Dr. M. S. Miller: In a thoughtful and obviously well-studied speech, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) raised a number of questions, which I am sure will occupy the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and made a number of proposals, which both sides of the House would do well to consider. Of course, a Conservative Government are in office, and his views and recommendations should therefore be directed to that quarter.
    In a time of difficulty it is all the more important that we should look after those in our society who are least able to cope with the problems of that society. We should support them even more than we would in normal circumstances. The hon. Member had a very caring attitude towards the disabled.
    We all have constituents who are disabled. We have accepted, as we are entitled to accept, the responsibility to help them to lead lives as nearly normal as their circumstances permit. If I judge him correctly, the hon. Member for Eastleigh was moving towards a disablement income of some kind.
    The Minister read a list of 15 ways in which assistance had been given in recent years. That list was topped by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). However, the assistance given to disabled people, welcome as it is, is merely the beginning of the process. Even if it is handled perfectly it is only the start, and a start that we ought to be expanding, not contracting.
    With the difficulties that the country is facing, we should establish priorities of some kind. The disabled, however they are disabled, should be given a high priority. Our constituencies contain disabled of all kinds—the blind, the deaf, the physically and mentally handicapped and the chronically ill. They all need more than our sympathetic consideration—they need all the help that they can get.
    The hon. Member for Eastleigh was right in saying that they should not all be lumped together as one homogeneous group. They are not a homogeneous group. It is likely that they have only one common factor, namely, that they are disabled, but they are different in
    852
    their physical and mental handicaps and in their psychological outlook. They therefore need assistance which is not put in a rag bag but which is to a great extent shaped to the individuality of those receiving it in terms of their physical, mental and psychological out look.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred to attitude. I am not claiming that the Labour Party has a monopoly of caring, but I wish to cite an example of attitude. Some years ago a constituent phoned me in a state of panic. She had been badly disabled as a result of polio in her youth, and wore two callipers. She was small in stature. She had retired from an arduous bookkeeping job which involved travelling from her home to Glasgow every day, despite her tremendous disability. She lived in a municipal house, and she asked me to look at the house because she had a problem. She had adapted the house at her own expense to meet the needs of her disability. All the facilities, such as the kitchen and the bathroom, were adapted to a level such that she could operate. It was a lovely house which had cost her a good deal of money to adapt.
    The house was being renovated by the then local authority. It sent some mindless minor minion to see her, and she said "I hope that the house will be renovated to the specifications that I need ". He said "You know Mrs., we cannot do that because it is possible that, when you have gone, the house will be allocated to a normal person ". That is the sort of attitude to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred. Fortunately, a phone call to the chief executive of the council put the matter right. When I returned to see the lady some time after the work had been completed, the renovations had been carried out to her specifications.
    I know of another case that illustrates quite clearly that assistance should be geared to specific needs. A constituent of mine suffers from a severe spastic disability, with cerebral palsy. He was a guinea pig for a new vehicle called a maximum contact chair, a number of which are being developed. In spite of the fact that he was responsible, to some extent, for the development of the chair, he has found it impossible to obtain one I hesitate to lay the blame firmly at the

    853
    door of the Government, but I think that it is because of cuts in spending—which are essential in the Government's mind—that the development of the chair is not taking place as fast as it should. We need assistance tailored to the requirements of the individual. Sometimes we even need personal assistance on an individual basis. We should not regard the disabled as one group.
    I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall conclude with a philosophical, albeit a platitudinous, remark, which should be uttered. The hallmark of a caring society lies in the provision that it makes for those who are most in need. There is no doubt in the minds of those who are concerned that high among that category are the disabled. Regardless of what the Minister says, I consider it an act of callous neglect that the disabled should be included among the victims of the Government's axe.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. John Hannam: It is a short debate, and I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to take part. While I share the deep concern that has been expressed by other hon. Members about the effect of present economic conditions on the disabled and handicapped, I do not feel inclined to support the Opposition motion in the Lobby tonight. The disabled, like everyone else in our community, are prepared to make some sacrifices in the interests of achieving overall national stability in the economy. They know, as well as anyone, that, given the available resources, Conservative Governments have done more in the area of personal social services than the low-growth Labour Administrations. Our expenditure on personal social services rose more in the early part of the 1970s—when I first entered Parliament—than it did during the whole period of the previous Labour Government, because the Conservative Government achieved more growth in the economy than did the Labour Administration. That is why I cannot support the Opposition motion.
    As usual, we are having a thoughtful and constructive debate on disablement. I should like to continue in that vein. However, I wish to apply some strictures and reservations on the method of achieving savings in public expenditure on
    854
    which we have embarked. The Government amendment is right to refer to the need for some cuts. It is also right to refer to the need to allow the disabled to live independent lives.
    In my short speech I wish to point out one or two areas where I believe the Government need to lay down some basic minimum standards for the protection of the disabled. I know that I shall diverge from the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister when I make my comments.
    First, my right hon. Friend has repeatedly asked local authorities to protect personal social services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 when making expenditure cuts. However, all the evidence from the various monitoring surveys shows that his words have not been heeded by a large number of local authorities. Services to the disabled are being seriously and disproportionately affected. If we were living in an ideal world where, for several decades, the provision of equipment, adaptations and alterations had been made in profusion, some temporary cutbacks could be borne by the disabled. But that is not the case. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 has not been properly implemented since its inception. The problems of under-provision of services and of the wide discrepancies between different authorities in different areas were there from the start. They increased with the cuts in social service spending in 1976, and are now becoming worse.
    That is not only a problem under this Government. For all his indignation in his opening speech, it happened just as badly under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Then, as now, the all-party disablement group argued for greater protection of services to the disabled—first, by the Government setting basic minimum standards of provision, and secondly, by the allocation of specific amounts within the rate support grant for spending on those services.
    All too many local authorities are using the cuts as an excuse, not to reduce their bureaucracy and manning levels but to hit at those on the receiving end by sharply increased charges or by withdrawal of services, accommodation and equipment. Many individual Members of

    855
    Parliament have called attention to the ill-treatment of services in their areas. I implore the Government to accept a greater degree of responsibility for more direct control over those priority services. They are services that the disabled cannot do without if we intend them to maintain a degree of normal life.
    I recall that during the early 1970s the then Secretary of State for Social Services issued circulars about care for the mentally handicapped. They were designed specifically to establish minimum levels of services. I see no reason why, during a period of crisis in Britain, the same degree of influence should not be exerted by the present Minister.
    I turn to housing. After many years of appalling neglect, the housing authorities and associations have at last begun to make some progress with the inclusion of mobility housing standards in ordinary housing, and in the construction of mobility and wheelchair units. But there is now a 50 per cent. reduction in public spending on housing, and the 33·4 per cent. reduction in the HIP could mean that the only housing which is provided for disabled people will be in the form of segregated welfare housing which is separated from the rest of the community.
    In this period of economic stringency, what is needed is a specific allocation within the HIP for housing for special needs. The poor record of many councils was highlighted in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) on 12 May. It showed that 20 local authorities have not completed any mobility or wheelchair housing in the last three years and have none under construction. As Members of Parliament, we should urge our own housing authorities to give priority to disabled people. For their part, the Government should encourage local authorities to include mobility housing in their house improvement and new homes for purchase schemes. The alternative is to push the handicapped back into institutions and hospitals, and we know the cost of that in social and financial terms.
    I turn briefly to the 5 per cent. abatement in invalidity benefit, which forms a crucial part of the Opposition's motion. I made my views on this matter very clear in the debate on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State admitted that this
    856
    was a tough measure. I reiterate what I and my hon. Friends on the all-party group feel—that it is too tough, too arbitrary and cannot be accepted in the years to come. We welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to restore the loss of the uprating and the link with the retirement pension. All that we ask today is that that should take place as soon as possible.
    I should like to make one point concerning the role of our Select Committees. I have always supported the concept of those Select Committees as pre-legislative examining bodies which, together with Ministers and civil servants, look at proposed legislation before final drafting. That system, which I have seen operating in Sweden and elsewhere, allows for better scrutiny of legislation. Had the proposals on the abatement of invalidity benefit, and the reduction in the linkage period from 13 weeks to six weeks, been discussed in such a forum, with Ministers, civil servants and disabled organisations, I am sure that they would not have been pursued because of their counter-productive nature and the damage which they can cause.
    I am grateful to the Government for accepting my amendment to raise the linkage period to eight weeks. I sensed an acceptance of the case for no further years of the 5 per cent. abatement. I hope that my instinctive feeling will subsequently be borne out.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), I should like to touch on the whole question of the future for the disabled. Until recently, we have all—Governments, Members of Parliament and disablement organisations—been gradually moving towards a more rational system of disablement benefits and away from the anomalous "rag bag", as the economic unit described it, of benefits which now exist.
    The fact is that most disabled people have low incomes, if any at all, yet they face larger out of pocket expenses than the non-disabled—special clothing, foodstuffs, medicines, heating, transportation and so on. If they work, albeit earning very little, they lose all their benefits and can be financially worse off than if they stayed at home. If they get a mobility allowance, and try to use it to get a job, they are taxed. If they try to lease a car

    857
    through Motability, they pay VAT on the adaptations. The list of the anomalies which exists is long, and I could weary the House with a description of them.
    Mary Greaves, whom we all know through her work with the Disablement Income Group, reminded us most aptly about the problems in her recent article in the DIG magazine. She, a severely disabled person living alone, listed some of the extra costs which she faces, and about which we probably never even think. For example, she cannot go to the bank to get cash and must send a registered letter, at a cost of more than £12 a year. That is her £10 Christmas bonus gone. She has to send everything to the laundry, and each sheet costs in excess of 74p a time. She must shop from catalogues. She cannot go out and shop around or get any of the sales bargains. As she cannot go out, her heating must be on all the time. If she has callers—and she likes friends to come and visit her—she must provide tea or coffee or light refreshments. The bills and the costs mount. Special clothing and special foodstuffs for her diet also eat into her already very low income.
    I shall not feel satisfied with provision for the disabled until we are back on course for the general disablement cost allowance. It must be free of tax and must cover the basic expenses which the handicapped face. My right hon. Friend the Minister has at this stage ruled out even a Green Paper, on the grounds that he does not want to raise the expectations of disabled people. The disabled have remained cheerful and uncomplaining through many years of neglect. They do not expect the earth, but at least let us, as soon as possible, give them something to look forward to, even if it takes years to achieve.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. David Ennals: I pay a tribute to the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and to my right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and for Manchester, Wy-thenshawe (Mr. Morris), because they have been the nucleus of what has been an all-party movement in this House. It spread over the years when Labour was in power and we were steadily moving
    858
    forward. I appreciate the help given by the all-party group, because we often asked it how we should go forward.
    The Minister said that he was sorry that there now seems to be no all-party support, but he has heard all-party support in the comments of his hon. Friends as well as those of my colleagues.
    Yesterday many of us met the lobby of disabled people. I saw some of them in Westminster Hall. The first complaint made by my constituents, who had travelled from Norwich, was that the Minister for Social Security had refused to see them. They said that that added insult to injury. By "injury" they meant the various actions that have been taken by the Government, and by "insult" they meant the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had dismissed people who wished to demonstrate and plead with the Government to show a greater concern for the disabled.
    During yesterday's lobby, which I agree could have been better organised, my mind went back to the first lobby of the House of Commons, led by the distinguished and lamented Megan du Boisson, of the disablement income group in 1968, at a time when there were no special benefits for the disabled, except for war pensions and industrial injuries. Their voice was a compelling one. Along with my late colleague, Dick Crossman, who was then Secretary of State for Social Services, we introduced the new attendance allowance and the invalidity benefit, which, to give them credit, the Conservative Government included in their legislation in 1971.
    There is also the Act that was put on the statute book on an all-party basis, referred to as the "Alf Morris" Act. I honestly believe that no man in the country has done more to fight for the needs of the disabled than has my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who, with his own disability, has displayed such courage and has shown how disabled people can be integrated. He has become almost a standard bearer for disabled people. The Minister's speech makes me sad, because the comparison is so very different.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that we developed our services in a

    859
    rag-bag way. When we came back into power we introduced the mobility allowance, the non-contributory invalidity pension, the special benefit for disabled housewives and the invalidity care allowance, as well as the organisation Mutability. In a sense, all tried to fulfil different needs. As the House knows, we committed ourselves at the next stage—we did not know when it could be done, because we were faced with financial problems, just like the present Government—to the need for a disability income. That is what we should be working towards.
    I believe that the Government should now introduce a Green Paper. I do not think that it will arouse the hopes of people that they will get bread tomorrow or jam next year, but we must discuss the matter with the people.
    We were moving forward, but I fear that we are now moving backwards. Organisations representing the disabled take that view even more strongly. According to the Minister for Social Security, RADAR gave him a good reception when he addressed its annual meeting. The members of that organisation are very polite people, whom I have known over the years. The current edition of its bulletin, "Contact", says :
    "It is indisputable that the achievements of the past ten years are under serious attack."
    RADAR is under serious attack from the policies of the present Government.
    The disability alliance, which brings together many organisations dealing with disability, commented sharply :
    "The Government's first year in office has seen a reduction in the real value of social security benefits, and a decline in the standard of social service provisions for people with disabilities."
    Disability alliance rejects the view that such sacrifices are necessary to economic survival. I agree entirely with those words. The alliance calculated that the £1,400 million that was given in tax cuts to the 5·5 per cent. of the better-off in this country was almost the same as the total sum that we pay to disabled people in invalidity benefits, invalidity pensions, industrial benefits and other allowances.
    It now looks as if we are to go a stage further. The sick, disabled, elderly and unemployed are now being forced to pay for the Chancellor's dispensation of largesse in his 1979 budget. Those
    860
    are despicable priorities. It is despicable that the sick and disabled must bear the burden. That is a mean, penny-pinching attitude, quite contrary to the position that the present Secretary of State adopted when he was in opposition. The White Paper that was published in November—I do not know whether the Prime Minister knows what the Secretary of State is now saying—indicated that personal social services would be 9 per cent. lower than had been planned by the Government of which I was Secretary of State. No wonder the Minister for Health, when giving evidence to the Select Committee, referred to this as a fundamental change in policy. The evidence from the directors of social services in local authorities——
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): That is not what my right hon. Friend said. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) put those words to me when I appeared before the Select Committee, and I have the quotation here. It was not a "fundamental change in policy ". If the right hon. Gentleman has with him the words used by my hon. Friend, perhaps he would be good enough to read them.
    Mr. Ennals: I shall send that quotation to the Secretary of State tomorrow. I have checked the words of the Minister for Health and they are absolutely clear. He said that this was the one "fundamental change". There were no changes in other aspects of health provision. We have heard from directors of social services that there have been cuts in home helps, meals on wheels and day centres, and that those cuts are affecting disabled people.
    It is difficult to criticise the Government. The Personal Social Services Council criticised the Government and, as a result, it got the boot—curtains for the Personal Social Services Council. It was curtains also for the national development group for the mentally handicapped, which has done magnificent work on behalf of mentally handicapped people over the past four years. But the Government will not be able to silence the criticisms of those people who speak for the weakest pressure groups in the country—the disabled. They will not be able to refuse to hear their claims.

    861
    No one can close his eyes to present economic difficulties, but if a price must be paid for solving them it should be asked of those with the means to pay. The needs of countless sick and disabled people will not wait upon the return to prosperity.
    I conclude with the words of the directors of social services, who know best about the provisions that are made at a local level. They say :
    "To suggest to those in need of help that they must wait until the rest of society is rich enough not to notice the sacrifice needed to provide aid is insulting. Anyone can afford to be generous when they are wealthy. Surely the mark of a truly caring society is the willingness to give higher priority to the needs of the disadvantaged than to our own personal comfort and security."
    I echo those words from the bottom of my heart.
    Several hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be two Front Bench speakers again in this short debate, and unless speeches are limited to five minutes I shall be able to call only three more Back-Bench Members. I appeal to hon. Members to bear that in mind.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Tom Benyon: This is an important debate. Speeches have been both thoughtful and constructive. The debate is also important to 1½ million disabled people below retirement age. I realise the difficulty of the Government in trying to improve standards for disabled people at this time, and I do not wish to take the House on a guided tour around the economic problems that face us. They have been well rehearsed. It ill lies in my mouth to try to persuade my party to increase expenditure, and thus to improve standards anywhere in our society at present.
    I know that there are siren and beguiling voices who tempt Back-Bench Members such as myself to vote for motions that would try to persuade the Government to do that. I am reminded of the boy with his finger in the dyke who held back some water—it could be the water of inflation—and behind, the siren voice saying "Please come and help the disabled person."
    The history of the Conservative Party in social services matters has been excel
    862
    lent for many years. The current Secretary of State for Industry—the previous Secretary of State for Social Services—was the most reforming Minister since the war in this area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to move along the road of creative reform at some stage. I am sure that he is as worried and depressed at the deterioration of standards of the disabled as is any hon. Member. Let us hope that he will be able to take the first steps along this road quite shortly.
    As has been rehearsed already, the position is not all bleak. Indeed, there have been improvements in mobility allowance, a considerable uprating in joint funding, and an increase in help for voluntary organisations, which must come as a tremendous boost to many of them. Let us give credit to those voluntary organisations that we need now, when the State-provided services are creaking. However, I find considerable difficulty in squaring our commitments, as outlined in our manifesto and "The Right Approach", with the current situation. I quote from "The Right Approach" :
    "Priority should continue to be given, where resources permit, to improving services to the disabled and the chronically sick."
    During the election campaign we made two commitments in this respect. One was implied and the other was stated. The first was that the disabled would not become worse off. I believe that the disabled in our society should be regarded—to use a cliché from another time—as a special case. I do not believe that they should have to carry a burden of economies. Also, it was promised that in time, when the nation could afford it, we would spend more money on the disabled.
    Many speakers in the debate have said that we should introduce a disablement allowance, which would allow disabled people to draw, as a right, a pension for their disability. The current complicated, untidy tapestry of benefits, which is regarded as highly unsatisfactory on both sides of the House, casts recipients in the role of supplicants. I should like these benefits, in time, to be rolled together into a form of disablement pension. Further, they are patronising.
    It is indisputable that at present the disabled are worse off. I am sure that the Conservative Party cannot be saying that the position can be rectified only

    863
    when the nation is rich enough not to notice the sacrifice. Because of the lack of a complete uprating of the invalidity benefit a quarter of a million people will be worse off and are worse off now, and the only commitment that they have is that their position may be restored if the resources are available. Quite what value judgment will be applied to that statement I am not entirely sure. This must be clarified.
    I have calculated that a married couple, albeit on the highest rates of invalidity pension, would be £2·10 a week worse off now. That is a lot of money when the total income is only £37 a week.
    Secondly, such people have been hit badly by the rise in value added tax, including the five months of increased VAT before the uprating of invalidity benefit. VAT rose on 18 June. Invalidity benefit rose on 12 November.
    Thirdly and most importantly, whether or not we like it, and whether we blame local authorities or take some responsibility ourselves, cuts are now falling on the shoulders of the disabled. Out of a great many authorities included in a recent piece of research, 32 have already cut benefits for the disabled and 27 are making cuts in facilities for the mentally handicapped, home helps, residential services and telephones—and special home buildings for disabled people are not progressing now. The cuts are falling on the services, not on waste.
    The result—I think that there is consensus about this on both sides of the House—is great hardship. I am quite sure that that hardship is not intended by our Government.
    The future looks as bleak, if not bleaker. In 1980–81 further cuts are being requested—cuts of 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. Therefore, whatever one might say about the current position the way forward looks very bleak for the disabled. I am sure that the motives for the cuts and economies that we are making are very good—nay, they are impeccable. However, I believe that in terms of the disabled they represent a false economy. I am convinced that many disabled people will find—as they are finding—not only that their cash is becoming shorter in their pockets but that the services on which they have come to rely are being cut back, and that they will be forced into institutional care.
    864
    Therefore, not only will there be a great deal of hardship and suffering ; our community may be suffering extra costs.
    I was asked by one of my colleagues whether I had had a lot of protesters complaining bitterly about their position. I do not have a big mailbag from protesters about this matter, but I do not believe that, traditionally the disabled form such vocal protesting lobbies as we have in many other areas of social concern. That is all the more reason for us to regard them as a special case and with great care. Many of them are unemployed, with little prospects of getting jobs. Many are despairing, crippled and poor, and they will get poorer.
    I should like to make some suggestions. First, one of the ways of resolving the problems of local authorities which are cutting not the administration and staffing levels but services, is to develop the policy of joint funding, which is of great use in my area. In my area of Oxford, about £600,000 has been made available. There has been an increase of over 18 per cent. on last year's figure. The Government should be congratulated. That money is being spent most imaginatively, in my area on crossroads and other schemes of that sort.
    Secondly, I should like to see the implementation, as soon as possible, of the manifesto commitment to institute a committee to look into the question of the rationalisation of benefits. I do not believe that this will merely raise the hopes of the disabled. They are intelligent enough to realise that we shall not be able to do this until we are rather better off. This must be done. Lastly, the uprating of invalidity benefits must take place without delay.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I make one last appeal for five-minute speeches. I am now told that the winding-up speeches are not likely to take place until 6.40 pm, which will enable me to call three or four hon. Members.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Clement Frend: I shall be very brief. I agree with very much of what was said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). However, I must tell him that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the

    865
    Opposition's motion, which calls upon the Government
    "to reverse policies that conflict with their manifesto commitments".
    It would be very wrong and very hard to argue with that.
    The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) spoke substantially about constituency cases. I shall not do that, although as the husband of the president of the mentally handicapped society in my constituency I probably have as much day-to-day dealing with the handicapped as any-other hon. Member.
    I remind the Government that they will be judged not only by what they do to enhance the prosperity of some of the people but, substantially, by the compassion that they show to those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to participate in a full life. I remind the Government—if they need reminding—that there are only two ways in which the disabled can be helped. The first is through finance. The second is through understanding.
    I realise that in the first provision there is some limit, but I should like the Government to remember that there is no limit to compassion or understanding. Even if they are unable to support with the moneys that are available to quite the extent of funding they would want, there is no way in which they must any longer sanction the sort of local government behaviour that was pinpointed by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and by others who have spoken—the failure to understand the problems of the handicapped.
    I am against the provision of finite finance for the handicapped. If someone is unable to walk unaided I find it obscene that his crutches should come out of an annual budget, so that the handicapped get a reply such as "For this year we are unable to help." I realise that it is not as absolute as that, but there is still no effective charter. At the moment a percentage of the gross national product goes towards education, so much to defence and a specific percentage to the Department of Health and Social Security.
    The term "disabled" is a generalisation that I would like to see steadily
    866
    qualified. There are so many specific instances of disablement that need separate care and attention : I have argued before about the claims of those who suffer from Huntington's chorea. Those cases are not in the general mill : they need specific and careful consideration. I said that I would be brief, and I shall be.
    I should like some criterion for cuts. It is undisputed that the disabled will do less well than formerly. Perhaps the criterion should be that no one should have to accept cuts if he is unable to understand what they involve. If the Government bore that in mind, many bewildered and disabled people would not have to worry so much about their future.
    6.31 pm
    Mr. D. A. Trippier: For many years the Conservative Party has gone to great pains to convince the electorate that it is a caring party and that the Socialist Party does not have a monopoly on compassion. The Conservative Party has a superb record, of which it can be proud. Between 1970 tad 1974 a Conservative Government spent more money, in real terms, than any Administration before or since. There is clear evidence in our recent legislation that we still care.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced increases of over 21 per cent. in mobility allowances. Family income supplement for lower-paid workers has been increased by more than one-third. Not only have benefits been protected ; they have been substantially increased. Why should we be held responsible for creating a shortfall in the increase in benefits for a section of the community which has been stricken through no fault of its own? Since coming to office the Government have earned a reputation for keeping rigidly to the manifesto. Since the turn of the century, they are probably the only Government to have stuck to their manifesto. If the Conservative Party abandons any of its pledges it will be a disgrace. To desert our manifesto on this issue would be shabby and unworthy.
    When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the increases in benefit, he and the Secretary of State for Social Services said that the Government would bring short-term benefits into the tax range

    867
    by 1982. Even the Opposition found it difficult to object to that. The remaining long-term benefit for the disabled—known as disability benefit—will also be brought into the tax net. We are told that there is no need to wait until 1982 if we wish to tackle that problem. It is implied that the 11½ per cent. is a net amount after tax. However, we all know that that is incorrect. What about the 400,000 people who are in receipt of that benefit and who do not pay any tax? Their standard of living will fall, but it will fall behind those benefits which have been maintained despite inflation. Inflation is now running at 21·8 per cent. The increase of 11½ per cent. is about 52 per cent. of the rate of inflation.
    The Government have not given an assurance that the shortfall will be made up next year. Nor have we had an assurance that the increase in disability benefit will include the amount that has been lost. The Government amendment rightly stresses the importance of voluntary organisations. Many disabled people are aware of the good work done by such groups. It is my experience that while the disabled may be deprived of good health they have not lost their pride and independence. Perhaps that is why so many of the severely disabled help each other.
    How does one legislate for such people? They do not want to live in a society in which the State does everything. Surely we have a responsibility to ensure that they enjoy a decent standard of living within the confines of their disablement.
    This is not an exercise in trailing one's conscience across the Floor of the House. I seek to make a constructive attempt to warn my party that this is not the stuff of which the Conservative Party is made.
    An interim award should be made to the disabled not in 1981 but as soon as possible. The Government can recapture respect only if the Conservative Party shows that it has the interest of the disabled at heart. There is no moral justification for this action. We would be more credible and worthy if we thought the unthinkable and admitted that we were wrong.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I have had more letters about the needs of the disabled from Tories than from
    868
    Trots. Let us leave out the money factor and consider home helps. I shall not pick out a local authority. That would be unfair. However, many local authorities have heeded the Government's advice and have cut back on home helps and personal services.
    Many local authorities have tried to keep the service going, but they are faced by increased wages. They have tried to cover their costs. As a result of cutbacks in local government grants, local authorities have been compelled to charge people for the home help service or to increase the charges levied.
    What does the home help service do? It does a very important job. It keeps people within the community. The home help is a contact for disabled persons with the outside world. She enables disabled and frail elderly persons to live in their own homes and their own environment. It was assumed that if charges rose, relief would be given to the poorest in our society by means of supplementary benefit. The chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has said that, for the first time, local authorities are being compelled to impose charges that cannot be recovered from supplementary benefits. That has imposed severe burdens on the handicapped, who need the assistance of a home-help service.
    Some handicapped people have had to do without such needs as food, heating and clothing. Disability incurs an extra cost. We speak about the compassionate society and about the need to keep people within the community. We then impose charges on the most vital service affecting the frail elderly and disabled. I urge the Government Front Bench to overturn their decision on supplementary benefit payments to those who pay for home help services because their local authority—as a result of Government cuts—has had to increase those charges. Another intolerable burden is being imposed.
    Hazlitt said that man was the only animal who laughed and cried because he was the only animal who knew the difference between things as they were and things as they ought to be. We know how things should be. We know that we should assist the disabled. We know that we can have good rehabilitation services. For God's

    869
    sake, let us not cut the things that help to keep people within their homes and within their communities.
    Mr. Leslie Spriggs Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens) rose——
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) be kind enough to resume his seat at 6.45 pm? The Front Benches have given him an extra five minutes.
    Mr. Spriggs: Thank you Mr. Speaker. If I go over my time I hope that you will remind me.
    I wish to raise two constituency cases, but before I do so may I say that I was sorry to hear the Minister say that the Opposition were being used by outside elements to attack the Government. No outside elements have ever tried to use me to attack the Government and I would not allow them to do so.
    The first of my two cases is that of Wilfred Houghton, of 60 Claughton Street, St. Helens, who has been a Rain-hill mental hospital patient for a long time. He has not received a penny piece in benefits for the last nine to 12 months. He accepted his doctor's advice that he should not seek work, yet the local DHSS office in St. Helens has told him that unless he signs on for work, even against his doctor's advice, he will get no benefit. Because he accepts his doctor's advice and continues to attend Rainhill as an outpatient he receives no benefit at all.
    The second case concerns Mr. Gardam, of 127 Forest Road, St. Helens, who is a serious cardiac case. In the week when he was told that if he did not sign the register for work he would not receive benefits, he had three minor heart attacks. Because the family had no money to buy groceries, his wife assisted him to the departmental office to sign the register, and then took him back home. What employer could employ such a sick man? What is the real human feeling of the departmental officers? Central government have done nothing about these cases, although they have received reports about them. Do they really believe that these people should sign on for work and overrule the advice of medical officers? If they do not do so they get no benefit
    870
    at all. What kind of central Government is this? We should not allow local officers of the DHSS or the Supplementary Benefits Commission to treat people so badly.
    I make an impassioned appeal to the Government not to think of the Opposition as hon. Members who only sit and wait for an opportunity to attack them. That is not so. If the Government's administration or maladministration—as is shown in these two cases—is so bad, hon. Members have a duty to attack the Government. Government Members will no doubt remember that I attacked my own Government in the past when I believed that they were guilty of any form of maladministration. That is why I make this appeal. Mr. Gardam continues to have heart attacks although, according to his medical officer, they are minor. I do not want to have to charge any Minister or local departmental officer with murder, because if this man drops dead in his footsteps while attempting to sign the register someone will have to answer for it from the Front Bench or from the local office of the DHSS.
    I wonder what the other case—Mr. Houghton—is expected to do. He was taken by the social services to Rainhill Hospital as an outpatient, where he was told that he must not register for work, but if he does not do so he will not receive benefits. What is a mentally sick man to do? I appeal to the Minister tonight to look into these cases and see that justice is done.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Alfred Morris: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, which many will think could, with advantage, continue for many more hours. Many important questions were put to the Minister that went unanswered. I raised with him the fear of many disabled people that the 3 per cent. employment quota might be discontinued. There was no reply. Then I raised the question of the proposed White Paper on the recommendations of the Warnock report. Again, there was no reply. There were other questions that I raised and I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer what were questions of very considerable importance to many disabled people.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the statement of the Minister yesterday about the demonstration of

    871
    disabled people against his policies. We have been told that the Minister referred to the demonstration as phoney——
    Mr. Prentice: That is not true. I did nothing of the sort. In a broadcast that was quoted by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) I said that many sincere and well-meaning people took part. But I also said that the contention of the demonstrators that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was under attack was phoney, and indeed it was.
    Mr. Morris: That seems a convoluted reply. The implication is that it was a phoney demonstration. Yet it was supported by the National Federation of the Blind, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Spastics Society, MIND, the British Polio Fellowship, the Campaign for Mentally Handicapped People, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the National Society for Autistic Children, the Shaftesbury Society, the Association of Community Health Councils, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus and many other very deeply respected organisations. If that adds up to a phoney demonstration, or a demonstration with a phoney objective, or whatever the Minister is attempting to say in his convoluted language, it had one of the most distinguished lists of organisations ever to support such a venture.
    I referred earlier to home help charges. At least 18 London boroughs have made savings in the home help service, by cuts or increased charges, or both. I referred earlier to the constituency of the Secretary of State. He represents part of the borough of Redbridge. I quote from a very valuable article by John Wilson in the London Voluntary News for May 1980. He says :
    "In Redbridge, the lowest rate of charge is now £1.50 which will have to be paid even by supplementary benefit recipients. This is particularly serious, for the Supplementary Benefits Commission has recently ceased to help claimants with the cost of local authority home helps."
    The right hon. Gentleman earlier was making very great play with the meaning of the word "poorest". He was saying that the poorest are those on supplementary benefits. In Redbridge it is the people on supplementary benefits who
    872
    are now being charged for home helps in the Secretary of State's own constituency. I had the impression—I may be wrong—when I listened to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be making urgent representations to Redbridge about what is a deplorable act of policy. I hope that he will do so and make an early statement in the House.
    The right hon. Gentleman heard the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). That was a courageous speech. It was informed by sincerity. He was asking the Government to think again about policies about which he is not particularly proud as a Conservative Member of Parliament.
    Again, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) made it very clear that he thought that the Government had "jumped the gun" in cutting the value of invalidity benefit from November. I argued earlier that it is not just the Opposition opposing the Government in this depate. I quoted from the Association of Directors of Social Service, from the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation, from the Spastics Society, and from many other organisations that are in no way party-politically based.
    With them, I ask the Government urgently to reconsider their policies in this deeply sensitive and important field. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill and talked about the attitude of the last Government. In the last Government his Bill, which was then advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainright), had a Second Reading with full support from the Government.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude by saying again that the House as a whole should know that the Government's actions are shortening the horizons and demeaning the dignity of disabled people. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will address himself to the very important questions that have been raised with the Government from both sides of the House and that he will do so in a way that indicates the Government's readiness to rethink policies that are so widely and so justifiably condemned.
    6.52 pm
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): No one who has sat through

    873
    the debate could fail to be impressed by the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the disabled in our society. We have had some notable contributions from the old stalwarts with whom I used to attend the Back-Bench meetings of the all-party disablement group in the previous Session.
    May I say without disrespect to the many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) made a most notable contribution that encompassed much of what was said in the earlier part of the debate. My hon. Friend's speech was complemented by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), whose interest in these matters is well known. He was the joint secretary of the Back-Bench committee. The strength and feeling of the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) came through clearly in his speech.
    In the time that is available I cannot respond to all the individual requests that have been made. However, I shall deal with the themes that ran through the speeches. Some of my hon. Friends have said that in times of difficulty extra effort should be made to shield the disabled from hardship. Labour Members have said that the record of the previous Labour Government was superior to that of the present Administration. That theme was developed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and in so doing he exhibited the symptoms of a distressing illness that attacks middle-aged politicians in opposition, namely, terminal amnesia.
    The greatest cuts in the hospital building programme have not and will not take place under this Administration. They took place between 1973–74 and 1977–78 when capital resources available to the hospital and community health services in England were slashed from £672 million to £431 million. The biggest cuts in capital expenditure on personal social services have not and will not take place under the present Government. They took place between 1974 and 1978, when capital expenditure was slashed from £185 million, in the Conservative Government's last year in office, to £48 million in 1978–79. That was a
    874
    cut of roughly three-quarters. Our plans are for a recovery to £60 million in 1983–84.
    Current expenditure on personal social services increased during the previous Conservative Government's last year in office by 14 per cent. It fell to 1·7 per cent. in 1977–78. We plan to restore it to 2·2 per cent. Against that background, we can only marvel at the cheek and hypocrisy of the Opposition in deploring, in the words of the motion, the "planned reduction in personal social services."
    The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe mentioned the problem that has faced the disabled over the past 13 months, and no one questions his sincerity. However, he forgot to mention the paralysis in the health and personal social services during the winter of discontent, when the problems facing many of the chronically sick and disabled were far greater than anything that he mentioned today. He forgot to mention the distress caused by the social workers' strike. I remind him of the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the then Secretary of State, who said :
    "Who are the victims of their action? Firstly the clients…there will have been countless cases of irreparable damage done by the decision of social workers to leave their clients stranded, in the lurch, unaided."
    No hon. Member needs reminding of the countless cases of individual hardship caused by the industrial action of ancillary workers during that very winter when—[Interruption.] I realise that these are unpleasant memories, but I am dealing with the attacks that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman on my party.
    In the right hon. Gentleman's trailer to the debate, which appeared yesterday in The Times, he set out a list of 100 initiatives. I especially resent the inclusion in his list of the extension of the attendance allowance to kidney patients dialysing at home. I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill in February 1978 which sought to restore that allowance——
    Mr, Alfred Morris Mr, Alfred Morris rose——
    Sir G. Young: No, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is making no

    875
    attempt to reply to an important debate. He is grossly misleading——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. That cannot be a point of order for the Chair.
    Sir G. Young: The right hon. Gentleman said——
    Mr. Morris: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Morris) knows perfectly well that when the Minister does not give way he keeps the Floor.
    Mr. Orme: Absolutely disgraceful.
    Sir G. Young: The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe sought to advance the case that the record of the previous Labour Administration was better than that of the present Administration. I am seeking to rebut the argument. He is claiming 100 initiatives for his Administration. I was instancing one case concerning kidney patients when the right hon. Gentleman blocked a Ten-Minute Bill that I introduced to help those patients. He has the gall to include measures in his list of initiatives which I sought to introduce but which he carefully obstructed.
    Mr. Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the Minister gives way, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) knows that he cannot take the Floor.
    Mr. Orme Mr. Orme rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is giving a clear indication of what he intends to do.
    Mr. Orme: He is not answering the debate.
    Sur G. Young: I am seeking in the time available to rebut the case that was advanced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. He referred in his list of achievements to the attendance allowance being payable to foster parents of handicapped children. That payment started life as a Ten-Minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member
    876
    for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). It was put on the statute book by pressure in the House of Lords.
    In producing a list of 100 initiatives the right hon. Gentleman has scraped his own barrel and helped himself very generously to ours. I spoke to members of the Lobby yesterday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. The disabled have a deeper understanding of the economic problems facing the nation than have many Labour Members. They recognise that further Government help must be related to the generation of wealth.
    "What we can afford to spend on health and social services depends on the growth of the vital industrial base upon which every aspect of our standard of living depends. We must invest more in industry, produce more goods at competitive prices and sell them abroad."
    Those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North when he was Secretary of State.
    During the debate there has been a temptation to believe that the problems of the disabled will be solved merely by the injection of public money. To say that that is the solution is to misunderstand the complexity of the problems : it is to undermine individual intitiatives that can be taken to solve some of the problems and to demoralise the more informal agencies and voluntary organisations that have a key role to play.
    The Government have an obligation to provide a framework of income support and social policy within which the disabled may lead dignified and independent lives. We are committed to that, but that is not and never can be the total answer to the difficulties of the disabled. We must increase the capacity of the community to generate more self-help and to mobilise the good will that exists within the community that has not been harnessed.
    We are interested in developing a genuine partnership with the voluntary organisations. For that reason we have given increased Government support for organisations. In the last year of the previous Administration the total budget for section 64 grants to voluntary organisations was £5·3 million—and they managed to underspend it by £860,000. This year we shall spend £7·3 million, and, within the broad category, grants to

    877
    organisations helping the disabled will increase from £850,000 to nearly £1 million.
    The crossroads scheme was mentioned This scheme provides practical assistance to disabled people, and we are increasing substantially the grants to it as well as to other organisations. It is clear that within my Department's spending we have indicated our priority to the disabled by increasing the grants to the organisations that are active in this field, to generate more help and more resources with which to tackle their problems. We have continually exhorted the local authorities to protect, as far as they can, the services for the disabled. As my right hon. Friend said, the indications that we are getting from the local authorities are that they are respoding to our requests.
    There is no group in our society that stands to gain more from the strengthening of the economy and the resumption of growth than the disabled. That is the only way that we can generate the resources to pay for the improved services that we all want to see. There is no group in our society that stands to lose more by a continuation of inflation. If those who work for the local authorities, and their leaders, insist on unrealistic wage demands, one consequence must be the reduction of services to this very category. Those who lend support to such irresponsible wage demands should be well aware of the consequences.
    I ask my hon. Friends to remember that the real leaps in the growth of personal

    Division No. 361]

    AYES

    [7.03 pm

    Abse, Leo

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

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

    Adams, Allen

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Deakins, Eric

    Allaun, Frank

    Campbell, Ian

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Alton, David

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Dempsey, James

    Anderson, Donald

    Cant, R. B.

    Dewar, Donald

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Dixon Donald

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

    Cartwright, John

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)

    Dormand, Jack

    Ashton, Joe

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Douglas, Dick

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

    Cohen, Stanley

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Bagler, Gordon A. T

    Coleman, Donald

    Dubs, Alfred

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    DuIfy, A. E. P.

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

    Beith, A. J

    Cook, Robin F.

    Dunnett, Jack

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Cowans, Harry

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

    Eastham, Ken

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Crowther, J. S.

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Cryer, Bob

    English, Michael

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Bradley, Tom

    Cunningham, George (Islington S)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Ewing, Harry

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Field, Frank

    Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

    Davles, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)

    Fitch, Alan

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Flannery, Martin

    Buchan, Norman

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    social services were made under the last Conservative Government. The rate of growth was over 15 per cent. from 1972 to 1975, and it has been unmatched since. It was during that period that the basic framework for the provision of social care for disabled people was established. It now enjoys a good measure of stability.
    Mr. Orme Mr. Orme rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not inclined to accept the motion.
    Sir G. Young: The provision of social care for the disabled now enjoys a good measure of stability, and that stands disabled people in good stead. Let there be no doubt that, as the economic climate brightens, we can do what we have done before. Our firm priority will be to increase services and benefits for disabled people. Our record of achievement in this area enables my hon. Friends to vote with pride and confidence for the amendment.
    Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made certain charges on a constituency basis. The Minister has not answered them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That cannot be a point of order for the Chair.
    Question put. That the original words stand part of the Question :—
    The House divided : Aves 222, Noes 281.

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Ford, Ben

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Ryman, John

    Forrecter, John

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Foster, Derek

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

    Sever, John

    Foulkes, George

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson

    Sheerman, Barry

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    McCartney, Hugh

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

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

    Freud, Clement

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    George, Bruce

    McNamara, Kevin

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Magee, Bryan

    Silverman, Julius

    Ginsburg, David

    Marks, Kenneth

    Skinner, Dennis

    Gourlay, Harry

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

    Smith, Rt Hon j. (North Lanarkshire)

    Graham, Ted

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Snape, Peter

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Maxton. John

    Soley, Clive

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Mellish, Rt Hon Roben

    Spearing, Nigel

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Miller, Or M. S. (East Kilbride)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Straw, Jack

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Hattarsley, Rt Hon Roy

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

    Haynes, Frank

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

    Helfer, Eric S.

    Morton, George

    Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

    Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Tilley, John

    Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

    Newens, Stanley

    Trippier, David

    Home Robertson, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Homewood, William

    Ogden, Eric

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Hooley, Frank

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

    Horam, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Watkins, David

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

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Weetch, Ken

    Howells, Geralnt

    Palmer, Arthur

    Wellbeloved, James

    Huckfield, Les

    Park, George

    Welsh, Michael

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parker, John

    White, Frank R. (Bury ft Radcllffe)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Parry, Robert

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Whillock. William

    John, Brynmor

    Pendry, Tom

    Willey. Rt Hon Frederick

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Penhaligon, David

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Prescott, John

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Race, Reg

    Winnick, David

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Radice, Giles

    Woodall, Alec

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

    Woolmer. Kenneth

    Kerr, Russell

    Richardson, Jo

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wright, Sheila

    Kilroy-Sllk, Robert

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Young, David (Bolton East)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

    Lambie, David

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Lamborn, Harry

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William

    Mr. James Hamilton and Mr, James Finn.

    Lamond, James

    Rooker, J. W.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alison, Michael

    Brown, Michael (Brigg ft Sc'thorpe)

    Dover, Denshore

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Ancram, Michael

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Arnold, Tom

    Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

    Durant, Tony

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Buck, Antony

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Budgen, Nick

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

    Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

    Burden, F. A.

    Eggar, Timothy

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Butcher, John

    Emery, Peter

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Eyre, Reginald

    Bell, Sir Ronald

    Cadbury, Jocelyn

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Bendall, Vivian

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Falrgrieve, Russell

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

    Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

    Farr, John

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Fell, Anthony

    Best, Keith

    Channon, Paul

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Blackburn, John

    Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Blaker, Peter

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Cockeram, Eric

    Fox, Marcus

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford ft St)

    Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

    Cope, John

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Fry, Peter

    Brains, Sir Bernard

    Costaln, A. P.

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Bright, Graham

    Critchley, Julian

    Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

    Brinton, Tim

    Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Brittan, Leon

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Major, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Marland, Paul

    Rossi, Hugh

    Gow, Ian

    Marlow, Tony

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Marten, Neil (Banbury)

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Gray, Hamish

    Mather, Carol

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Greenway, Harry

    Maude, Rt Hon Angus

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mawby, Ray

    Shepherd, Richard(Aldrldge-Br'hills)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Silvester, Fred

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Sims, Roger

    Grist, Ian

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Grylls, Michael

    Mellor, David

    Speed, Keith

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Speller, Tony

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

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mills, lain (Meriden)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mills, Peter (West Devon)

    Squire, Robin

    Hannam, John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Stanley, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Moate, Roger

    Steen, Anthony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Monro, Hector

    Slevens, Martin

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Heddle, John

    Moore, John

    Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

    Henderson, Barry

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

    Tapseil, Peter

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

    Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

    Hill, James

    Mudd, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Murphy, Christopher

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

    Hooson, Tom

    Myles, David

    Thompson, Donald

    Hordern, Peter

    Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

    Neale, Gerrard Needham, Richard

    Thorne, Neil (llford South) Thornton, Malcolm

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Neubert, Michael

    Trotter, Neville

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Newton, Tony

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hurd, Hon Douglas

    Normanton, Tom

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Nott, Rt Hon John

    Viggers, Peter

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Jessel, Toby

    Onslow, Cranley

    Waddington, David

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Wakeham, John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

    Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Parris, Matthew

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Pattern, Christopher (Bath)

    Wall, Patrick

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Waller, Gary

    Knox, David

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Walters, Dennis

    Lamont, Norman

    Pawsey, James

    Ward, John

    Lang, Ian

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Warren, Kenneth

    Langford-Holl, Sir John

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Latham, Michael

    Pollock, Alexander

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

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Porter, George

    Wheeler, John

    Lawson, Nigel

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Lee, John

    Price, David (Eastlelgh)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Wickenden, Keith

    Lester, Jim (Beston)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Wilkinson, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Raison, Timothy

    Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

    Lloyd, Peter (Farenam)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Loverldge, John

    Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    MacGregor, John

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House, aware of the desire of disabled people to live independent lives in their own homes and of the economic advantages for the nation of allowing them to do so,
    882
    recognises that, as two of the largest spending programmes, Social Security and Health and Personal Social Services must make some contribution to the inescapable reduction in public spending required by the economic situation inherited by the Government last year ; welcomes the valuable and increasing services for disabled people provided by the voluntary sector ; and looks forward to the Government giving a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people when additional resources become available.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have led to a widespread and accelerating decline in the building industry, and have resulted in the number of unemployed building workers rising to over 200,000 ; deplores the massive cuts in council house building planned by the Government for the current year and future years, the proposed reductions in public sector capital works and the intended reduction in publicly-financed civil engineering projects which have created the worst prospects for the building industry and its employees since the previous depression of the 1930s ; and calls upon the Government to introduce and implement policies which will protect the industry from imminent collapse.
The building industry is facing its worst crisis since the slump of the 1930s. Not even the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose passion for providing clear and accurate information to the House he is normally able to keep well under control, will be able to juggle the figures tonight to suggest otherwise.
I notice that the amendment does not attempt to argue with the premise on which our complaint is based. It is an amalgamation of ritual abuse and shallow thinking. I can only assume that the Secretary of State wrote it himself.
In case the right hon. Gentleman is tempted to argue that the deterioration in the building industry, and the contraction industry in general, is not as disastrous and potentially disastrous as I insist, let me begin by reminding him of the construction industry's recession as defined by the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, two bodies not notorious for their support of the Labour Party. In the bulletin that they provided especially for today's debate, they make two points :
"The civil engineering industry…is continuing to decline to an all time low—all time lows in order books, in employment and in plant utilisation."
Their second point is equally gloomy :
"The building industry has turned sharply downwards after two years of modest recovery
884
… and unprecedented reversal in the space of six months".
I suspect that both federations are beginning to wonder whether all the money that they spent on securing a Tory victory was a wise investment.
The gloom expressed by those two federations is echoed, and in a sense preceded by and given an authoritative voice, by the National Economic Development Office, whose figures are clear, and describe the most serious crisis facing the industry. It makes the point beyond doubt that conditions in the building industry are bad, likely to get worse and eventually much worse. Providing the statistics at 1975 prices, NEDO tells us that in 1982 construction output will be around £10,755 million. In the last year of the Labour Government, on comparable figures, output was £1,200 million more. If one compares the NEDO figures of what is at the end of the road followed by the Government with what was there when they came into office, thre can be no argument that by 1982 planned output in the construction industry will be 5 per cent. worse than at any time during the previous 15 years.
All reports from the industry—and I shall be interested in the Secretary of State's comments—suggest that as a result of the sudden decline, there are, or shortly will be, about 200,000 unemployed building workers. That is certainly the estimate of two employers' federations and of the trade union. The Employment Gazette states that the interpretation of employment and unemployment figures in the building and construction industry is notoriously difficult. I hope that the Secretary of State will attempt an estimate so that we can see whether the employers and unions are right when they say that we face having 200,000 or more unemployed building workers-Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South): Will the right hon. Gentleman be covering in his speech the fact that in February 1977 there were 227,000 unemployed workers in the construction industry?
Mr. Hattersley: I am tempted to say "wait and see", but in order to gratify the hon. Gentleman, let me assure him that I shall be referring to that. It is no part of my argument to suggest that there

885
was not a decline in the building industry during the five years of Labour government. However, I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's usual justification, which goes something like this : since there was a small decline in the previous five years, that is an absolute justification for a massive decline now. That is a point of logic which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will develop, and no doubt the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) will want to join him in making that fatuous point.
I return to the question of unemployed building workers. There are 200,000 or more men who could and should be building houses, hospitals and schools and doing all the things that the country desperately needs.
Much of that unemployment and all the reduction in output between 1978 and 1982 is the result of wilful and intentional Government policy. The construction industry suffers grievously from two Government decisions—the deliberate creation of a slump as an alternative to a genuine economic policy and the co-ordinated attack on public expenditure which is a product of the Government's manic preoccupation with money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement.
As the Government have remorselessly depressed the economy, the building industry has increasingly become a sort of economic regulator, deliberately forced into decline to slow down the pace of the rest of manufacturing industry and to help limit output throughout the economy as a whole.
No sector of the economy suffers more damage from what passes in Government circles for economic management—uniquely high interest rates, an overvalued pound and, above all, accelerating inflation rates. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that those factors, particularly accelerating inflation rates and the level of interest rates, have a most malign, indeed disastrous, influence on the building industry.
When the construction industry was last debated in the House, the right hon. Gentleman was precise about the problem. He said that the industry was suffering from a rate of inflation
886
"that is incompatible with the survival of our nation and the existence of a free society ".—[Official Report, 26 November 1976 ; Vol. 921 c. 366.]
The inflation rate that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to was 15 per cent—about two-thirds of the rate that the Government have managed over the past year.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to dilate more about the problems of the building industry by saying :
"in Britain, virtually alone of the the world's major countries, it now costs almost 18 per cent. to borrow money to build houses."
Those were the days. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what has gone wrong since then. [HON. MEMBERS : "Clegg ".] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also comment on the third point of his speech and perhaps he will have an answer as incisive and intel-lecutal as "Clegg" for that as well. He said :
"few people…can face the consequences of an over 12 per cent. mortgage interest rate."—[Official Report, 26 November 1976 ; Vol. 921, c. 366–367.]
It was, he said, no wonder that fewer houses were being built. How many home-buyers does the right hon. Gentleman think can afford the consequences of the mortgage rate that his Government have managed over the past six months? More important, how long does he think that that rate will continue?
I was going to say—I confess that it is in my notes—that I hoped that the Secretary of State would spare us the bald assertion that no economic policy other than that managed by the Government would see us through these difficult days. But it is all too clear from his sedentary interventions up to now that he intends to make exactly that point.
The idea that the Government have somehow found the magic secret of economic success grows less plausible and more ridiculous every day, as every economic indicator turns in the wrong direction. The Government are also losing friends on the economic front with every day that passes.
The London Business School, once the fount of all Tory economic wisdom, tells the Government that they are wrong. Conservative Back Benchers are falling over themselves to write articles for serious newspapers telling the Chancellor of

887
the Exchequer how he could put things right. The Guardian recorded three such articles on a single day this week. What is more, half of the Cabinet no longer believe that the sole reliance on monetary policy and reductions in public expenditure will see the economy through its present difficulties.
I hope that, when the U-turn comes, the Secretary of State will not be the last boy standing on the burning deck. That is not a role which any of us would have anticipated his taking up ; and I do not think that he would carry out that function with great grace or familiarity.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend talked about the Cabinet being in disarray. The Secretary of State is known as Tarzan to some because it was claimed that he was strong and was as committed to Tory policy as the Iron Lady. However, the Prime Minister found out that he was not that committed and had not been attacking local authorities as much as she wished. She sent him a note a couple of days ago——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Skinner: The Prime Minister said in that note that while she was away in Venice going around in gondolas and living in a place that costs £100 a night—with the British taxpayer picking up the bill—the Secretary of State had to make sure that he cut back even more than he has cut back.
Mr. Hattersley: I am not privy to those secrets, and if what my hon. Friend says is true I do not want to intrude into private grief. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend is not making a point with which I disagree, even though that is an extraordinary state of affairs.
I read with interest the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that she would keep right on to the end of the road. It seemed to me that that statement was made with all the frenzy of a woman who was about to change her mind. I hope that when the Secretary of State makes the bald assertion that the Government's economic policy is right in every detail, he will bear that point in mind.
The building industry is being damaged for the sake of a discredited economic policy. The NFBTE said :
888
"The Government squeeze on public construction expenditure is planting the seeds of destruction for its own counter-inflation and economic policies."
I do not believe that any sensible economic commentator would not agree with that view. When the Secretary of State has told us, as I am sure he will, that the Government's economic policy is moving in the right direction and that any disturbing of it would jeopardise the great successes that the Government have had over inflation exports, investment or employment, I have no doubt that he will turn to the point that does not run hand in hand with that, namely, that the situation cannot be so bad because something similar happened under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.
Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Northampton, South. It is no part of my case to say that there was not a reduction in the activity of the construction industry over those five years, though, as all the figures show and as all the commentators agree, there was a substantial upturn during the final 18 months.
However, I do not understand the argument that, since there was once a cut, it is an excuse or a justification for cumulative cuts which pile upon the original reduction. The Opposition argue that a sector that has previously been reduced ought to be protected in the future, because otherwise one cut piles on another.
Our complaint against the Government is that, the country having lived through five years in which activity in the building industry reduced by about 2 per cent. per annum, they are trying to use that as a justification for cutting at rather more than twice the rate. That is the figure which appears in their White Paper and which is forecast by NEDO.
This is a short debate and many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I wish to deal in the few minutes that I shall allow myself with some specific areas—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Northampton, South wishes to try to do better this time than he did last time, I shall willingly give way.
Mr. Michael Morris: I shall make my contribution in a minute.
Mr. Hattersley: We look forward to that with eager anticipation.

889
I wish to turn to specific areas that have caused the decline in the industry. They are, in part, the result of overall economic policy but also the result of the attack on public expenditure, particularly capital expenditure, enshrined in the White Paper published in March this year. Particular to all those reductions—there is a reduction across the board for all capital works—is the reduction in housing expenditure. Will the Secretary of State tell us one or two things about which he has previously been coy concerning housing expenditure over the next three years?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the White Paper tells us nothing about housing forecasts. It has blank columns where the forecasts ought to be found. The right hon. Gentleman has refused point blank to give estimates for new starts, new building and capital work in the years that lie ahead. I am not surprised that he has refused. I am not surprised that he is denying the House information to which it is entitled. The record as well as the prospect would be so awful that I understand exactly why the Secretary of State does not want to reveal the information.
Mr. Michael Latham: Before the right hon. Gentleman asks too many questions, will he answer one, if only for the benefit of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? Does "Building Britain's Future" remain Labour Party policy?
Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I believe that the public sector of the building industry should be increased, the answer is that of course I do. I had the pleasure of serving with the hon. Gentleman on 47 sittings of the Committee. He persists in asiking easy questions in a tone that implies that they are dicult to answer. Of course, I believe that there should be an extension of the public sector building industry. If he wishes, he can tell that to his friends in the building industry, together with the answer he got from me on the public ownership of land. The hon. Gentleman can keep a compendium of my sayings which I will sign and which he can pass around.
In the meantime, I wish to ask the Secretary of State some questions about
890
housing. I understand why he will be reluctant to answer, because of the grief among Tory Members about his record. I had the privilege of appearing on a television programme with the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), who, I understand, is chairman of the Back Bench housing committee. The hon. Gentleman made what I regard as a definitive, as well as a most poignant, comment about the Government's housing record. He said :
"I am not sitting here saying I am proud of what they have done."
I was so astounded by the hon. Gentleman's remarks that I checked with the BBC to make sure that those were his actual words. They were. I understand why he is not proud. I understand why that absence of pride in him produces a reticence about the figures in his right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Durant: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, has taken the remarks out of context. I said that, although I was not proud of the record, it is a necessary step at the present time.
Mr. Hattersley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not what he said. I shall be glad to give him a transcript, if he so wishes. The absence of pride in the hon. Gentleman is worth noting. It accounts for the Secretary of State's reluctance to provide the House with details of how many houses he expects to be built over the next two years and what is the likely effect on the construction industry.
The overwhelming evidence—his right hon. Gentleman's Department's press notices, the forecasts by NEDO and the estimates of the employers—is that house building will decline in the public sector this year to new starts that barely total 40,000 or 45,000. Everyone else is prepared to make an estimate. The only absence of estimates is the Secretary of State's. The right hon. Gentleman has a special obligation. This matter affects not only the welfare and happiness of many thousands of families but an industry crucial to our future. It is an industry in which bankruptcy and unemployment increase every day.
The right hon. Gentleman has an obligation to inform the House of what he believes will be the capital allocation for public sector housing over the next two

891
years. He has a special obligation because of events during the last 24 hours. The first was the publication on the front page of a respected and authoritative newspaper—the Financial Times—of the statement that the Government were contemplating giving up public sector building altogether. The second is the manner in which the Home Secretary floundered in his attempts to answer that question, when pressed, during the Prime Minister's Question Time today. The third is the statement that I understand was made at 10 Downing Street, during this morning's Lobby briefing, that a total moratorium on council house building is one of the matters being considered by the Government.
In the light of those three facts, the Secretary of State owes it to the House to say what are his intentions in this crucial area—an area that affects the welfare of thousands of families who need and want another house but also an area that is at the core of the stimulus that should be provided for the building industry.
It is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friend's that the controlled expansion that is possible in this country if the economy is to be run sensibly should begin with a stimulation of economic activity through wise public investment in a number of industries. First among them ought to be construction. I do not expect the Secretary of State to accept that view of the economy. I do expect him to fulfil some of his obligations to the industry, to the House and to the country by telling us what he believes to be the future of the industry. I expect that for two reasons. First, it is his duty. Secondly, I do not believe that any self-respecting Secretary of State would remain in office during a period in which council house building had been brought to a complete halt. While that would not happen to a self-respecting Secretary of State, I would not be at all surprised if it happened to this one. I share the view of the Federation of Associations of Specialists and Sub-Contractors, one of the contributing members to CABIN, which puts so much money where its mouth no longer is, in supporting the Conservative Party, in its judgment of the Secretary of State's stewardship of the building industry. It says
892
"Michael Heseltine apparently does not care about the construction industry…He does not even answer our letters…The Secretary of State only seems willing to talk to a select group of his cronies from the establishment big business end of the industry."
That does not surprise me. Our view is that the small end of the industry should be expanded and helped. There should be an interest rate that enables them to succeed and survive. There should be some pump priming to provide work for both building and civil engineering. Because that is not happening and because the position is bound to deteriorate, I move this resolution.
7.37 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
"this House, recognising that a vigorous and profitable construction industry can only grow from a prosperous economy, rejects the failed and discredited prescriptions of the Opposition and supports the Government in its policies to provide a sound basis for the prosperity of the construction industry.".
I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the construction industry. He has rightly reminded us that it is some time since we held a debate on this subject. As he recalls, I took part in that debate. There is no doubt that the construction industry is extremely diversified and has an immense influence within the economy, whether in manufacturing industry, transport, commercial property, schools or housing. It is at the heart of the economic fabric of the nation.
I have looked to see where I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have great sympathy with the argument developed by parts of the construction industry over recent years that it has been too easy an option, taken by the Government in times of economic pressure, to cut new capital expenditure when they should have been pursuing policies to control excessive current expenditure.
The House will, I am sure, agree that that has been a constant element in the depressing economic record of the nation since the war. For five years the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was so prominent a member, pursued policies to achieve exactly that

893
result. My discussions with many people in the building industry in recent months convince me that they understand, even if they regret the pressures that flow as a consequence and the need for a change of direction, which present economic measures are part of ensuring, if we are not to continue the downward spiral to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) contributed so conspicuously as an adviser to the last Labour Government.
We are not in dispute about whether the hon. Gentleman advised the Government, but he must be depressed that the Government that he advised managed to reduce expenditure on goods and services in their five years in office. The only reason why the Labour Government managed to put up public expenditure figures is that they borrowed so much in their five years in office that the mounting annual debt interest forced public expenditure to totally unsustainable levels. They based future growth on unrealistic assumptions.
If the Labour Party had won the last election, a Labour Government would have had to make another round of announcements of the type that they made when faced with the logic of their failed economic policies. They were totally unable to deliver the promises that now flow from their lips in Opposition. Any dispassionate analysis of what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says must take into account the total failure for which his Government were responsible. We are determined to break out of the vicious circle of decline.
The right hon. Gentleman might giggle now that he has no responsibility, but he should examine the record. In 1974 the output of the construction industry fell by 10 per cent. from the previous year. A year later it fell by a further 6 per cent. In several months of 1976, 1977 and 1978 unemployment in the industry was estimated to be over 220,000. A month ago it was about 190,000.
For all the language used by the right hon. Gentleman, the horror that he portrays and the shock that he suggests, he was happy for year after year to be a member of a Government who were responsible for unemployment levels in the construction industry higher than those
894
about which he now complains. Perhaps the House should be reminded of some of the more unpalatable consequences o1 the last five years.
In 1976, the point at which the unsustainable nature of the policies that we inherited had to be recognised when the IMF was established at the Treasury, there was a cut of £2 billion in pubic expenditure. That was announced by the Government of the day and supported by the majority of Labour Members. Where did they find the £2 billion?
Mr. Hattersley: Not from the construction industry.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is in difficulty. He is new to the job. It is true that £2 billion was not lound in that way. Just £1·4 billion of the cuts fell on capital programmes.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the circular that my predecessor, the Secretary of State in the Labour Government, sent to local authorities explaining the policies that were necessary as a result of the early years of Labour government. It stated :
"The Government's aim has been to ensure, as far as possible, that the measures proposed do not have an adverse effect on employment. With the exception of certain cuts in education, the proposed reduction in expenditure affects capital rather than current expenditure figures."
I am at a loss to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. Is he arguing that we should cut capital spending more, so that current expenditure is higher? I gained the impression that he was criticising us for allowing capital cuts, but that was what he suggested protected employment when his Government were in power. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to weary himself with such historic facts. Before he tries to wipe the slate clean his legitimate responsibility is to check what solutions were available to him and his colleagues and which were chosen.
Mr. Haitersley: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in his benevolent mood, will assist further in my education in the subject on which he is an expert. One of the figures that he omitted was the difference in output between the two years—the crisis years about which he talked— 1976 and 1977. They are important.
Mr. Heseltine: That depends on whether one takes what is actually spent or the programme figures of the last Government. If the right hon. Gentleman has the figures, it would be helpful if he put them before the House. The only figures that are crucial in this respect are the overall reductions in all public expenditure programmes which the last Government's policies forced upon that Government. When they had to make reductions, they made them largely in capital programmes. No matter what they may say, or may have wanted to believe, they were forced down the spiral of disinvestment. They know that as well as I.
Mr. Durant: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned a television programme on which I appeared. He apologised on that same programme for the Labour Government's record and said that he was not very proud of it.
Mr. Heseltine: We have established that the programme was compulsive viewing. If the right hon. Gentleman apologised, that is to the good.
I was asked about a moratorium on on capital spending, particularly on local authority housing. I was asked whether the Government had considered that. Of course, the Government have considered it, for an obvious reason. When we examined the present levels of overspending in local authority budgets and considered the range of options, we were advised that in identical circumstances the last Labour Government had imposed a moratorium on capital programmes.
Mr. Jack Straw: Not on council house building.
Mr. Heseltine: I did not say on council building. I said that they imposed a moratorium on capital programmes. When this Government considered the options, they were bound to consider the actions pursued by the previous Government. However, there is no question of my announcing tomorrow a capital moratorium on local government programmes. I shall send out a circular tomorrow explaining the Government's views about the projected overspend by local authorities. I shall not announce a capital moratorium tomorrow.
Mr. Straw: As the Secretary of State is not to announce a moratorium tomorrow, will he tell the House how many council houses he expects to be built in the next year?
Mr. Heseltine: That was the point that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend raised with me. He has asked me many times to give figures for the projected building of local authority houses. I have explained to the House why I will not do that, and I shall explain again. For two or three years I was the official spokesman for the Tory Opposition when my predecessor was involved in producing figures indicating what the outturns were likely to be in this circumstance. Those figures were always wrong. The reason why they were always wrong was that the only way my Department could know them was if it relied upon the details submitted by 400 local authorities.
As we are affording a degree of discretion to those authorities about how they allocate their resources, and as they will not, in many cases—particularly in the next financial year—have made up their minds about where they will allocate resources, it is ludicrous for me to go down the road which so obsessed the then Government, despite the fact that they got the figures wrong year after year.
What Opposition members cannot understand is that they continued to produce White Papers containing precise figures for the level of public expenditure in housing—divided into blocks—and when I took over responsibility for the Department of the Environment one of the first things that I found was that the level of spending on the construction of new houses by local authorities was hundreds of millions of pounds below the figure published in the White Paper. That was because local authorities took no notice of the projections in the White Paper. They made up their own minds. The Government were therefore always a long way behind the movement of opinion in local government.
It is one of the great illusions of the Labour Party that, somehow or other, that was something to do with the change of political control from Labour to Conservative in the late 1970s. The reality is that the cuts in capital programmes by Labour-controlled authorities were within one percentage point of the average

897
cuts in Conservative-controlled authorities on housing expenditure.
I shall tell the House in the frankest language that I can use how I see the situation, because it is better to avoid producing spurious figures for the sake of answering questions to which there is genuinely no answer than to produce figures which, on any historical determination, will prove to be invalid.
I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that of course there are reductions in local authority housing expenditure programmes. That is a phenomenon that has characterised recent years. Like any Minister responsible for a spending programme, I would obviously like to have more resources to spend, but, faced with the realities of the economic situation, one must—as the Labour Party did—judge priorities. We have had to make reductions just as the previous Labour Government did.
The question with which the House and the construction industry should be pre-occupied is whether there is a way in which the industry can attain the lasting economic upturn that we seek unless we are able to create an economic climate in which there is a lasting long-term future. There is no conceivable way in which the high levels of public expenditure that have characterised recent years, together with high levels of inflation during those years, can, in the long term, do anything other than work against the best interests of the construction industry. We are determined, and we shall pursue our determination, to see through the policies which could not by now have been expected to work but which we believe will, in the medium and longer term, deliver the results that we have in mind.
Mr. Allan Roberts: The Secretary of State says that he will not tomorrow announce a moratorium on council house building under local authority capital programmes. Will he say that he has also ruled out the possibility of making such an announcement in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Heseltine: I shall send out a circular.
Mr. Hattersley: Answer the question.
Mr. Heseltine: I shall answer.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: "Yes" or "No. ".
Mr. Heseltine: I need the opportunity to get out a few words in order to answer the question. I shall make clear in my circular the Government's views about the budgeted overspend by local authorities. I shall explain that when they can see what the revisions of those budgets are the Government will, in the light of circumstances, have to consider what, if anything, they should do.
Mr. Allan Roberts Mr. Allan Roberts rose——
Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will understand, because his party when in government had to understand against its best wishes, though without choice, that any Government faced with the public expenditure problems that we now experience must keep the options as open as circumstances demand. It is no use Labour Members pretending that, somehow or other, they would not have done the same. They not only had to do it ; they had to do it time and time again.
I believe that the House, the country and the construction industry will understand that this is a much wider issue than that on which the debate is focused tonight. The issue is wider than the specific, though important, problem of the construction industry.
Mr. Robert Parry Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange) rose——
Mr. Heseltine: No, I really cannot give way. This is a short debate. I nearly always give way, but that means that I speak for a longer time. That does not serve the interests of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak. If I may be forgiven, I should like to make another important point.
If we accept, as the previous Government were forced to accept—and this Government willingly accept—that there is a need to establish a sympathetic economic climate, we must work for it. There are many things that the Government can do—and I believe that they are doing them—to ensure that when the climate improves a great range of those inhibitions which currently surround the construction industry—and did so previously—will be removed. I believe

899
that the record of this Government will be seen to have been a good one in tackling some of the logjam that we have encountered too often in the past.
Mr. Robert Adley: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think it impertinent of be if I intervene. He may not be aware that there are companies that have sufficient faith in the future, as a result of Government policies, to invest their money in work that is bringing considerable benefit to the construction industry. If I am allowed to quote a company with which I am connected—Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada—we are now investing £1 million a month in new construction in the United Kingdom. That is a mark of our faith in the future of the economy.
Mr. Heseltine: The welcome that I give to the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is exceeded only by the disdain that I feel for Opposition Members who laugh at the idea of new investment taking place in Britain. That laughter is characteristic of hon. Members. Good news of more investment is a subject of derision to the Opposition. They will have to explain that derision on a wider stage than this.
In sector after sector the Government are tackling many of the constraints which characteristically, held back the construction industry. For the first time we are tackling the problems of unused and under-used land in our major cities. We shall have registers shortly in 21 of our largest cities, where there are opportunities not only for environmental improvement but for construction industry jobs that will follow the release of land.
We are rationalising the problems of the two-tier system in the planning machinery. We have made great changes to the industrial building allowance for premises, and we have announced proposals for enterprise zones and urban development corporations. We are rationalising and streamlining planning procedures, and we are publishing statistics which show how long it takes planning authorities to reach decisions and how long it takes my Department to reach decisions on appeal.
We are examining building controls, and we have abolished office development
900
permits. We have greatly reduced the need for industrial development certificates, and we have just reached a voluntary agreement on the time taken by statutory undertakers to reach their conclusions with local planning authorities.
There is a whole range of activity in which the Government have acted to remove the irritants which I believe will frustrate the advance of this industry when the economic climate is right. We are reviewing the general development order, thus releasing certain small developments from the need for planning permission.
I now announce an extension of a major area of my responsibility. I should like to explain that I have now set in hand major improvements in the way in which the planning appeals system works. As from next month, planning inspectors will be able to give instant decisions in appropriate cases. When the parties ask for such a procedure and the case falls within appropriate guidelines, the inspector will give an indication of his decision right after the inquiry. This will enable the appellant and the local authority to know where they stand weeks before they otherwise would. I believe that these arrangements will apply ultimately in a large number of cases.
There are no easy solutions. I am not pretending that we have a palliative for the construction industry or the economy at large. However, I profoundly believe, as the Labour Government found, that the need to pursue economic policies that are designed to cure inflation and reduce the pre-emption of resources to the public sector are an indispensable part of returning strength to the national economy.
I believe that we shall be seen as a Government who tackled many of the administrative and legislative hurdles that obstruct the expansion of the construction industry. But I believe that we would be doing the industry the greatest possible harm if we gave the impression that within a year of coming into office we would give in and implement the temporising and ill-considered, short-term judgments which characterised the Labour Government and which have now so obviously become central to the Labour Party's new economic direction.
8.1 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: From listening to the Secretary of State, one would almost imagine that we were at an Oxford Union debate. One would not realise that we are talking about the lives of thousands of people, whether they are people looking for council houses, people looking for work in the industry, or people connected with the building materials industry.
I do not defend the record of my Government on housing and construction. I did not defend it when my Government were in office, and I do not so now. When my party was in Government I probably made more Back-Bench speeches about the construction industry than anyone else. I did so because I was and am a member of UCAT. I worked almost all my life in the construction industry before coming into the House, with the exception of a few years spent in the Royal Air Force during the war.
I am concerned tonight about the people in the industry, about their lives, their future and about what will happen to their families. I am not interested in a debate conducted in the way that the Secretary of State has conducted it up to now. I do not want phoney statistics thrown across the Floor of the Chamber, and neither do the people outside. They want to know precisely what the future holds for their industry.
One Conservative Member said that the employers seemed to understand what was happening and were quite happy with it. Is that true? If it is, why have the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors sent a brief to Members of Parliament putting forward four points about the recession in the industry? Those bodies say :

"(i) the civil engineering industry, which has no private sector alternative to its predominantly public investment clients, is continuing its decline to all-time lows in order-books, employment, plant utilisation, etc ;

(ii) the building industry has turned sharply downwards after two years' modest recovery and the measure of enquiries for new work has switched from 2 to 1 in favour of an improvement to 1 to 3 on the negative side—an unprecedented reversal in the space of six months ;

(iii) the NEDO Forecast anticipates a decline in total output by 1982 to a level almost
902
5 per cent. below the trough of the previous post-1974 recession ;

(iv) the bulk of this decline is likely to occur, and be led, in the public sector, and to be exacerbated by the inability of the private sector in the short term to make good the fallback,"

So where is the NFBTE showing an understanding of the Government's policy? Where are all those employers who say that what the Government are doing is a fine thing, bearing in mind that in the brief to hon. Members they are saying that the industry has never been in a worse position? I do not defend what my Government did, but what is happening now to the industry is far worse.
The Secretary of State cannot slide out of this by making phoney debating points across the Floor of the House. He and his hon. Friends had better understand that the people in the construction industry—whether they are on my side in the unions or on the employers' side— are fed up with what the Government are doing to the industry.
It is worth referring here to figures contained in Cmnd 7841 in relation to the housing position. The figures are for total public expenditure by programme. For 1979–80 it gives a figure of £5,372 million. For 1980–81 the figure is £4,700 million; for 1981–82, £3,840 million ; for 1982–83, £3,250 million ; and for 1983–84, £2,790 million. Those figures show clearly the constant reduction in housing programme expenditure that the Government are putting forward as a positive policy. Those are not my figures. They are the Secretary of State's figures, and he cannot get out of that. They can mean only a worse decline for the industry, because over 50 per cent. of its work is for the public sector.
Mr. Den Dover: So far.
Mr. Heffer: Yes, so far. The figure was 50 per cent., but with this lot in power it will be reduced to about 10 per cent. But of course, if there is a moratorium for about nine months nothing will be done in the construction industry. The Secretary of State cannot get away with saying that he is not announcing the halt tomorrow. We understand that, but what about next week, the week after, next month, or the month after that? It is quite clear from what the Secretary of State said that the Government will

903
announce it and that they have made up their mind.
The Government had better repudiate what the extremely important article in the Financial Times says today. I want the Secretary of State to say that there is not a word of truth in that article. He has not said that in the House tonight. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out, he said quite the opposite.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Helfer: Not just at the moment.
Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is never much help.
Mr. Heffer: I usually give way to my hon. Friends, but that distracts me from my argument. This is no joking matter. I can tell the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) that the construction industry and those who work in it do not regard this as a laughing matter. I do not think that my colleagues—building workers who are unemployed—will see anything funny in it. There is nothing funny about the 91,000 unemployed in Liverpool, a great many of them building workers. The Conservatives; should understand that it is time that we in this House discussed these matters seriously and concerned ourselves with the real issues.
There is another important point in the Financial Times today on page 6. It states :
"The continuing gloomy outlook for almost all areas was reflected in the latest workload survey, conducted by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which provides a guide to future building levels.
Architects' workloads have fallen for the third successive quarter. Value of new commissions at constant prices was 25·3 per cent. lower in the first quarter than at the same stage a year ago."
There is nothing laughable about that. Conservative Members should not make glib, phoney speeches and think that they can get away with it. They cannot get away with it.
We face the problems of a declining housing industry, and a civil engineering industry that will go out of existence unless there is a fundamental change in public expenditure. All other aspects of the industry, even private building, are
904
badly affected by the Government's policy, especially high interest rates. It is a disastrous position. The Secretary of State and his colleagues approach the problem in a doctrinaire manner. They also adopt a doctrinaire attitude towards direct labour organisations.
It is essential that we introduce a policy of decasualisation. That is essential. Perhaps the Secretary of State has no experience of the casual nature of the construction industry. Construction workers constantly wonder where their next jobs will be when their present contract has finshed. Unemployment is not unknown to them—it is part of their lives. That is why they have to travel all over the country to seek employment. I did not hear one word from the Secretary of State about the Government's attitude towards create apprenticeships in the industry. Yet at the same time the Government are abolishing the Construction Industry Manpower Board, which should have been responsible for creating apprenticeships. The Government's policies are disastrous.
I should have liked to speak at much greater length, and to have outlined the alternatives that the Labour Party has set out in the publication "Building Britain's Future". I see that the Secretary of State is nodding his head. He thinks that the document refers mainly to public ownership. That proves, as usual, his ignorance on the matter. The only proposals on public ownership contained in the document are first, that we should establish a national building corporation that could compete with major companies, secondly, that we should develop direct labour organisations as municipal enterprises, and thirdly, that we should help to organise co-operatives at the bottom level. Those are our proposals. They are only one small part of the document, which deals with all other aspects such as decasualisation and programming in the industry. We would like to see a rolling programme to give continuity of employment. The Secretary of State does not care about that. He does not believe in that system.
Mr. Parry: My hon. Friend raised the question of direct labour organisations. My hon. Friends are aware that the Liberal-controlled city council in Liverpool, with the support of the Tory Party, is introducing further spending cuts which

905
threaten more than 600 workers in the direct labour organisation. That means also the virtual non-building of council houses in Liverpool, which has a long waiting list. In addition, Liverpool probably has the highest level of unemployment in Britain.
Mr. Heffer: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. He made a valuable and important point about the direct labour organisation in Liverpool.
I wish to quote from "Building Brief 1", issued by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers :
"What the Government must do in the future. If the lifeblood of the industry is not to be drained away by more short-term cuts at the expense of the long-term health of the economy, Government will have to reverse the effect of 15 years of misplaced economic opportunism during which the proportion of total public expenditure allocated to capital works has been allowed to fall from 23 per cent. in 1973/74 to only 13 per cent. in 1979/ 80.
In spite of Public Expenditure White Papers produced in 1979 by both Labour and Conservative Governments, recognising the importance of maintaining stability and capital spending on construction, and although the present Government has said that it believes public expenditure cuts should fall elsewhere in the economy, a stampede back to the bad old ways seems to be starting. Already, massive cuts of up to £1 billion in public housebuilding in 1980/81 will, if fully implemented, cause further disruption to an industry on whose performance the nation depends."
I am not a supporter of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, but I agree with that statement. On that issue, the unions are in line with the employers in fighting for work both for the workers and for the industry. I passionately believe in the construction industry. If the Government continue in the way that they are going, with the dismissive attitude adopted by the Secretary of State, the industry will head for disaster. If the Government continue in that way, there will be no industry left.
8.17 pm
Mr. Edward du Cann: Politically I differ fundamentally from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and no doubt I shall always do so. None the less, I respect him, and share his anxiety. I hope that in my speech I shall echo both the seriousness of his approach to the subject and his obvious sincerity, which impressed us all.
906
The title of the debate on the Order Paper is the "Construction Industry". I shall not concentrate on so narrow a subject. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to imply, it would be better if we were to debate the whole subject of public capital investment rather than a single industry whose health and prosperity is crucially dependent upon its building level. I believe that both the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Walton thought that it would be better to widen the debate.
I can put my point in a few sentences. We all know that, comparatively speaking, our nation is in an economic decline. We are in the early stages of an economic recession. It is a most serious matter, which grows worse weekly and monthly. I do not believe that it is inevitable. I am sure that it is within the capacity of the Government markedly to improve the position. Certain of the priorities that we have set for ourselves—some by design and some more by inadvertence or carelessness—are wrong and must be changed. I hope that they will be changed sooner rather than later.
We should be wiser to spend a little less effort trying to stop inflation and more time trying to increase production. I make no secret of my anxiety that we seem to be in some measure still perpetuating—in spite of the redoubtable efforts of my right hon. Friends—the errors of the past. I make no bones of my concern about the way in which Government policies are impinging so much upon the private sector, not least the manufacturing industry.
I believe that we have the capacity substantially to increase the wealth of the nation, and thus the happiness and welfare of the people. We have the capital and technology—and certainly the human resources, which we are at present tragically wasting on a growing scale—to achieve real material progress.
I should like to give just one example of the change that I seek—indeed, that I am determined upon. It is one example of the past and current failure to which I have already referred. It seems to me that we continually give too high a priority to consumption and too little to wealth creation. I am sure that the House will agree that in any modern society, directly or indirectly, Governments provide the

907
country's basic infrastructure requirements.
The two sides of the House may differ about the degree, but not about the fact. Roads, airports, communications of all kinds, the water supply, sewage disposal, the ports, atomic energy, and so on, are vital in today's context. But more needs to be said. Without their continual modernisation and expansion, industry and commerce cannot expand, the services which industry and commerce provide will be more costly and our nation will be deprived of the physical base on which it can and must thrive.
We all know that the Government exercise a close control on capital expenditure. No one knows that better than my right hon. Friend, with the huge responsibilities with which he and his colleagues grapple in their enormous Department, but experience indicates to me that the more carefully one examines the habits of government the clearer it becomes that the control over capital expenditure is much tighter than control over current expenditure. To some extent, my right hon. Friend touched on that point.
Let us examine the record to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook fairly referred. Between 1972 and 1978—I deliberately choose a period to cover Governments of both political persuasions—general Government expenditure, in cash terms, rose by 80 per cent., but capital expenditure rose by only 37 per cent. In real terms, general expenditure rose by 15J per cent., whereas over those six years capital expenditure fell by 33 per cent. Wages and salaries rose by 85 per cent., and were never less than 53 per cent. of total current expenditure. In effect, that has been the continuous failure of Governments ever since the war. There have been too many people, too much administration, and not enough practical constructive work.
Let me make that point a little more clearly, if it is necessary. Between 1961 and 1968, employment in the public sector rose by l½ million. The number of those employed in health, education and social services doubled. I cannot believe that they were all doing jobs that were truly necessary, particularly when one bears in mind that in health the number of beds available to the public fell by no less than 14 per cent. over
908
the same period. That is why I strongly support the Prime Minister, following the announcement that she made the other day about the size of the Civil Service. I believe that that is only a beginning. That is why, in evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service the other day, I was delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking a keen personal interest in these matters within his own Department.
However, there are bad individual examples within the general picture. Between 1974–75 and 1980–81, public construction expenditure will have fallen by 21 per cent. The roads component will have fallen by 37 per cent., and 55,000 jobs will have been lost in the industry. Trunk road construction is now half the level that it was in 1975, and a mere one-third of the level that it was in 1970.
If those bald facts are not enough to shock, let us compare our situation with Europe. The United Kingdom undoubtedly under-invests seriously in its industrial infrastructure in comparison with some of our European friends. In Germany, 1·2 per cent. of GDP goes to road construction. In France, it is almost 1 per cent. But in the United Kingdom it is a mere 0·5 per cent. of a lower GDP.
I hope I carry the House with me when I say that the
"provision of an adequate road network is a prime requirement of an industrial society".
Those are not my words ; they are words from the latest Government White Paper, which was published just a week ago. My complaint is that for too long, whatever the political complexion of the Government, there has been too much talk and too little action. We have been wafflers rather than doers. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Walton made the point that the trend is long established and that the record is simply appalling. Over many years, Ministers who have exhorted the private sector industries in particular to invest with phrases such as "Investment is the seed corn of Britain's prosperity in the future"—we have heard it a million times—have failed to practise what they have preached, and have thereby failed the nation.

909
If only public sector capital investment had matched the private sector, which has increased substantially over the period! I agree with what was said about the report in today's newspaper. I read it with great concern. Anyone who read it must have done so. What must be said is that the consequences of the failure and neglect over the years, which we must not perpetuate, is that large parts of the nation's vital capital structure are ageing and deteriorating, and are not being built or enlarged. The longer that work is delayed, the more expensive it will surely become.
As someone prominent in the industry remarked the other day, "So long as the Government fail to meet their obligations to the community in regard to public capital investment, large sectors of British industry, and especially the civil engineering and construction industries, will continue to shed their work forces, discard their technological skills and become uncompetitive in overseas markets, and when the upturn finally comes they will be unable to respond to it."
If as a result of this debate the House recognises that the balance between capital and current expenditure is wrong, that for far too long it has been tilted in favour of the latter, that that process must be reversed, that a little courage of the sort displayed by my right hon. Friend is needed, that a little clarity in establishing priorities, as well as good management, is required, and if we, who are the commanders in truth, insist upon it and monitor its progress, we can look forward to sustained economic growth—perhaps a period of sustained technological innovation—and, certainly, thereafter a sustained improvement in the standard of living for every sector of the community. The alternative is disaster. It is time for a change, and I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will measure up to the needs of the moment.
8.30 pm
Mr. J. D. Concannon: This is a short debate, and I shall try to keep my speech as brief as possible because I know that many of my hon. Friends also wish to speak. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for his appreciation of the problem and for the figures that he gave. As
910
he and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, it is to be hoped that the Minister takes cognisance of what has been said today, and that he takes this debate more seriously. I have listened to the Secretary of State treating the debate as some sort of Oxford union debate, instead of thinking about the thousands of people who are involved, not only in the industry, but who are involved because of lack of housing, office space, and so on.
Labour Members are now receiving letters from firms and associations that must find it difficult and embarrassing to send briefs to Labour Members only a year after they voted a Conservative Government into office. They must wonder what on earth they did, and why they did not read the small print in the Tory Party manifesto. I received a letter today dated 11 June—that is not a bad advertisement for the Post Office—from the chairman of the Royal Institute of British Architects, in which he said :
"So great is my concern with what is happening to the industry that I would ask if you could make a special effort to attend to this debate and, if given the opportunity, raise some of the critical issues which I have noted on the enclosed addendum."
Associations such as the Royal Institute of British Architects must find it difficult to write such letters appealing for help. They used to have direct access to Ministers. I have said previously that councils have written to Labour Members saying that they do not now have access to Ministers. The Government should take note of that.
Associations such as the RIBA send lists of matters that are worrying them. They complain about investment within the industry. They complain about the Royal Commission's report which states that about 10 per cent. of the total NHS expenditure is inadequate to prevent deterioration of existing buildings, and they point out that that is to be cut to 5 per cent. They state that the consideration of special housing needs will be impossible if present "work in progress" is to be completed. They say that adequate arrangements will be impossible and that deterioration of the housing stock will be inevitable.
The cuts will fall on local firms and local councils. I do not think that the Minister will need a moratorium, because

911
council house building will cease, anyway, in a few years, because local authorities will have no money to spend on building. I shudder to think what will happen then, especially if waiting lists grow—as they will grow. I am not against the sale of council houses. I am against the Government dictating to councils about what they should or should not do with their housing stocks. They should leave it to the individual councils to decide. I would also be against my party dictating to local councils in such a manner.
The whole situation is becoming farcical. Rents are becoming chaotic and people are virtually being priced out of the market in council houses. My local council is getting into a mess in regard to rents. This has been caused basically by the circular sent to local councils.
If these cuts are made, the direct labour forces in areas such as these will find themselves on the dole and having to be kept by another Government Department. This will hit local firms as well. A year ago many of these firms were possibly the only places in which I could find Tory posters on their little wooden sheds. I suspect that at the next election—I do not say this with glee—there will not be as many Tory posters on as many wooden sheds. Already local firms are feeling the pinch. There will not be as many firms in my constituency with premises on which to stick such posters.
The same people are talking to me now, in the quiet of the evening, wondering where they went wrong and why they backed the present Government. However, they have done it, and the writing is on the wall for them.
The managing director of a firm of nationally known contractors has said :
"Unless the decline in the building industry is halted, even firms such as ours "—
this emphasises the point made by the right hon. Member for Taunton—
"will be unable to retain that nucleus of skilled craftsmen which is the very basis of the industry."
The Government amendment states :
"this House…supports the Government in its policies to provide a sound basis for the prosperity of the construction industry."
My fear is that by the time that a sound basis is reached, there will be no construction industry left. The Government
912
will have to examine this matter very seriously.
The Minister ought to consider seriously the regional aspect and not look at just London and the London area. From the figures being bandied about, some of the regions have been hit much more than anywhere else. The Government must consider the local effects. In the Midlands and the South-East the value of new work has decreased by 6·6 per cent. I think that that is more than the national average. The value of work at the production drawing stage has decreased by 7·5 per cent., compared with 2·5 per cent. over the whole country. There is a regional problem as well.
The Minister ought to take cognisance of the fact that the abolition of regional joint committees precludes any liaison between the regions and the Development of the Environment. The Government ought to concern themselves more with regional problems and ought to open up the Department to regional bodies.
I promised to be as quick and as concise as possible. In conclusion, therefore, I believe that the Minister and the Department ought to take cognisance of what is being said this evening. That is being said not only on the Opposition Benches but by Conservative Members as well. If the Government are not very worthy in deed, they will have no construction industry to look after, and the moratorium on local authority construction work about which they are talking will not be necessary because they will find it impossible to carry on anyway.
8.38 pm
Mr. John Ward: I declare an interest as a director of a construction company.
The needs of the industry are precisely those of the rest of the country. We must control inflation. We have to live within our means. We have to improve efficiency and to earn any wage increases. The construction industry cannot simply ask to be exempted from the problems of the country as a whole.
We know that the industry supplies one-eighth of this country's productivity. It employs 2½ million people, and its record since the war consists of about 10 million new homes, perhaps 20,000 miles of new roads, together with hospitals, schools, power stations and so on.

913
However, because the industry has always been used by Governments of both major parties as a regulator in times of economic difficulty, it is beginning to learn—perhaps is has learnt—to bounce back.
I shall make my remarks under two headings. The first concerns the 70,000 firms which employ fewer than 25 people, and the 5,000 firms which employ fewer than 114 people. Their problems are different from those of the big international companies. Although they have a common need—continuity of work at the right price—a small firm's ability to react to a given situation is often dictated by size. The small to medium-sized building firm is affected by high interest rates. Contracts can take months or years and the builder is often left to finance part of the contract until completion.
At present public contracts take inflation into account only if they last for more than 12 months. It would be a great help to smaller builders if that period could be reduced to six months. One cannot expect the estimating team of a small builder to be able to predict inflation for the coming year. We shall all welcome the day when interest rates come down. In the Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a certain amount of help to small businesses. The new workshop scheme, the raising of the VAT threshold and the simplification of the 714 certificate scheme will all help small builders.
Although larger firms are beset by many of the problems that affect their smaller brethren, they can sometimes respond to those problems with considerable success. They have concentrated on the development of new markets, and have invested heavily in research and development. They have aimed for more intensive utilisation of plant and resources. They have developed new skills overseas and brought back some of those methods to the United Kingdom. They have improved their design and management techniques. Some firms have entered new areas of construction such as property development, plant and equipment hire, and material supplies. Some have gone into the energy sector. Many companies have dramatically increased their overseas workload.
Hon. Members may have seen the exhibition that the Association of Consult
914
ing Engineers has mounted in the Upper Waiting Hall. They will have seen that consulting engineers have increased their workload from £23 million in 1968 to £375 million in 1978. That represents a return in overseas earnings of over £20,000 per annum for every technical member of staff. During the same period, contractors increased their earnings from £578 million to £5,423 million.
Some of our largest contractors have opened offices in places such as Houston, Texas and Calgary. Both of those towns are in the centre of oil development areas. Other contractors are opening and building estates in places such as California and Australia. One company has turned a section of swamp in Florida into a thriving community, with some of the best amenities in the State. One of the most surprising developments is that British contractors have built on 38 years' experience of open-cast coal mining in this country and are now mining coal in East Kentucky and West Virginia, in competition with Americans.
Other companies are opening up the Third world with jute mills and spinning mills from Vietnam to Bolivia, and from West Africa to Russia. The construction industry often acts as a pioneer for other exporters. The development of the construction industry in the Middle East—which has given a lot of work to designers and construction men—is there for the record. I am reminded of the old suq in Bahrain. It was a pretty insanitary place. However, it has been replaced with a building the size of five football pitches by a British contractor. The mass transit passenger system in Hong Kong is another product of British engineering design. There is no corner of the world that has not been touched by the construction industry seeking markets for its goods. I hope that the House will agree that such enterprise deserves support at home.
Many people will be unaware of the work of the construction industry in oil and gas. Many of the production platforms are built by the construction industry. Many contracting firms are engaged in drilling and offshire servicing of structures. Many of the less glamorous parts of the servicing of oil rigs are carried out by people who previously worked onshore in the construction industry.
There is much of which the industry can be proud, and I believe that it will

915
be as resilient as it has been in the past. It ill becomes the Opposition to criticise this Government and their policies for the construction industry. During the previous Labour Government's term of office they dealt the industry one savage blow after another. They were half-hearted, to say the least, in their attempts to control the excesses of certain direct labour organisations. We attempted, as did the previous Government, to make those organisations more accountable to the ratepayers. The inefficiencies of certain direct labour organisations are on the record.
Much of the waste that direct labour departments have been able to conceal in the past will be open to public scrutiny once the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill becomes law. These departments need to tender in competition, with true overheads included in their costs. That would go some way towards preventing the scandulous waste of public money.
I am sure that all the past abuses mean that we still need to be vigilant. For example, there is that hotbed of democracy in South Yorkshire where a £1·5 million road contract has just been placed with the authority's direct labour organisation without seeking tenders from the private sector. The council went through the process of advertising as required under the EEC directive for public works contracts. But anyone who was foolish enough to try to obtain the documents was told that the contract had already been let.
Again in Glasgow, which is not exactly noted for the efficiency of its direct labour organisation, the council proposed to place a contract for £300,000 with its direct labour organisation, although its price was 8½ per cent. higher than a tender from the private sector. I am glad to say that the Scottish Development Council scotched that one. In general the output from the private sector is 15 to 20 per cent. above that of any direct labour organisation.
Perhaps my biggest criticism of the Labour Party's attitude to the construction industry can be found by reading the booklet about which we have heard much tonight. It was published when naked greed got the better of Labour's political expediency and the party revealed its plans for nationalising the construction industry.
916
During the election Labour candidates went around, waffled and hedged their bets. They suddenly realised that there were 2½ million votes on the line.
Mr. Heffer: Quote the document.
Mr. Ward: I have done even better than that. I have done the hon. Member the courtesy of reading the booklet from cover to cover and I am disgusted by what I read. The industry's response was forceful and typical. An organisation called CABIN was formed to fight off that State grab. In the process the organisation exposed the true merits of the then Labour Government. [Interruption.]—It is all right for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to make loud noises. We have heard a lot about his care for the construction industry. I care as deeply as he does, but the differenc is that I have been working with the men in the industry on the ground for the past 25 years. We all know that the construction industry is going through a difficult period, but so is the rest of the country. We all know that both the country and the construction industry need stability and prosperity.
I referred earlier to the introduction of proper accounting procedures for direct labour organisations. I also referred to the new workshop scheme. The enterprise zones and the urban development corporations that were announced by the Government will give a new and exciting area of activity for the construction industry to work in. The repeal of the Community Land Act 1975 will do much to release land for the housebuilder in the private sector.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Rubbish.
Mr. Ward: I understand that the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members do not wish the private sector to succeed. I am proud to say that I do and that it will. The simplification of the certificate 714 procedure will allow men to get on with their jobs and not worry about bureaucratic form filling. That will also be an improvement. My right hon. Friend's announcement of the simplification of planning procedures will be welcomed by everybody in the industry who cares for its future.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to give a little further

917
help. I support entirely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said about the need not to cut capital expenditure and to cut current expenditure. High current expenditure is another way of describing masses of people sitting in offices telling others what they should be doing.
The industry needs a stable and high workload. It needs continuing freedom from excessive bureaucracy. It needs lower interest rates. The construction industry, as the Labour Party found out to its cost, is a collection of individuals. Those individuals cannot be regimented and nor will they be. If the construction industry is to succeed, it needs the success of the Government's policies.
8.52 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward)—I think that that is his constituency, but it may be Bahrein or the Middle East—attacked direct labour and defended the construction industry, especially the employers. I suggest that he reads the brief given to hon. Members by building industry employers. If he does, he will know the true views of the employers and not merely the views of a construction industry tycoon who happens to sit on the Government Benches and feels obliged to say things that will please his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Ward: I always understood the Labour Party to believe in promotion from the factory floor. My first job in the construction industry was that of a concrete labourer. I worked on every job on the site and I became a director. I feel that I have nothing of which I should be ashamed. I have done my work in the construction industry in Britain and overseas.
Mr. Roberts: Some of the worst and most difficult employers are those who have worked themselves up from the factory floor and who find it difficult to accept that other workers are not quite as able as themselves in certain circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that nothing was wrong with the construction industry. He seemed to be suggesting that the construction industry was in perfect health, that it was
918
thriving, and that there was no exploitation of lump labour. He said that when Labour Members advocated public ownership of the building industry, they were not told that there was no industry to take into public ownership apart from the large international firms. He spoke of small companies that hired plant and hired and fired labour as and when the workload demanded. He said that such firms were impossible to take into public ownership by their very nature and that there was nothing in that sector to nationalise.
That says a great deal about what is wrong with the industry. It explains how labour can still be exploited. It tells us why we have too few building apprentices and why national statistics indicate that thousands of building workers are unemployed when we have an economic recession, and that when we have a Government-created boom reputable companies are often unable to recruit the skilled tradesmen that they need.
The nation needs a stronger and better organised building industry. However, the industry is dependent upon government, both national and local, for its survival. It is perhaps more dependent on government than any other industry. It can survive only if it is ensured continuity of work, and that can be ensured only by the Government.
The industry needs continuity to enable it to plan for the future, to expand and to have the confidence to invest in essential apprenticeships. The Government's policies of cuts in public expenditure and deflation of the economy have denied the building industry the continuity that it needs.
One of the reasons, also, for the shortage of skilled craftsmen was the attempt by the building industry and, indeed, by local government and central Government, in the mid-1960s, to engage in industrialised building, particularly in housing. I remember at the age of 16, in my school lessons, being given a vision of houses produced in factories and slotted together on the site, reducing both costs and building times. That vision soon turned into a nightmare, as the deck access houses of the mid-1960s, which were expensive to build and maintain, were finally rejected by the families for whom they were intended.

919
Traditional craftsmen are needed more than ever now. Nothing has been produced that can beat the traditional low-rise, brick-built house. The building industry also has a responsibility towards Governments and the community, as well as the other way round—particularly towards local government. During the boom times, for example in the early 1970s, because more profitable business was available in the private sector, very few companies tendered for public sector house building projects. For instance, in the city of Manchester at that time we were able to maintain our house building programme only by virtue of our own direct labour department, which tendered and continued to tender, with the odd exception, on occasions, when Wimpey tendered as well, trying to maintain some continuity.
Companies came running back to the public sector when the bubble burst and they are now crying out for public sector work when there is deflation in the economy and not much work in the private sector.
1 hope that when we get the next Labour Government, and there is expenditure in the public sector and the economy starts to pick up again, the construction industry accepts its responsibility to the public sector and local government.
The industry also often turns its back on more difficult and more labour-intensive repair and improvement work, which is essential in improvement areas and to older housing in our inner city areas. A scheme to modernise a few hundred purpose-built council homes that are standardised is easy meat, but trying to let a contract for about 100 houses, acquired in the private sector, that are pepper potted about is not so easy, because even the big builders will not tackle that job. Unless the building industry can face the task of organising this kind of work effectively, and at not too exorbitant a cost, the return of the bulldozer is inevitable. It is interesting to note that few Conservative councils hive off to the private sector the maintenance and repair work that is done by direct labour departments. They hive off the more profitable capital construction and leave the local authority direct labour department with the more difficult and much less profitable loss leader.
920
Many myths exist throughout the building industry. One, which has been propounded tonight by Government supporters, is that acres and acres of building land are being hoarded by local authorities—land that they are not using but that if released would allow the building industry to build houses for sale. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps in Liverpool there is derelict land—that in the ownership of the local authority—land that should have been built on but has not been built on because there is no council house building programme, owing to the political stalemate in that city.
In most parts of the country—in the city of Manchester, for example—local authorities are constantly seeking to acquire more housing land in order to maintain a municipal house building programme. Lack of land inhibits that programme. The truth is that the private developers have themselves failed to buy land in the inner city. Land has been available, but they have not bought it. The big private builders are still insisting on subsidised land if they are to risk building in inner cities.
Another myth is that council housing is not built as attractively as speculative housing because of standardisation. We often hear the words "They all look the same". But so does every Wimpey and Barra" home. The truth is that in either sector houses at a price that ordinary people can afford can be produced only by standardisation. The challenge to builders, architects and planners is to produce interest and variety on an estate where standardised components and house types are necessary. The major difference between low-rise council housing and a speculative estate for owner-occupation is density. The public sector has had to build to a much higher density because of absurd yardsticks related to densities. Lower-density council housing in inner areas would produce estates even more attractive than the average speculative estate.
I am also against the Government's decision to abolish Parker Morris standards. If anything, they need improving on. A house without full central heating or kitchen space for a deep-freeze will be unnacceptable in the not too distant

921
future.—[Interruption.] Conservative Members murmur. I bet that they have deep-freezes.
People's expectations will continue to rise. That is to be welcomed. If they did not, we should still be living in caves. The Government claim that we have broken the back of the nation's housing crisis—a statement with which I do not agree. It is ironic that they advocate reductions in house building standards, when this is the time to increase and not reduce standards.
Builders should be practical. They have a lot to offer the nation. Architects and planners often have flights of fancy. The practical advice of builders should be available to all policy makers deciding on schemes for houses, schools, offices or factories. Every local council committee should have access to that advice. That is a further reason why direct labour departments should be expanded and developed.
9 pm
Mr. Sydney Chapman: We are all concerned about the future of the construction industry, which is the greatest industry in the country, whether measured by output or manpower. We have had speeches of passion and conviction. I want to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who has a deep interest in the industry. I have only one word of criticism. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of a doctrinaire attitude to certain matters in the industry. We feel that the Labour Party's policy is in some respects doctrinaire. It must seem a pity to people outside the House that we do not have a more bi-partisan policy to try to rid our country of unsatisfactory building conditions, whether in the commercial or residential sector.
By any yardstick it is an insecure and high-risk industry. Statistics have been bandied around about the levels of unemployment. The industry's level of unemployment has for many years been three to four times the national average. It fluctuates widely. In 1973, fewer than 100,000 construction workers were registered as unemployed. Within three years the figure rose to over 200,000. Today it has again almost reached that figure. A further problem is the traditionally high
922
number of bankruptcies because of the lack of liquidity. These problems are inherent in the industry and demand special consideration.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke eloquently of the fall in the industry's output since 1979. However, a massive fall has taken place since 1973 under successive Governments. We now regard 1973 as a somewhat golden year. Due to inflation the value of the industry's output has risen consistently. At the start of the 1970s the historic figure showed that output was about £5 billion. Last year it was an estimated £19 billion. However, those figures conceal a modest rise until 1973, and sharp declines, sometimes fluctuating, in the past six years.
The hon. Member for Walton points out that, roughly speaking, the industry's output is divided equally between the public and private sectors. There is no doubt that the most significant factor that will affect work in the private sector is the level of interest rates. Naturally we all hope that they will come down, but they are not the only factor. I pay tribute to the Government for taking action in the fiscal sense on development land tax, which is now on a fair basis and which I hope will receive bi-partisan support, and on industrial building allowances, help for small firms, the new workshop scheme, and so on.
I also welcome the Government's actions and intentions, which I believe to be sincere, to try to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy through the elimination of office development permits, which I believe were unnecessary in the light of our development control system, the partial, if not total, removal of industrial development certificates, and speedier planning decisions and appeals.
The most difficult objective to achieve will be the simplification of building regulations, whch are far too complex and comprehensive and have almost become self-defeating. I believe that they can be unified throughout the country and simplified without compromising proper safety factors and conditions.
The debate is particularly concerned with the public sector. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that his local architects had written to him. I declare an interest as a non-practising architect. For years the hon.

923
Member for Walton and I have been telling the industry that it should use the political clout which it has in theory but which it never seems to exercise in practice. I have been advising architects to write to their local Members to let them know of the problems that they are facing.
The Government are the industry's largest client, and because of the special difficulties of the industry it is not too much to ask the Government to try to guarantee a reasonable minimum and smooth level of work so that it can plan its long-term programmes. After all, it is, by its very nature, a long-term investment industry.
I appreciate why the Government thought it prudent in the public expenditure White Paper to publish public sector construction industry figures for next year only and not up to 1983–84, but I hope that they will commit themselves in the next White Paper, in line with the precedent set by the recent roads White Paper. We shall need new sewers, buildings, including prisons, roads and other infrastructure if we are to bring about more speedily the economic regeneration of this country.
The tragedy of the 1970s, which has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides, and particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), is that successive Governments, faced with the need to rein in public expenditure, have found it easier to chop or delay capital expenditure programmes rather than current programmes.
To take an extreme, but a correct, example, which politician would dare to say to his electorate that it was more important to build a road to the ports than to increase the retirement pension? Any politician who said that on the hustings would probably lose his deposit, let alone his seat. But any Government must have courage.
It is always easier to temporise and stress the importance of the old-age pension or the myriad of benefits and allowances which, once given, are expected, as a right, to be updated, taking inflation into account. Until a sufficient number of politicians stand up and proclaim that the infrastructure must also be provided, I do not believe that we are facing honestly what the construction industry has had to suffer. I hope that this does
924
not sound too party political. We can criticise all Governments. Until we face the fact that the capital expenditure programme is a sound investment programme and should not be the first to suffer when we have to rein back on public expenditure, we shall not begin to tackle the deep-rooted problems that face the greatest industry in this country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before calling the next hon. Member, I remind the House that half an hour remains until the Front Bench speakers hope to reply. Six hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that hon. Members will use their arithmetic to help their colleagues.
9.11 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: The Government's amendment is irrelevant to the present difficult situation facing the construction industry. The same description could be applied to the Tweedledee and Tweedledum contribution of the Secretary of State. This great industry is in a parlous condition. I know this only too well from my own trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, which has a huge membership in the building and construction industry. If I had not been aware of that fact through my own trade union, I was certainly made aware of it by local leaders of the industry in South Wales.
Many of the difficulties are the direct result of the dogma of the Government. Reference has been made several times to the article in the Financial Times this morning. There is every indication that the article was based on a Treasury leak. The Secretary of State should not have glossed over the matter as he did. The article sets out an alarming position. According to the article, a moratorium could face the industry in the not-too-distant future and could well result in the Secretary of State being overruled.
It appears that the Government regard public expenditure as essentially evil. I know from my own experience in Wales that the region requires public expenditure now like it has never required it before. Nationally, we have the absurd position of over 200,000 construction workers on the dole, when they should be doing useful work. Interest rates are at a phohibitive level. The Government's action in cutting public expenditure, plus

925
the high level of interest rates, means that mobility in housing has been virtually halted.
A council tenant thinking of taking out a mortgage on a semi-detached property looks at the interest rates and is put off. In the same way, a person living in a semi-detached property, who may be thinking of moving to a detached house, is also put off. Our council house waiting lists are getting longer. Young couples are suffering. They have to live with in-laws, with all the marital stress that is involved.
This overall gloomy picture is borne out by the forecasts this month of the joint forecasting committee of the building and civil engineering EDCs. Reduc-forecast until 1982. Many schools are relics of a bygone age. Others are conglomerations of nissen huts. Many of our hospitals are nothing more than Victorian workhouses. Their facilities are dreadfully inadequate and waiting lists are soaring.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) referred to the White Paper on roads. It contains proposals for shelving or holding up no less than £750 million worth of road schemes, yet our roads are deteriorating because of lack of maintenance. New roads are required to promote industrial efficiency. Bypasses are needed not only to preserve many of our ancient buildings but for safety. Heavy lorries carry chemicals. An incident in Wales this week could have led to a disaster. Such vehicles should be taken out of our towns. Bypasses are necessary because, without them, one day there will be a major tragedy.
Perhaps the greatest crisis of all faces our sewerage services. The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors gave a clear warning in February to the parliamentary Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure. It said that millions of pounds had to be spent on sewerage services. Mr. George Henderson of the building trades section of the Transport and General Workers Union estimates that about £400 million a year needs to be spent over 20 years to bring our sewerage services up to an adequate standard.
An article in The Times of 16 November by Peter Hennessy states :
926
"Sewage in the streets is a politician's nightmare. It is the ultimate sign that Government authority has broken down."
A few weeks ago that is what happened just outside Blackburn. The old sewerage system literally gave out. There were rats and excreta in the streets. If such warnings are not heeded we shall be turned into an effluent society.
Over 200,000 construction workers are in the dole queue. The joint forecasting committee of the building and civil engineering EDCs, on page 4 of its document, states :
"No significant constraints are likely to arise from shortage of labour or materials."
The situation is a classic one of capitalism. The materials are available, yet the work people languish in the dole queue. There is no movement, yet essential work is waiting to be done. It is time that the Government realised the folly of their economic policies. There is a need to change course, and that need is urgent.
9.20 pm
Mr. Den Dover: I declare an interest as the parliamentary consultant for the firm of George Wimpey.
During the debate we have heard of the various aspects of the construction industry. We must not simply describe the activity of the industry as housing or describe it merely as the building industry. It is a wide-ranging industry which is involved in construction overseas and at home. Design features and mechanical, heating, ventilating and plumbing functions are all part of the industry.
The industry is flexible and versatile. If a firm is large it can turn its hand to other activities where there is a growth area. If a firm is small it can change, perhaps, from new building work to modernisation and rehabilitation. Therein lies the strength of the industry and that is why I do not agree with the Opposition motion but support the Government amendment.
It is extremely important that the House should realise that the industry is still behind the Government. I am in touch with many people in the industry who conducted a marvellous campaign against nationalisation. They even now regard the Government as their Government. They do not see the Government

927
as having destroyed their livelihood or as having got rid of their workload.
Today Lord Scanlon opened a huge lorry production plant in my constituency. It cost £32 million and is manufacturing dozens of lorries a week. Eventually it produce over 400 lorries a week. Lord Scanlon said that we should realise that if we want schools, hospitals and roads we must earn them. He pointed out that we must continue manufacturing and establish such enterprises as the lorry plant that he opened in Leyland.
That is where the future of the construction industry lies. Its future does not lie in building unwanted, unnecessary council houses. We have seen the folly of those ways. What we need is private investment, housing for sale and manufacturing facilities. Perhaps in that regard the Government should bring down interest rates sooner rather than later. That would ensure the recovery of the country more quickly.
However, the industry does not expect miracles overnight. It is in for a tricky period and it was not helped by the threat of nationalisation by the previous Government. Neither was it helped by vast increases in central and local government manning levels and by the creation of such bodies as the road construction units which, I am delighted to say are to be wound up. The industry does not want those things.
The construction industry is an industry of private enterprise. It realises that there is much work to be done in order to put this country back on its feet and is ready and waiting in the wings.
In the meantime the industry is reorientating itself and getting ready for the day when expansion takes place. The industry realises that it is necessary to cut public expenditure good and hard now ready for the day of recovery.
9.23 pm
Mrs. Renée Short: I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) extraordinary. The building industry is concerned about the cuts in public expenditure. As one of the hon. Gentlemen's hon. Friends pointed out, it relies considerably on expenditure in the public sector for the major jobs that it undertakes.
928
There are many facets to this problem and, in spite of the many contacts that have been made by sections of the industry abroad, the British construction industry appears to be lagging well behind its Continental competitors.
The need for a technology-based industry with high standards of design for the creation of exciting architecture seems not to be understood by many British firms—not all of them—I am sorry to say. The manufacture of many components seems to be, all too often, much less exciting and imaginative than those produced by our foreign rivals. I am concerned about that because it affects the export potential of British manufacturers which I shall speak about in a few moments. Many of our British firms would do well to emulate some of their foreign counterparts which are able to compete in this country with great success.
The Government's shocking attitude to the industry is well known, and Conservative Members have commented on that in powerful speeches. The Government are so besotted with monetarist ideas and the overwhelming commitment to save money in certain areas—in some areas Government expenditure has been allowed to increase—that fewer houses are being built and fewer old houses are being modernised. The need for local authority houses is far from being satisfied, with thousands of applicants on many local authority waiting lists.
The onus is placed on local authorities to cut back public expenditure, but the real cuts are falling on public sector capital spending which will hit the construction industry very badly. It looks as though within two or three years no local authority houses will be built. Rents are going through the roof nevertheless. Road programmes are being cut back. As the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) pointed out, expenditure in that sector is 37 per cent. down on last year. The effect will be even more serious on the construction industry generally with more bankruptcies, more unemployment and, sadly, the disbandment of more and more design teams. These teams take a long time to get together and keep in effective employment. Instead of the long-term planning for capital projects that is needed, whenever there is a crisis

929
building projects are slashed and the same dreary cycle persists.
I am very concerned about the low levels of exports by the building materials industry and the building industry generally. The expansion in the supply to the EEC of British services and building materials, of components, of the knowledge of new methods of producing building materials—for example, aerated concrete—has been considerably hampered by the use by EEC countries of their official technical approvals agencies to restrict imports from Britain of materials and know-how.
In Germany and France a foreign firm wishing to export a new material, component or method of construction must first obtain approval from an official approvals agency. It is impossible to export to those countries without that. The approval is based on tests carried out in the importing country's testing laboratories. That can take up to two years and sometimes longer. Without that approval the goods cannot be accepted on site.
Firms wanting to export have to pay at least £20,000 in each case, and perhaps much more. The delay and expense means that in many cases both the British firm and its German importer give up in desperation. This is a great disadvantage to our companies which lose many trade opportunities in this way. To counteract that it has been proposed that the necessary technical approval tests should be carried out in this country in compliance with the standards and technical requirements of the country to which the goods are to be exported. If we were to export to Germany, therefore, we would carry out tests to satisfy the German importers.
Unfortunately, the British negotiators seeking to establish this system were at a considerable disadvantage because no similar approvals system exists here. There is, however, the Agrément Board which comes within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. The board is not all that powerful, but it could be made more so if it were to be given the statutory powers that it needs. It is the only organisation which could deal on behalf of British firms. Successive Governments have treated it in a most niggardly, unrealistic way. It has never
930
been adequately funded. My right hon. Friend who was the Secretary of State in the last Government did very little to help it.
British negotiators are in a weak position when attempting to negotiate bilateral agreements which involve loss of business by German and French testing organisations. A proper system of technical approvals could provide some quid pro quo and if such organisations became difficult it would be easy to exclude their exports to Britain. If we are seriously concerned about imports in any sphere of industry, that is the way to deal with it.
Products should be tested for strength, stability and design, or whatever criteria are laid down. That would control the quality of goods being brought into Britain. It would not be a financial burden because the would-be importer would have to pay for the cost of testing. It would give us some control over imports. Foreign competitors could not complain because they are operating precisely the same control over British imports.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that proposal because it could give a great fillip to the manufacturers of British components and exporters of British know-how who are trying hard to export their goods and services. My proposal should give some fillip to that area of the construction industry.
9.33 pm
Mr. David Alton: I shall try to be brief, because I understand that another hon. Member wishes to speak. I wish to point out some of the inconsistencies between the debate today and a debate held in 1977. Although I was not a Member of Parliament at that time, I took the trouble to read the speeches made in that debate. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is probably one of the few who can claim to be consistent, comparing his speech today with his speech in 1977. I congratulate him on his honesty.
The issue is a political football that is kicked around from Government to Government. Each time there is a change of Government, the arguments change from side to side. It is ironic that the

931
hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), when his party was in opposition, said :
"Two industries in this country have been used as economic regulators for the past 25 years—the construction industry and the motor industry."
Also in that debate, he said :
"Of all the many groups, associations and industries which have suffered under the last three years of Socialism, none has been clobbered more than the building and construction industry and its associated professions."
Quoting the President of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, he said :
"The building and construction industry is in a recession of the worst magnitude in living memory…the building industry is angry and embittered."—[Official Report, 2 May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 113–6.]
I realise that it is impossible for a Government automatically to offer economic cure-alls and automatically to turn round the policies of the past. The Government have done little since they took office to ease the problems in the construction industry. Crude dilemmas have been given to local authorities. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) said that in Liverpool the local authority had to choose between its direct works department and jobs in the private sector of the construction industry. On the basis that 200 more jobs could be provided in the private sector, it decided to opt for that instead of the direct works department. That decision was not taken easily, and it was not a decision that it wished to take. No doubt that is part of the discretion being given to local authorities to which the Secretary of State referred earlier.
Such crude choices have led to housing associations cutting back their programmes. I shall quote one figure that eloquently demonstrates the way in which those at the sharp end of the housing queues receive the worst treatment as a result of the cuts. In the first quarter of this year, housing associations will provide a total of only 72 homes for the disabled or invalids. During last year they provided about 1,400. That demonstrates the way in which housing is being bitten into, and how those at the sharp end are receiving a poor deal.
Housing expenditure this year will fall from £5.372 million by a total of 48 per cent. until 1984. It means that fewer
932
homes will be built, that private house building will slump, that homelessness will steadily increase, that lettings will decrease, and that in many parts of the country there will be no more rehousing from waiting lists. Many housing revenue accounts will be driven into the red, and unemployment among construction workers and architects will undoubtedly reach record levels, as hon. Members have already said.
Confronted with that, we are faced with a motion which talks about unemployment in the construction industry rising to more than 200,000. But that is not the case at present. It is deplorably high—189,000 people are out of work in that industry. However, there have been occasions in the past when more than 200,000 have been unemployed in the construction industry—there were 205,000 in February 1979 and 221,000 in February 1978. Therefore, it is difficult for Liberal Members to go along with the crocodile tears that seem to be cried in the motion.
I must also tell Conservative Members that it is difficult to accept that Liberals should have some sort of blind commitment to an economic policy—which is all that the Government amendment offers—which has given us inflation raging at more than 20 per cent., the minimum lending rate running at 17 per cent. and a mortgage rate of 15 per cent. All of them in their own way ensure that people either cannot afford to buy homes or that small businesses go bankrupt—businesses such as Loughton Construction, in Liverpool, which went bankrupt a few weeks ago, leaving half-completed council homes empty as a result. Raging inflation has also led to many firms, be they big or small, being faced with the prospect of closing down, thus putting more people on the dole queue.
I remind the Secretary of State of what I said to him on Third Reading of the Housing Bill. I referred to his firm. He has managed to turn it into a profitable enterprise, and all credit to him for doing so. That firm made a profit of £3·7 million in 1978. One-third of that was ploughed back into the business and only £230,000 was given to the shareholders.
The right hon. Gentleman should adopt the same sort of maxims in public housing. He should put more money back into public housing by providing

933
improvement grants and new house building grants, and by giving construction workers the chance to participate in their industry.
934
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have outlived my welcome.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
9.37 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) should not be surprised at the parlous state of this industry, when it is recognised that the country has faced seven years of stagnation, and when we all know that this industry is highly dependent on public expenditure.
Conservative Members who have congratulated the Government on their progress in the last year have been right to do so, because despite the difficult situation, there has been real progress. There has been progress on planning delays, and the announcement this evening by the Secretary of State should be greatly welcomed. There has been progress in getting rid of Parker Morris, and crocodile tears are indeed the just reward of Parker Morris. There has also been progress in simplifying building controls and the whittling out of publicly-held assets. At last there has been some realism in public sector housing. There has also been an attack on the houses of direct labour. Not least, there has been the releasing of council tenants from the bondage of council housing as a way of life, and they have now been given the opportunity to buy their own homes.
It is particularly apt that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is to sum up the debate for the Opposition. It was he who, when Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in 1974–75, laid down the foundations for the biggest crash that this industry has ever seen. He was part of the team that master-minded the Community Land Act—that wonderful strategy that was designed to bring forward land for development, but which produced only 153 acres in its first two years of existence. It was he who helped his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to write "Building Britain's Future ", which represented the virtual nationalisation of the building industry and—the hon. Gentleman always forgets to say this—the building material producers as well. That is why they rose up in revolt.
It was the right hon. Gentleman who, in the Queen's Speech of 1977–78, helped to mastermind the call for further
936
direct labour operations. It was only because of the Lib-Lab pact that it collapsed. It is right, therefore, that we should hear the offerings of the Opposition for this great industry. It is little wonder that my hon. Friends who work in this industry and who have supported it for so many years should say that the industry, even in these difficult times, is very much beind the present Government, as I am, too.
9.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Secretary of State told the House tonight, that he will not make a statement tomorrow announcing a moratorium on council house building. However, it is alleged that he will hold a press conference tomorrow to make certain important announcements. I should like to make it clear that if the Secretary of State is to make such a statement, we expect it to be made in the House, to Parliament, and not to a press conference outside the House, where the Opposition do not have the right to question it. We shall insist on a statement in the House if the Secretary of State holds such a press conference tomorrow.
This debate coincides with an anniversary. It is exactly a year ago today that the minimum lending rate was raised to 14 per cent. We all know that a 14 per cent. minimum lending rate holds a special place in the Prime Minister's heart. She proclaimed to the House last year that
"an increase in interest rates to 14 per cent. is a potential disaster for home buyers…it is the home buyer and the small business who are having to pay the price for the Government's economic failure."—[Official Report, 8 February 1979, Vol. 962, c. 550.]
Not long after that minimum lending rate went up to 17 per cent., and it has remained at that figure for seven months. The potential disaster about which the Prime Minister spoke, has now become an actual disaster, and the causes of it are clear. They are an intolerably high minimum lending rate, coupled with the Government's spending cuts. Day by day evidence piles up of the ruin that is being caused by these two blunt instruments. The number of mortgages is falling precipitously. This year they are likely to drop to their lowest level since the Conservative Party was last in office. The number of

937
new council house starts is plunging so fast that the Secretary of State is scared to offer any estimate.
Last year, in his first flush of office, the Secretary of State derided the Labour Government. He claimed
"that they had managed to reduce the entire new house building programme to the levels last seen in Britain 30 years ago."
If that was true then, it is true no longer. Under the Secretary of State's supervission, the house building programme is now at its lowest for nearly 40 years. It may get worse, because tonight the Secretary of State, in a remarkable and disturbing statement, significantly and ominously shrank from denying that the Government might impose a freeze on all council house building.
It is not only house building that is suffering. The National Economic Development Office last week issued a devastating series of forecasts covering the entire construction industry. It said that repairs and improvements would fall, that there would be less road building and fewer new schools, that water programmes would be reduced, and that fewer new factories would be built.
Those grim warnings are confirmed by the Government Front Bench. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have a powerful characteristic in common—in addition, of course, to their loathing of each other and their apparent patronage of the same hairdresser, both privileges regrettably denied to myself. They both have an uncontrollable tendency to blurt out the awkward truth in unguarded moments.
Last week the Secretary of State admitted to the House that far fewer public sector houses are being built. Speaking about housing to the Select Committee on the Environment, he confessed that the public and private sectors are collapsing. He was as frank on the subject of roads. He said that fewer roads are being designed. Only a week ago the Prime Minister coyly amplified that confession when she said that
"the road programme has been reduced. There is not much scope for it being reduced further."—[Official Report, 5 June 1980, Vol. 985. c. 1674.]
The Secretary of State claims that these trends began under the Labour Government
938
and that he is simply continuing them. It must be said that he has an unfortunate addiction to treating facts that do not suit his case as inconveniences, to be manipulated until they fit his rewriting of the truth. The Secretary of State is the Demon Barber of Marsham Street. He treats statistics in the way that Sweeney Todd treated his customers. First he slits their throats and then he cooks them. Nowhere is this culinary butchery more blatant than in his version of the record on house building. Again and again, the Secretary of State claims that, under Labour, public sector house building fell year by year and that he is only continuing what we began. He was at it again last week, when he said
"The number of public sector houses has been reduced every year for the last four years."
Let us examine how the Secretary of State bakes this unsavoury meat pie. First, he starts with an untruth, because in the period that he cites, in 1976, public sector housing starts rose above those in 1975, just as in 1975 they rose above those in 1974.
Secondly, the Secretary of State compounds this untruth by deliberately starting his chosen period with a year when housing starts were at their highest for nearly a decade, directly because of the incoming Labour Government's decision to increase the house building programme. The Secretary of State is well aware of this because he has generously accused me of responsibility for it when I was at the Department of the Environment—although he calls it irresponsibility. The devastating charge that he made about me was that I was encouraging local authorities dramatically to increase their housing programmes. Guilty, m'Lud.
It is certainly true that there was a serious decline from the high level of starts in the early years of the previous Labour Government—a decline for which we on the Opposition Benches do not offer excuses. But the fact is that even the worst Labour year was better than the level of public sector building starts that we inherited from the previous Tory Government. It is the Secretary of State who bears a unique responsibility for destroying the house building programme. When he took office, he said :
"our economic policies in general will create conditions in which it will be possible for

939
more and better-quality homes to be provided ".—[Official Report, 17 May 1979 ; Vol. 967, c. 407].
In little over a year he has cynically betrayed that promise.
Not only is the Secretary of State attacking those who depend on the construction industry's products ; he is attacking those who depend on it for their livelihood. Nowhere is this attack more vicious than in his assault on the direct labour organisations of local authorities. Any industry depends on new blood coming in to revitalise it. It is the DLOs that are providing the construction industry with its trainees. [Interruption.] DLOs have only 23 per cent. of the building workers in the industry, but they provide 46 per cent. of the trainees. The Secretary of State's attack on the DLOs is an attack on the future of the industry, an industry which has the country's largest output—£19 billion ; one-eighth of the gross national product.
One cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy construction industry. Yet the present Government are sapping the industry's strength away. There is a decline of more than 10 per cent. in capital expenditure on construction work for this year, compared with the last full year of the Labour Government. The decline will be even steeper if one group of organisations were not planning dramatic increases in their building programmes. Those organisations are the nationalised industries—electricity, railways, gas, coal, and British Leyland.
It is an ironic fact that the Tory Government are relying on the nationalised industries, which they hate so much, to rescue the construction industry from the worst consequences of Tory policy. But even this rescue plan has a snag, because, as the National Federation of Building Trades Employers points out, what the Government are doing is saying that the nationalised industries' investment can take place only if they generate the funds internally, and that means by raising their prices so that the Government can fiddle the public sector borrowing requirement.
This week the Prime Minister spoke of her determination to squeeze inflation out of the economy. The Government's crazy policy is squeezing inflation into the economy. The Conservative Party has accumulated an amazing record. A
940
Government who seek to roll back the frontiers of the State are pathetically depending on nationalised industries to bail them out of their failures. A Government who promised to reduce inflation by controlling the public sector borrowing requirement are using it to increase inflation. Two years ago the construction industry was far healthier than it is now. At that time the Secretary of State, then an Opposition spokesman, spoke about the previous Labour Government and said :
"by…their policy initiatives, their objectives and their administrative decisions, they have demoralised the construction industry, witnessed a dramatic increase in unemployment in the industry, and managed an inadequate programme of housing. On any of those grounds they would deserve criticism, but on the combinations of all of them, they cannot resist censure."—[Official Report, 21 June 1980 ; Vol. 952, c. 486.]
It is precisely for those reasons that we censure the Government tonight.
9.50 pm
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): This has been an important debate on an important industry. Economic policy has played an essential part, particularly the level of public expenditure. Underlying Opposition speeches has been the familiar argument that the key to prosperity in the construction industry is more public expenditure and greater public indebtedness.
No period demonstrates more clearly that that argument is false than the period of the previous Labour Government. If there should have been a period when the construction industry boomed as never before and when output increased every year it should have been during the last five years. A British Government have never been so completely addicted to public expenditure as the previous Labour Government. No other British Government have put the country into debt so fast or so furiously. They borrowed £40,000 million. The national debt was doubled. Interest on the national debt trebled. What happened to the construction industry? Far from enjoying its greatest boom, it enjoyed a sustained recession.
In real terms capital expenditure on roads decreased by one-third. Capital spending on schools was halved. Net capital expenditure on housing was also

941
halved. The previous Labour Government conclusively showed that prosperity for the construction industry and for the national economy cannot be achieved by piling up more debts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) rightly pointed out that prosperity must be built on real economic growth if the construction industry and this country are to get the necessary level of capital investment. That economic growth cannot be built on the illusory prosperity of mountains of debt. That is all that the Labour Party can offer.
When the Labour Party was in office it was more realistic than it is tonight. Nothing makes more interesting reading than the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) when he spoke two years ago in the last debate on the construction industry. He wore the coarsest of hair shirts He tried to defend the 1976 expenditure cuts with all the economic rectitude of a man from the IMF. He said :
"This action was considered essential to preserve the economy… There is no short-term palliative which could dramatically increase demand and solve the structural problems of the construction industry any more that there is an easy road to economic regeneration generally in our country."—[Official Report, 2 May 1977 ; Vol. 931, c. 123–31.]
Those were the admirable words of the right hon. Member for Brent, East. No one will be fooled by the short-term palliatives of more public expenditure.
If hon. Members have listened to Opposition speeches, they may be forgiven for thinking that the construction industry has more or less collapsed during the past twelve months. I do not underestimate the difficulties. However, as my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and for Chorley (Mr. Dover) made clear, the picture painted by the Opposition is unrepresentative. What about the value of construction output on maintenance and repair during the past twelve months? It may be said that that value has decreased. However, the value of maintenance and repair work during the past year was higher in real terms than in any 12 months since the Second World War. If one looks at new orders for comer
942
cial construction in the private sector one sees that during our first year in office they were higher than in all but one year of the previous Government. The same is true of the total value of orders from the private sector. In the last 12 months they have also been higher than in every year of the previous Government except one.
Before the Labour Party gets too carried away with talk about the collapse of the construction industry, it might care to reflect that the value of construction output fell in every year except one while the Labour Government were in office. During the lifetime of the previous Government the numbers of unemployed in the construction industry reached the highest levels ever recorded since the statistics were first collected in 1948. Therefore, it ill-behoves Labour Members to introduce motions about the imminent collapse of the construction industry when their Government put the industry into a state of near collapse for the best part of five years.
We have taken a series of far-reaching steps during the last 12 months to create a fundamentally sounder base from which the construction industry can operate. Instead of hoarding every possible scrap of unused development land in the public sector, we have released it, and there is a great deal of public sector land which can be released. Since we came into office, more than 1,400 acres of development land have been sold by the new town development corporations, by the Commission for the New Towns and by the Housing Corporation. A substantial proportion of more than 3,000 acres of non-agricultural land disposed of by the PSA is capable of development. We are making certain that surplus land is not offered all round the public sector but is released straight away. We are getting rid of the Community Land Act, we have made development land tax fairer and less of a deterrent to construction, we have increased the IDC threshold, we have abolished ODPs and the enterprise zones and the two urban development corporations will create major opportunities for the construction industry.
We have also provided vastly greater statutory scope for housing authorities to promote low-cost home ownership than ever before. The response that we have had from local authorities to our

943
low-cost home ownership programme has been very encouraging. A total of 90 English authorities have told us that they are promoting various types of "starter hom" schemes. Our low-cost home ownership programme is getting through in some remarkable quarters. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is not here at present, but I have listened to many of his speeches in recent months and I have the firm impression that his vision of the Elysian fields was a Salford in which every private landlord had bitten the dust and every homeowner had been municipalised so that Salford was a 100 per cent. proof council estate. Perhaps I am doing the hon. Member an injustice, because the other day I picked up a copy of the Manchester Evening News and I saw an arresting headline "Private Homes Plan by Labour Council". I found that the council in question was none other that Salford.
What alternative policies are the Oppo-tion offering for the construction industry? I was interested to read the Labour Party's most recent policy statement
which is entitled "Peace, Jobs, Freedom—How to stop the drift to catastrophe". I have never read any document more certain to generate that catastrophe. That is true about the section on the construction industry. This is what it says :
"We will also extend public enterprise to ensure a significant public stake—and a degree of control—in each important industrial sector ; and this will include companies in such sectors as pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, microelectronics, construction and building materials."
And so, once again, it is the age-old policy. The Labour Party is back again on nationalisation of the construction industry. That is the one and only policy that they have. Their economic policy is one of higher and higher public indebtedness, which can only lead to high inflation, high taxation and high bankruptcies. That will be no good for the construction industry. For that reason I ask the House to vote against the motion.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question :—
The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 294.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Prescott, John

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Race, Reg

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Maclennan, Robert

Radice, Giles

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

McNamara, Kevin

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Magee, Bryan

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Marks, Kenneth

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Tilley, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Tinn, James

Maxlon, John

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Torney, Tom

Meacher, Michael

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Rooker, J. W.

Watkins, David

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Weetch, Ken

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Ryman, John

Wellbeloved, James

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Sandelson, Neville

Welsh, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Sever, John

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Sheerman, Barry

Whitehead, Phillip

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

Whitlock, William

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Newens, Stanley

Short, Mrs Renée

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Ogden, Eric

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

O'Halloran, Michael

Silverman, Julius

Winnick, David

O'Neill, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Woodall, Alec

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Palmer, Arthur

Snape, Peter

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Park, George

Soley, Clive

Wright, Sheila

Parker, John

Spearing, Nigel

Young, David (Bolton East)

Parry, Robert

Spriggs, Leslie

Pavitt, Laurie

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

Pendry, Tom

Stott, Roger

Mr. Joseph Dean and

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Straw, Jack

Mr. George Morton.

NOES

Adley, Roben

Chapman, Sydney

Gray, Hamish

Aitken, Jonathan

Churchill, W. S.

Greenway, Harry

Alison, Michael

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Grieve, Percy

Alton, David

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Ancram, Michael

Clegg, Sir Walter

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Arnold, Tom

Cockeram, Eric

Grist, Ian

Aspinwall, Jack

Colvin, Michael

Grylls, Michael

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Cope, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Cormack, Patrick

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

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Costain, A. P.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Critchley, Julian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Hannam, John

Beith, A. J

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Haselhurst, Alan

Bell, Sir Ronald

Dorrell, Stephen

Hastings, Stephen

Bendall, Vivian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hawksley, Warren

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Dover, Denshore

Hayhoe, Barney

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Heddle, John

Best, Keith

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Henderson, Barry

Bevan, David Gilroy

Durant, Tony

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dykes, Hugh

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Biggs-Davison, John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Hill, James

Blackburn, John

Eggar, Timothy

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Blaker, Peter

Elliott, Sir William

Hooson, Tom

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Emery, Peter

Hordern, Peter

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Eyre, Reginald

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Bowden, Andrew

Fairgrieve, Russell

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Bright, Graham

Farr, John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Brinton, Tim

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Brittan, Leon

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Jessel, Toby

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Fox, Marcus

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Buck, Antony

Freud, Clement

Kershaw, Anthony

Budgen, Nick

Fry, Peter

Kilfedder, James A.

Bulmer, Esmond

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Burden, F. A.

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Butcher, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Knox, David

Butler, Hon Adam

Glyn, Dr Alan

Lamont, Norman

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Goodhart, Philip

Lang, Ian

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Goodhew, Victor

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodlad, Alastair

Latham, Michael

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Gow, Ian

Lawrence, Ivan

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Gower, Sir Raymond

Lawson, Nigel

Channen, Paul

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Lee, John

946

947

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Page, John (Harrow West)

Stanley, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Steen, Anthony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Stevens, Martin

Loveridge, John

Parkinson, Cecil

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Lyell, Nicholas

Parris, Matthew

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

McCrindle, Robert

Pattern, Christopher (Bath)

Stokee, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Patten, John (Oxford)

Stradling Thomas, J.

MacGregor, John

Pattie, Geoffrey

Tapsell, Peter

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Penhaligon, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Percival, Sir Ian

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

McQuarrie, Albert

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Donald

Major, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Thome, Neil (llford South)

Marland, Paul

Pollock, Alexander

Thornton, Malcolm

Marlow, Tony

Porter, George

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyhealh)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Trlppier, David

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Trotter, Neville

Mates, Michael

Proctor, K. Harvey

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Mather, Carol

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Raison, Timothy

Viggers, Peter

Mawby, Ray

Rathbone, Tim

Waddington, David

Mawhinney, Or Brian

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wakeham, John

Mayhew, Patrick

Renton, Tim

Waldegrave, Hon William

Mellor, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Reddltch)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Mills, lain (Merlden)

Ridsdale, Julian

Wall, Patrick

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

REfkind, Malcolm

Waller, Gary

Mfscampbell, Norman

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NWI

Walters, Dennis

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Ward, John

Moate, Roger

Rossi, Hugh

Warren, Kenneth

Montgomery, Fergus

Salnsbury, Hon Timothy

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Moore, John

Scott, Nicholas

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

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Wheeler, John

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Morrison, Hon Peter (City ol Chester)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Raymond

Mudd, David

Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)

Wickenden, Keith

Murphy, Christopher

Silvester, Fred

Wilkinson, John

Myles, David

Sims, Roger

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Neale, Gerrard

Skeet, T. H. H.

Winterton, Nicholas

Needham, Richard

Speed, Keith

Wolfson, Mark

Nelson, Anthony

Speller, Tony

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Neubert, Michael

Spence, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Newton, Tony

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Normanton, Tom

Splcer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Nott, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin

Mr. Spencer le Marchant anil

Onslow, Cranley

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mr. Anthony tlcrry.

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to

Division No. 3631

AYES

[10.13 pm

Adley, Robert

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Aitken, Jonathan

Buck, Antony

Eggar, Timothy

Alison, Michael

Budgen, Nick

Elliott, Sir William

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Butcher, John

Emery, Peter

Ancram, Michael

Butler, Hon Adam

Eyre, Reginald

Asplnwall, Jack

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Farr, John

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Bendall, Vivian

Channon, Paul

Fookes, Misa Janet

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Chapman, Sydney

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Best, Keith

Churchill, W. S.

Fox, Marcus

Sevan, David Gllroy

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Biggs-Davlson, John

Clegg, Sir Waiter

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Blackburn, John

Colvin, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Cope, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Cormack, Patrick

Gower, Sir Raymond

Braine, Sir Bernard

Costaln, A. P.

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Brinton, Tim

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Gray, Hamish

Brittan, Leon

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Greenway, Harry

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Dover, Denshore

Grieve, Percy

Brooke, Hon Peter

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmund")

Browne, John (Winchester)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Grist, Ian

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Durant, Tony

Grylls, Michael

Bryan, Sir Paul

Dykes, Hugh

Gummer, John Selwyn

Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) :—
The House divided : Ayes 218, Noes 8.

Hannam, John

Mellor, David

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Haselhurst, Alan

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Hawksley, Warren

Mill", lain (Meriden)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Heddle, John

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)

Henderson, Barry

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Silvester, Fred

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moate, Roger

Sims, Roger

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Montgomery, Fergus

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hill, James

Moore, John

Speed, Keith

Holland, Philip (Carltont

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Hooson, Tom

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Squire, Robin

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morrison, Hon Peler (City of Chester)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Murphy, Christopher

Stanley, John

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Myles, David

Steen, Anthony

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Needham, Richard

Stevens, Martin

Jesse!, Toby

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Neubert, Michael

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Newton, Tony

Stradllng Thomas, J.

Joseph, Rl Hon Sir Keith

Normanton, Tom

Tapsell, Peter

Kershaw, Anthony

Nott, Rt Hon John

Temple-Morris, Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom

Page, John (Harrow West)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Thompson, Donald

Knox, David

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Thome, Neil (llford South)

Lamont, Norman

Parkinson, Cecil

Trippier, David

Lang, Ian

Parris, Matthew

Trotter, Neville

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Pattern, Christopher (Bath)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Lawrence, Ivan

Patten, John (Oxford)

Viggers, Peter

Lawson, Nigel

Pattie, Geoffrey

Waddlngton, David

Lee, John

Pawsey, James

Wakeham, John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Percival, Sir Ian

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Pollock, Alexander

Wall, Patrick

Lyell, Nicholas

Porter, George

Waller, Gary

McCrindle, Robert

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Ward, John

Maclarlane, Neil

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Warren, Kenneth

MacGregor, John

Proctor, K. Harvey

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

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wheeler, John

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Rathbone, Tim

Whitney, Raymond

McQuarrie, Albert

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Wickenden, Keith

Major, John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wilkinson, John

Marland, Paul

Renton, Tim

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Marlow, Tony

Rhodes James, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wolfson, Mark

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Younger, Rt Hon George

Mates, Michael

Ridsdale, Julian

Mather, Carol

Rlfklnd, Malcolm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Mawby, Ray

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant an"

Mayhew, Patrick

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Mr. Anthony Berry.

NOES

Alton, David

Kilfedder, James A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. David Penhaligon.

Home Robertson, John

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).
Resolved,
That this House, recognising that a vigorous and profitable construction industry can only grow from a prosperous economy, rejects the failed and discredited prescription of the Opposition and supports the Government in its polices to provide a sound basis for the prosperity of the construction industry.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (DIOCESE IN EUROPE MEASURE)
Queen's consent having been signified—
10.26 pm
Mr. William van Straubenzee(Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move,
That the Diocese in Europe Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
If a Minister were moving that a Bill be read the Second time, he would be expected to give a detailed explanation of each clause. The advantage of our procedures, by which Measures such as this are first considered by a Joint Committee of the Commons and another place—the Ecclesiastical Committee—is that we have a report of that distingushed Committee on the Measure. We also have a report from the legislative committee of the General Synod. The House will wish me to say something about what the Measure provides, but it will not be necessary for me to detain the House to give the detail that might be otherwise be necessary.
It might be helpful if I put the Measure into context. The Anglican churches were planted throughout the world and they came to full independence as the years passed. Many of them have found their way to fully independent provinces in their parts of the world. That can be seen in the old Commonwealth countries and in Africa. In some dioceses they have become so isolated that that has not been possible. Sometimes political problems have been associated with the territorial area in which they are situated. We understand the political delicacies affecting a diocese such as Hong Kong.
Other isolated areas have been brought to full independence within a province. There is one in the South Pacific, a province in New Guinea and the Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East. That, briefly, is the background to the historic jurisdiction of the Bishop of London in northern and central Europe and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Gibraltar.
Given that background, the problem facing the Church of England was how to
952
discover the appropriate way forward and how that amalgam should be dealt with in terms of its association with a wider entity. It seemed desirable to bring it within the ambit of wider ecclesiastical unity. The problem was, where? The obvious solution was to associate it with the Church of England in England.
The Measure makes provision for a diocese not of Europe, but a diocese in Europe. The Measure does not create a diocese. It assumes the relinquishment by the Bishop of London of his historic jurisdiction. He has made known his intention so to do. The Measure records the intention of the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise his metro-political jurisdiction over the areas so surrendered and over the areas within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Gibraltar, and from these to create one diocese in Europe.
The Measure provides for representation of the diocese in the General Synod and in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity, it provides, as hon. Members have no doubt seen, for the Church Commissioners to provide for stipends in exactly the same way as is done with the clergy in the Church of England and, incidentally, for their pensions. It also provides, for example, for so human a measure as pensions for deaconesses and lay workers—that matter was before the House not long ago—to apply to such persons in exactly the same way as it does here.
There will be no diocesan synod for the diocese in Europe. It may be that that would in some ways be desirable, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that there would be huge problems of expense in travel and so on. I think that it must be right that the functions of a diocesan synod—those that would be fulfilled in an Anglican diocese in England—will be fulfilled by a bishop's council and standing committee.
Nor will the bishop be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen as are, of course, the diocesan bishops of the Church of England within England. The bishop will be appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London and an episcopal member of the standing committee of the Anglican Consultative Council. For the avoidance of all possible doubt, and to meet a reasonable question that might emerge later, may I say absolutely clearly that the statute law

953
of this country is so framed that the bishop will not be eligible to sit in another place. The reference for that is the Bishoprics Act 1878, as amended, an Act that I am sure is constantly in the minds of hon. Members.
Let me deal for a moment with what I quite understand could for some be an objection. Is it right, as it will be if the House gives its assent tonight, for someone who is not a British subject to be a member of the General Synod? The General Synod, as we all understand well, not only has its own legislative powers but, though the power is used sparingly, can amend Acts passed by this House. My answer to that is that that is nothing new. Though it may at first seem so, the Measure is not charting new ground in that respect.
Let me give an example. Suppose that there were a Swedish national who had been episcopally confirmed by a bishop in Sweden. The Church of England is in communion with the Church in Sweden. Let us assume, further, that either by residence or by habitual worship that Swedish national is on the electoral roll of the Church of England in England. He is quite clearly, as the law stands, eligible to be on that electoral roll and eligible to be elected to the General Synod. He is wholly eligible to be elected, and there is no requirement that he must, for example, taken an oath of allegiance.
I am, together with one other hon. Member present tonight, a member of the General Synod, and neither of us by virtue of our membership of the General Synod is required to take an oath of allegiance. Nor by virtue of their membership of the General Synod are our clerical brethren. I think, though, that all of them will have taken an oath of allegiance by virtue of some other matter such as their being bishops of the Church of England or having been presented to livings in the Church where that is a requirement.
I found helpful the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee which brought out so clearly that the Church of England does not confine its operations to England and that membership does not depend upon nationality. I hope, therefore, that this Measure will commend itself to the House as a logical, practical and sensible of the work of the Church,
954
bringing those concerned within the ambit of the larger ecclesiastical unit, giving them the rights of membership of the General Synod which are so clearly set out.
I need detain the House no longer, but with the leave of the House I shall reply to any major points that are raised. I commend the Measure to the House.
10.36 pm
Mr. Frank R. White (Bury and Rad-cliffe): Before the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) opened our debate the House had concluded an interesting debate on the problems of the construction industry. I congratulate the hon. Member on directing the thoughts of the House to a very different problem of reconstruction, but an important one none the less.
In the present climate of debate within the Parliamentary Labour Party and in the country as a whole, it is with a little trepidation that one approaches any subject that has a European context. We fear, quite rightly, invoking the wrath and indignation of the pro- and anti-Marketeers. Therefore, I stress that I do not regard this measure as in any way launching the Church of England into the red-hot furnace of the argument about the EEC. Whatever the outcome of the political arguments concerning this country's continued membership of the EEC, the Church of England, as a result of our history and regardless of our future role in Europe, has and will continue to have a role to play in the European Christian community.
The days are long gone when the Continental chaplaincies of the Church of England chiefly served the wealthy and leisured expatriates doing the grand Victorian tour of Europe. The Church serves not only thousands of holiday-makers in growing numbers but business men and British members of international organisations whose families live and are educated in Europe, as well as providing the traditional services to embassy and consular staff. In many places in Europe there are also retired Britons and British widows of local nationals, who place great value on this link with their mother country. As is explained in the report before the House, the mix differs from place to place, but the chaplaincy can be expected to serve a wide cross-section of

955
people drawn from the wider area of the country in which it is based.
The demand is growing. Just as our resident commercial and industrial involvement in the Continent grows, so does the work of the Church. In January there was a revision of the electoral rolls of the European chaplaincies. There were 8,659 persons on those rolls. There are approximately 200 chaplaincies, of which 96 have resident clergy. Hon. Members may judge the importance of this group of people by comparing them with the 139 benefices in the diocese of Portsmouth or the 143 benefices in the diocese of Bradford.
I do not intend to recount the history of the chaplaincies outside the country ; the hon. Member for Wokingham has already taken us through that. I do not intend to take the House through the historical development of the Anglican chaplaincies from the Order in Council of Charles I in 1633, or the Crown Letters Patent establishing Gibraltar in 1842. Again, the hon. Member has dealt with those points adequately. I will not test the patience of the House by repetition. I trust, however, that I have removed any fears regarding Europeanisation. I merely state that I support the arguments put forward by the Second Church Estates Commissioner about the constitutional issues involved when considering the Measure.
I wish to direct the thoughts of the House to the present, and to what I believe to be the simple basic facts of life about the proposal before us. The House must start by realising that there is an increasing desire from both clergy and laity in the European chaplaincies for a closer association with the Church of England, especially for a share in its synodical institutions. If we put it in terms of an industrial or commercial analogy, management and staff of the European enterprise wish to be given greater job satisfaction and a place on the consultative committees of the corporation in order to enjoy the levels of participation and industrial democracy of other affiliated organisations. That request seems completely understandable, especially when put in those terms. Surely it is unreasonable to expect a growing section of the Church to de denied access to the top tier of decision making. To reject
956
that desire completely out of hand would be to rebut the very basis of the Church Assembly.
The second basic point that the House must consider is the spiritual work of the Church. Will the Measure promote or detract from that objective? The involvement of Ecclesia Anglicana in Europe goes back centuries, beyond the Reformation, and even beyond the Norman Conquest. I believe that the early Saxon bishops gained a reputation for dogged single-mindedness in what must have been the first Community renegotiation. That involvement is shown in more modern times by the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury through the diocese of Gibraltar.
I believe that in passing the Measure we shall provide positive benefit to the work of the Church in Europe, especially our relationships with other European churches with which we enjoy spiritual communion, and even with those of other Christian fellowships.
I wish to return to a comment that I made when I first spoke in these debates, when I stated that the House should be able to demonstrate serious concern before disagreeing or refusing any Measure passed by the General Synod. I do not say that we must give carte blanche, but we must have deep-held justification before refusing any Measure.
I do not know the record for consultative discussion, but the Measure seems to have experienced a great deal. In 1973 the then Bishop of London initiated a reference to the standing committee of the General Synod of the Church relative to this proposal. In October 1975 the Archbishop of Canterbury presided over a London conference, in which bishops, clergy, committee members and, more importantly, the clergy and laity of European chaplaincies, fully participated. That conference produced an agreed statement, and the proposals contained in the statement were widely discussed in the European chaplaincies, were voted on, and gained the full support of all but two.
In November 1976 the General Synod passed a motion of support and instructed that the necessary legislation be prepared. The prepared document was introduced in the General Synod in February 1979, and it received general

957
support. It was again discussed on revision in November of that year. In February of this year the Measure was given final approval. Following that, the Ecclesiastical Committee also gave its approval, having decided, after a full scrutiny whatever the concern about some controversial points it was not sufficient to reject the Measure.
The document before us has received the most widespread degree of consultation possible. Despite the reservations of a few, it has received both enthusiastic and overwhelming support. In the light of the results of those consultations, and the subsequent debates in Synod, and bearing in mind the detailed scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I support the measure on behalf of the Opposition. I ask the House to give it its full support.
10.44 pm
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I simply want to say a few words in support of the Measure. I should tell the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) that the Church moves very slowly in these matters. I was involved in discussing a possible diocese of Europe in the late 1960s, when for a number of years I was treasurer of the Commonwealth and Continental Church Society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) will know, we had, and still have, a large number of chaplaincies in Europe, from one end to the other.
I am glad that this Measure has finally reached this stage, and I hope that the Church of England will now press on with it after we pass it. It will give to the Church in Europe a sense of unity and belonging which it perhaps did not have before. For many years, the Church comprised a number of loosely knit chaplaincies. As the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe said, in Victorian days those chaplaincies each had an individual entity of their own, because many English people lived in various places in Europe and the chaplaincies were quite prosperous and full.
That has somewhat changed. Those chaplaincies now have a new role. They have a minimum congregation at certain times of the year and at other times they have a congregation which ought to be increased considerably, and many congregations are, by the influx of holiday
958
makers. This job can justify a good deal of attention by the Church of England through its societies, including the one with which I am still connected as a trustee, although the name has been changed to the Intercom Society. Other societies in Europe are also involved in this work.
I have always found it strange that we have had the diocese of Gibraltar, yet it is only now that we are coming round to a diocese in the northern part of Europe. It is fascinating that this is happening at a time when Spain is seeking to join the Common Market. I do not know what that will do with regard to our negotiations with Spain over Gibraltar, just at the time when we are making Gibraltar the centre for the new diocese in Europe. Perhaps that is another good reason why we should not hand Gibraltar over to the Spaniards. Equally, it may be the case that the Church, in so far as it has a greater influence in Europe, will be able to advise the Government on how to negotiate with the Spaniards so that we can reach some agreement on this matter.
The fact that it will be called the diocese of Gibraltar in Europe—although it will, in fact, be called the diocese in Europe—gives a new meaning to the words of Christ himself, when He said :
"upon this rock I will build my church".
I simply rise to wish the Measure well. It is good that the House should discuss these matters and that some of us at least should take an interest in what the Church is doing. It means that the Church and the State have a real meaning. This latest venture will create a new outpost which will be much closer to us than ever before, both because we belong to Europe and because people now go there in much greater numbers than they have done in the past. That makes this Measure even more important.
10.50 pm
Mr. Michael English: It is a little dangerous to quote
"super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meant"
in the context of a debate about the Church of England, as it is a text that has often been discussed in relation to the Church of which the Church in England—not of England—was once a part. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) distorted history a

959
little in relation to the Church in England. It is true, I think, that an English missionary became the first Archbishop of Mainz, the principal archbishopric of the Holy Roman Empire and of Germany. That was when there was one church throughout Western Europe. It was long before the Church of England—a somewhat nationalistic enterprise of the sixteenth century—was created.
This Measure is not one that any hon. Member wishes to oppose by vote on the Floor of the House at this time of night, but a few points should be made. It is not as perfect a measure as may have seemed to be the case up to now. It was not immediately approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which held two sessions on the matter. It approved it in principle during the first session, but it redrafted the report in the second session.
It is a slight misfortune that, although the Ecclesiastical Committee is a Joint Committee of both Houses, it is not a Joint Committee in the normal sense in which we use those words. It is not a combination of two Select Committees, following the procedures of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, although it seems to be when one is a member of it. It is set up by statute. The result is that in this report the proceedings of the Committee are not included in the way that they would be included were it a normal Select Committee of the two Houses. That makes it difficult for any hon. Member who was not a member of the Committee to know what happened.
Perhaps I can use the fact that it is sui generis and a statutory creation to talk about the proceedings, because if it were a Joint Select Committee of both Houses I would not be allowed to do so. Although the overwhelming majority of the Committee voted for approval of the measure, nearly everyone who voted for it expressed some reservation. Its title and the title of the diocese is a little odd. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said, it is to be known in practice as the diocese in Europe. Its official title is the diocese of Gibraltar in Europe. It is nice to be told that Gibraltar is in Europe. But it is even more peculiar if we remember that that includes Morocco and Turkey and, as I understand, it includes the part of
960
Turkey that is in Asia, as well as Morocco, which is in Africa.
I should like to ask the hon. Member Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) a point in relation to the other diocese included. What does Northern and Central Europe include? In the history of the Anglican Church, at one time Northern Europe included Russia. In the sixteenth century there was an Anglican chapel opposite the Kremlin. I am a little concerned about the question of foreigners being allowed to vote in a law-making institution of the United Kingdom. Does that include Russian citizens? It may well not. But what does Northern and Central Europe include? People from Morocco or Turkey would have indirect rights to elect representatives in the General Synod. That is the essential criticism of this Measure.
I asked a question in the Ecclesiastical Committee, since the Measure adopts a completely opposite principle to that of the European Communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Rad-cliffe said that it does not bring Europe into this issue. He is quite right. It does not do that, because it adopts a highly nationalistic English way of looking at things and does the exact opposite of what the European Commission has proposed in relation to EEC countries. My hon. Friend may recollect that what the Commission has proposed is that everyone throughout Europe should have civil rights and legal rights in the country in which he resides, irrespective of his nationality. That has not happened yet. But it would, for example, enable my hon. Friend, if he happened to be living in Lyons, to vote for the Lyons town council, just as he could vote for, say, the Greater London Council if he happened to live in London, irrespective of whether he was a British or a French citizen.
This is the opposite principle. This says that irrespective of the country of which one is a citizen, and of where one lives, one can vote for people to be elected to the General Synod of the Church of England. In this respect, the General Synod is "in" England as well as "of" it. That is what is odd about it.
What is odd about it really—and this is why this Measure is not worth formally

961
opposing—is that we should be doing any of this at all. In the sixteenth century we took the legislative power over the Church away from the Pope and gave it partly to Parliament and partly to the Crown. There were arguments between Parliament and the Crown about how to exercise it, but that we can ignore.
Earlier in this century we substantially took those legislative powers away from Parliament except in the ultimate and gave them to the General Synod of the Church of England, as it is now called, under a procedure laid down by statute. All that Parliament—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—has left is the right formally to approve or formally to disapprove. But the fact is that what is being done is the law of the land.
If it were just the rules and regulations of the Church it would not matter very much. The General Synod is entirely entitled to decide for itself all that it wishes to decide about the Church of England. The trouble is that that is not what actually happens. The General Synod does not decide for itself. The House of Commons and the House of Lords have to approve, through the procedure of the Legislative Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee. The reason why they have to approve is not just some sort of ancient tradition or piece of arrogance, or something of that kind. The reason why they have to approve is that the General Synod is almost not limited in any way whatsoever as to what piece of law it can change.
As far as I am aware, the General Synod might well be able, for example, subject to the approval of both the Lords and the Commons, to reverse past history and say that if a person does not belong to the Church of England he cannot become a Member of the House of Commons. It would be capable of changing any Act of Parliament or any piece of legislation. It could do even that, in theory, I think. Of course, we all understand that no one would dream of doing it and that it would have to be approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
But the fact is that it goes far wider than the normal decisions of a normal Church in most of the world. There is an Anglican Church in the United
962
States—a Church in communion with the Church of England—that will not be electing representatives to the General Synod, unlike the Anglican Churches in Europe and part of Africa and part of Asia, which will. In the United States, the Anglican Church, or Episcopalian Church—whichever one cares to call it ; the one in communion with our Church of England—will make rules and regulations governing itself, its own members, its bishops and its priests. It may even admit women to the priesthood, for example, in a way in which the Church of England will not yet do. That does not mean that it becomes part of the law of the United States of America, or of one of its 50 or so states. In Britain, the General Synod can go beyond that and can amend, reverse, repeal or change an Act of Parliament or regulation. It can change the law of the land.
It would be better to have a Commission to consider that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wokingham played a distinguished part on such a Commission. The General Synod should not need the approval of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords for its actions. On the other hand, it should not have the power to change the law of the land. It should have the power to govern the Church of England alone. If the Roman Catholic Church can govern itself quite successfully in England and other countries without having the power to enact legislation, I should have thought that the Church of England could.
It is peculiar that the Measure is necessary. The complexities of the issue demonstrate that. We may not be setting a precedent, but we are saying that certain people will be added to the General Synod. Those people may or may not be British citizens, and may or may not live in Europe, North Africa, Turkey, and so on. Although the Ecclesiastical Committee did not oppose it, it expressed its views well. In the fourth paragraph on page 4 of the report, it states :
"The central objection, it seems to the Ecclesiastical Committee, is that which is expressed in paragraph 21 of the Comments and Explanations in the following terms."
The Committee then quotes from the Church of England statement, which says :
"' if the Constitution and the Measure comes into effect for the first time one of the dioceses represented in the General Synod will not be part of the "Established Church" '".

963
Reverting to the Committee's own words, it says :
"The Ecclesiastical Committee have reservations about the way in which this objection is there expressed."
If it is said that the Ecclesiastical Committee approves of the Measure, I must point out that it has probably never disapproved of a Measure. Perhaps I am wrong. The House of Commons and the House of Lords have never disapproved of a Measure, although a Measure was once struck off the Order Paper in this House.
The Ecclesiastical Committee is usually most appreciative of all the Measures put forward. "Reservations"—in the polite language of the Committee—is the nearest that it is likely to come to saying that it would have been better if the Measure had never been introduced. It says :
"The Ecclesiastical Committee have reservations about the way in which this objection is there expressed because it might suggest to some readers that the new dioceses would not be part of the Church of England. There can be no doubt that if the new dioceses were created the Church of England would in no sense be the established church in Gibraltar, much less in any other country in Europe, any more than it is at present. It seems to the Committee, however, that the new dioceses would be part of the Church of England though its Bishop, clergy and people would not share fully in the privileges and responsibilities which part of ' the establishment ' was generally understood. In the view of the Committee the objection mooted in paragraph 21 of the Comments and Explanations is in substance one based on territorial considerations. It can be expressed in the proposition that if it is not fitting to accord to representatives of the Church from overseas the right to participate in the General Synod. This proceeds on the footing that, although the Church does extend its operations overseas, the Government of the Church is peculiarly a matter for the United Kingdom, the Church being established by law in England within the fabric of the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and within that constitution alone."
It later explains that the Church in America would not have the right to elect people to the General Synod.
Therefore, we are creating a peculiar anomaly. The hon. Member for Wokingham will probably tell me that the anomaly has been about for centuries in one form or another and he will be quite right. Nevertheless, here we are saying that some communities of the Church of England—those who happen to live in Europe, Morocco or Turkey—shall have rights that those who happen to Live in America or anywhere else in the world
964
shall not have. Those who live in Europe, Morocco or Turkey—described as the diocese in Europe by somewhat doubtful geography—will have the rights of people who live in England in relation to the Church of England, as distinct from people who do not. That is roughly what the Measure says.
It is an anomaly and it would be impossible to describe it otherwise, although it is based on the fact that anomalies have been around for a very long time. But not this one. It is unusual, and we are bound to bring the attention of the public to the fact that for the first time we are allowing a law-making body, the General Synod of the Church of England—perhaps it should not be a lawmaking body, but it is—to be influenced by people elected from outside the United Kingdom, who may be totally unrelated to the United Kingdom in any way except through religion, in which case they are unique compared with other people sharing the same religion in other countries.
11.7 pm
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) tempts us to follow constitutional arguments which perhaps might detain the House rather longer than it would wish. I hope that British citizens living in Europe will soon have the same opportunity of voting for their representatives in this House as those who are resident in this country. Therefore, it seems increasingly anomalous that the large British community in Brussels is prevented from doing so at present.
Mr. English: Is the hon. Member seriously saying that the proposals of the European Community are reprehensible because they say that every citizen of an EEC country should have the right to vote for the legislature of the country in which he resides, not the country of of which he is a national?
Mr. Sainsbury: The two arguments are not necessarily contradictory. Perhaps both opportunities will be accorded. However, I do not think that it would be right to pursue those constitutional channels at this time.
I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for

965
Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for his clear and succinct exposition of the Measure, which seemed even more succinct in relation to what followed. In my experience, as a traveller in Europe, I have valued the work of the chaplaincies. Perhaps it is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter now, becaue one of the oldest-established, and perhaps best supported of the Church of England's chaplaincies is that in Venice, where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is now taking part in an important international meeting.
I support the Measure as I believe that it is a logical and sensible extension of the work of the Church in Europe. It provides an opportunity for those in Europe to participate and be integrated in the general body of the Church.
I ask my hon. Friend five questions in relation to the Measure. First, am I correct in assuming that the bishop would be the person most responsible for seeking to adapt the deployment of the clergy in the diocese to new patterns of tourism and settlement? Reference has been made to members of the Anglican community who live in, retire to or take holidays in Spain. I am reminded of the lines in the ballad of the "Revenge"—namely :
"Sink me the ship, Master Gunner—sink her, split her in twain!
Fall into the hands of God, not into the hands of Spain !"
I understand that in Spain there are particular difficulties in establishing resident Anglican chaplaincies. Are the deployment of clergy and the negotiations that might be necessary to establish new chap-liancies responsibilities that would be expected to fall to the bishop of the new diocese, or would we expect that still to be negotiated centrally?
Secondly, would there be authority for the diocese to share churches? It seems probable that in the widespread diocese of Europe there would be occasions when churches, which perhaps because of long historical connections are part of the Anglican chaplaincy, could happily be used on other parts of the Sunday, or on other parts of the week, by other Christian communities and vice versa, and where the establishment of an occasional Anglican service could best be done not through establishing a church but by using the
966
church or chapel of some other community.
Thirdly, I ask about the deployment into Europe of clergy to meet the seasonal demands of tourism. In recent years one of the greatest growth areas of tourism has been skiing. One of the most popular times for families to go skiing is Easter, which is a time when one would hope that all Anglicans would have an opportunity to attend a service. Many of the resorts are close together. It is probable that quite a few Anglican clergymen would be happy to get a break—not of a limb—away from home, enjoy some sunshire. skiing and sun, and have the opportunity to take services in a number of centres during the season.
Would clergy deployed into Europe to meet this demand, who would not be going to regular, established chaplaincies, come under the diocese, or would arrangements be made otherwise?
My fourth question occurs to me because of a connection that I used to have much more strongly with a certain retailing organisation. I recall that there used to be a habit of advertising in London stores the seaside resorts where branches of a particular concern were to be found. Could not the Church do more to make available to tourists, or those who are travelling on business or for any other reason, the locations in Europe where they may find an Anglican church where services are held seasonally or every month? Should there be some sort of central clearing house at which travellers could inquire about the availability of Anglican services?
Finally, I ask about the geographical boundaries of the diocese. Will its area of responsibility extend into the areas where we talk of the Church in chains? It is unfortunate that behind the Iron Curtain the work of every Christian community is appallingly hampered and persecuted. The Protestants faith had one of its earliest firings in Czechoslovakia. It is one of the worst places for the persecution of Christian communities. Will the diocese have responsibility for the establishing and the working of the Anglican community in such areas?
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reply to some of my questions now or at a later stage. I repeat that I support the Measure.
11.15 pm
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: As the junior member of the Synod in this House, I also should like to welcome and commend the Measure which we have in front of us. I am not afraid of saying that it is, of course, in some sense, an anomalous measure—but the situation itself is anomalous. Here are we, of the Church of England, whose only real claim upon the faithful is that it is, and sees itself as, the Catholic Church of this land. Outside this land it does not have that claim and can in no sense maintain it. However, it has a number of congregations and must meet the needs of those who are Anglicans in this country and who travel or live abroad. It is anomalous, too, in the sense that nobody, in theological or political terms, could justify the curious way in which the Church of England's governance is operated. I hope that no one would seek to justify it. We have to accept that it is as it is because it is.
Therefore, for the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) to apply the degree of—I should not like to use a word which was deleterious—scrutiny which might befit the study of a law specifically of this place to something which is actually a Measure designed to meet a situation in which logic does not have a total application is to misplace his usual careful scrutiny.
We are trying to provide for people who happen to be Anglicans in areas where there are not many Anglicans and where they should be part of the Church of England.
Mr. English: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed the whole point of my argument? I am not suggesting that the House should have to approve this Measure. I am saying that the General Synod should look after itself in a way similar to, say, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church or the Anglican Church in the United States. If the hon. Gentleman considers the point a little further, will he think of an individual who happens to be in the Anglican communion but who is an American citizen living in America? That person will not have any rights to elect anybody to the General Synod. If he moves to live in, say, Gibraltar and goes to the local Anglican church, I presume—I do not know—that he will suddenly acquire
968
rights to elect someone to the General Synod. If the same American person moved to Britain, if my recollection serves me right—and I am open to correction by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who is the expert in ecclesiastical law in this House—he would lose those rights again. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) shakes his head. It may be that he would have those rights in England.
The truth of the matter is that an American in America would not have those rights, whereas if he moved to Europe, outside England, he would, under this Measure, acquire them. It seems a little odd.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman proved my point. It seems a little odd because it is a little odd. We have to accept that, because the Church of England, in that sense, is a little odd. It is the result of a long history. We accept that. To make such a fuss about it is to put it right out of the court in which we are discussing the matter.
We must sort out this situation. This is a sensible way to do it. Even the name itself is sensible. "Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe" gets over the problem of saying, in actual legal terms, "Diocese in Europe". We in Britain are in Europe. We are in it geographically and because we are part of the European Community. We are in it for every other reason. The idea, therefore, of having a diocese in Europe in legal terms would be embarrassing. One must welcome this delicate and pleasant way of getting round the problem so as not to embarrass the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the House will recognise that the Church of England in the rest of Europe has a particular duty in furthering unity. I have always been worried about the concept of these little churches, because I think that one of the great privileges of travelling abroad is to join in the living life of the parish of the place, which is actually the indigenous parish. I have experienced a great deal of valuable worship with Roman Catholics in communities where they are the church of the community. I very much hope that it will be taken by this diocese as a special part of its duty to work most closely with the parishes in the place so that we do not make this the kind of divisive body which in the past

969
and in some areas it has been. I pray that such divisions will not be extended.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sains-bury) on the sharing of churches. It would be splendid if in new circumstances the Anglican parish could worship in the Roman Catholic church at a different time or even at the same time as the Roman Catholics. However, the language may make that difficult. The problem is language. Many people find it easier to worship in the language that they feel for and can understand and use.
In the Church of England we have a unique relationship with the State. It is not justifiable in logic and it would not occur now if we were starting afresh. Our history goes way back beyond the Reformation. We see ourselves as the historic Church of this land and as the Church standing in the apostolic succession from the time of Christ.
We do not want the Measure to suggest that we are setting ourselves up in competition with the Church of God in the countries in which these groups of Anglicans live. We need to provide for their spiritual needs. We do so in great humility. An anomaly of the Measure is that it recognises the sad and scandalous division of the Church. It is a pity that the Church of England has to make provision for Anglicans in other countries of Europe. In so doing we are admitting yet again that we have failed to reach that historic unity for which our Lord prayed and which we are still guilty of not discovering.
I support the Measure with that great reservation. It is another statement of the sad divisions of the Church. I hope that it will be a means of healing and not perpetuating them.
11.22 pm
Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.
I understand the reservations of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). From his careful study of this matter in the Ecclesiastical Committee, the hon. Gentleman will remember that there are legal trust reasons for incorporating the name "Gibraltar". I felt that it was a happy compromise to have a diocese that was entitled one thing
970
but cited another. The definition of the diocese of Gibraltar is set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report as being
"under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury…and covering Anglican chaplaincies in Southern Europe, Turkey and Morocco".
The historic jurisdiction of the Bishop of London at present includes Russia in Europe, which will pass to this diocese in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) asked five questions. First, I believe that the bishop of this new diocese when it is set up will have the ability to take cognisance of the new patterns of tourism. I am happy to remind my hon. Friend that there are a number af chaplaincies already in Spain, which will pass to the new diocese.
It is important to state—and here I pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer)—that this is not a proselytising operation, and none of us would wish it to be. It is bringing the Church into closer fellowship with the Church of England in England and giving it an organisational link. It is not a hostile, proselytising operation.
My hon. Friend asked about the sharing of churches. There is nothing in the Measure that makes that more difficult. There are a number of cases where it already happens, and it also happens the other way round. That ties in with a telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye, because at Strasbourg the list of chaplaincies includes one that worships in the Eglise des Pères Domin-caines. That is a good example of how it works the other way round, and I sense that it is the feeling of the House that it hopes that, in appropriate circumstances, that will be extended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove also asked about the deployment of the clergy seasonally. I speak as a layman, but I should have thought that the fact there is the bishop and his suffragan and small contingent of clergy and laity in the General Synod would assist that process. It is so often done by contact and discussion.
As to the advertising of services, I remember when I needed to know what services were held in Switzerland and what chaplaincies were available. I did

971
not find it difficult to obtain a leaflet. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me gently to pull his leg. Having a financial mind, I wondered whether there might be a great emporium—I have no name in mind—that might come into partnership. It could have its name on one part of a leaflet and we could have the services on another.
Mr. English: Does the hon. Gentleman mean Marks and Spencer?
Mr. van Straubenzee: Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove asked me about the geographical boundaries. I hope that I have already answered that question.
Mr. English: If the Measure is passed, an Anglican communicant in, say, Gibraltar will have the right to elect some representatives in the General Synod. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), when talking about disunity among Churches, seemed to be referring to Anglicans who live in Roman Catholic countries. What is the position of an Anglican who lives in a Protestant country? Would an Anglican communicant in Aberdeen, for example, have a right to elect representatives in the General Synod of the Church of England?
Mr. van Straubenzee: We must be clear that we are talking about those who are elected to serve in the General Synod from the diocese. Of course, those in Gibraltar take part with others but they do not do it alone. Those in the diocese may be living in countries that are predominantly Protestant or Catholic or in countries that predominantly do not have a Christian bias. I do not think that it is a major problem.
Mr. English: What about Aberdeen?
Mr. van Straubenzee: We are dealing with the diocese in Europe.
Mr. English: And Aberdeen is not in Europe?
Mr. van Straubenzee: Aberdeen is in Europe, but it is not within the area covered by the diocese in Europe.
Mr. English: But Morocco is?
Mr. van Straubenzee: Morocco is, and I do not think that our friends in Aberdeen would find it helpful to be equated with Morocco.
972
I hope that I have explained the Measure sufficiently so that the House may feel able to give its assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Diocese in Europe Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (DIOCESE IN EUROPE MEASURE)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 26 June 1979 relating to the nomination of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments be amended, by leaving out Mr. Barry Porter and inserting Mr. Christopher Murphy.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

HOUSING (PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AREA)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]
11.29 pm
Mr. Matthew Parris: I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), is to reply to the debate. We remember with pride and pleasure the visit he paid to West Derbyshire last year. I am grateful to him for giving up his time this evening. I know that he is a busy man.
Both my hon. Friend and I have had the pleasure of sitting through an ecclesiastical debate. That was a new experience for me. I wonder whether, when our Lord wandered through those piles of stones in Palestine, had He realised that this would be the outcome, He would have given up and gone home. It was extraordinary.
If you should ever go into orbit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and look down on England from an altitude in which all is indistinguishable save the blurred patches of light formed by the great cities and populous zones, my constituency would appear as a blot of soft and friendly darkness, totally encircled by light—the lights of Manchester, Bradford and Leeds, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham, Burton, Birmingham. Stoke and, not far away, Liverpool. Half the population of Britain lives more or less within

973
60 miles of an area of spectacular rural beauty. Much of my constituency forms a large part of the Peak District national park.
To the industrial centres of Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands it is almost, writ large, what Hyde Park is to London. Most of Britain can conveniently spend weekends in West Derbyshire. On a sunny bank holiday, it sometimes seems that most of Britain does.
Market forces would have covered most of the Derbyshire hills with breeze-block bungalows years ago. The Peak park planning board exists to stop that. It is hard to get permission to build within the national park and pretty difficult in the surrounding rural areas. The criteria employed discriminate particularly against low-cost, high-density housing. Hon Members will realise why.
The scarcity of supply contrasts with a demand, swollen hugely by the ranks of would-be weekenders or commuters from the surrounding cities. Some of them will pay anything. To them, a stone hovel is a desired country cottage. The effect is to drive prices to levels that belong to another world from that in which my constituents live. In the villages, the bottom rung of the housing ladder has been removed from them. A few weeks ago, in the little village of Froggatt, in my constituency, a quarter of an acre of land, with building permission only for a bungalow, was auctioned for £20,500.
These inflated prices do not stop at the confines of the national park but spread outwards into the surrounding districts. I have made a study this week of the principal estate agents and building societies in the district. I am informed that the cheapest, modern starter homes, for which 90 per cent. mortgages are available, vary in price between the £20,000 mark in Wirksworth and figures approaching £30,000 in the national park itself.
Older properties are mortgageable only if improved and in good repair. Even then, only 80 per cent. mortgages will be available. Prices are lower, but there is little below £15,000 in the towns or £20,000 in the villages. One will need savings of £2,000 or £3,000 and a home loan of between £12,000 and £20,000 before anything comes within reach in
974
West Derbyshire. A young man must earn upwards of £6,000 or his wife, if she works, must earn £2,000 for every £1,000 that his earnings fall below £6,000.
A great many of my constituents are not so lucky. To establish the level of wages, I contacted 20 of the principal or typical employers in the constituency from the Hope Valley cement works just north of the constituency to Nestlé and Charcon Products in the south. In each case, I asked what a young man at the lower end of the wage scale could expect to earn before tax. Expressed as an annual figure, there are two broad bands. Textile, catering, banking, clerical and agricultural workers straddle both sides of the £3,000 mark. Other workers, mainly blue collar, start at £3,500 but fall mostly between £4,000 and £5,000. None reaches £6,000.
This was not a proper statistical exercise, It was simply to find out whether many young would-be house owners in my constituency would be unable to afford to buy their own house. It showed that a great many could never hope to buy. In the villages, the position is desperate. Prices are ludicrous. One either already owns, lives with Mum and Dad, inherits, gets a council house or gets out. Increasing numbers of people get out.
Our council house waiting list, though it is at 1,000 and has doubled recently, does not show the thousands who do not hang around but take themselves to the waiting lists of London and the industrial Midlands, where bed-sitters can be found, the wages are higher, prices are lower and one does not have to have a car.
In and around the national park are all the trappings of a low-wage economy without the compensating low prices. To afford to live in West Derbyshire, many find that they must work elsewhere. To work in West Derbyshire, many find that they must live elsewhere. It is sad, but not surprising, that people have become bitter and that in the villages resentment is sometimes misdirected towards the incomers who are seen as being responsible for breaking up local families. I cannot emphasise too strongly the depth, intensity and unanimity of feeling amongst my constituents on this issue.
To hon. Members who might remind me of my party's commitment to market

975
forces, I say that that commitment, rightly, overlooks the planning function of the national park. That is the interference with the free market which has distorted house prices upwards. If I ask for a little State assistance, it is only to mitigate the effect of this primary intervention. We need it, but it has its casualties. Its casualties are my constituents.
I do not believe that the problem is soluble. Certainly it is not soluble by the Government. However, we can help a little at least in the hardest cases. In general, we can provide an impetus and direction which might be helpful. I shall outline the way forward as I see it, as the West Derbyshire district council sees it and as my hon. Friend the Minister might see it. Some members of the Labour Party on the local council might not concur with me about council house sales. I respect all points of view. I am surprised at how much agreement is possible.
The days of huge new public housing projects are over. West Derbyshire realises that. Most of our housing stock is saleable and much of it, particularly in the larger urban estates, can and should be sold to willing tenants, not just for this generation but for future generations of would-be householders. That would create thousands of bottom and middle rungs on the owner-occupied housing ladder. I welcome it.
In the villages, it should be policy to retain at least some hold over the small and highly desirable estates. The Government initially proposed to help by allowing the council, under clause 18 of the Housing Bill, to restrict subsequent resales by tenants who had bought to people who had lived or worked in the region. Any definition of the region which includes its principal cities drives a coach and horses through the clause. Any definition which excludes them drives a coach and horses through our country geography.
Because it was anxious about that, the district council delayed the implementation in advance of the Housing Bill until it was settled, although that was not on my advice. We were grateful that the Government listened to our anxieties and amended the clause to permit a condition of sale which allows the council first refusal at market prices on any resales within 10 years. We hope that that will help,
976
particularly in villages with acute housing problems, to keep places available for local people. But it will be expensive and must be used discriminatingly.
The main drift of housing policy in West Derbyshire must be towards special housing for special needs, particularly for the elderly. West Derbyshire realises that. The Minister visited the district last year and saw a fine example of the sheltered housing that we are providing at Victoria Court, Matlock. By offering a comfortable alternative to elderly people, we can release private and public housing suitable for families on to the market and provide more bottom and middle rungs for young families.
We need more Victoria Courts. The council planned an exciting new housing project at Darley Dale which was a joint private development of low-cost starter homes for first-time buyers, to which reference was made earlier this evening. In stimulating and assisting private ventures, we do much to bring back those bottom rungs, but the council must be able to provide incentives or it will be easier and more profitable for developers to go for high-cost, low-density housing projects.
I turn to adaptation and improvement for invalids and disabled people. Very often, quite apart from humanitarian purposes, it can save money to keep an individual or a family in their house by helping them to cope with the onset of illness, age or the birth of a disabled child as opposed to the enormously expensive cost of institutionalisation.
I saw a particularly heart-rending case in a town called Wirksworth in my constituency where a little girl with, I think, hydrocephalus was hoping that the council would be able to help with the installation of a downstairs lavatory. It was just the kind of thing that she needed and just the kind of thing that would keep her out of institutional care. It would be cheap at the price. But this argument is commonplace, and I do not think that hon. Members need persuading of its truth.
There are improvement grants in general improvement areas whereby we can bring into the area of the mortgageable exactly the kind of property that could be within the means of the low-paid, first-time buyer. Again, I think that the argument is commonplace and I need hardly develop the point.

977
I have run briefly over the area that I believe we should be recommending to a housing authority like mine as a right future field for its activities. I have indicated that it does not need persuading. I shall return to that point, but first I shall complete my catalogue of ways in which we can help by turning quickly to the private sector.
We have almost no private rented sector in West Derbyshire. We need one. I believe that the shorthold tenure provisions of the Housing Bill enabling landlords to let on fixed terms with certainty of repossession at the end of the term will bring new lettings on to the market. I certainly hope that they will.
I also welcome the provisions for equity sharing which are aimed at those with exactly the problem faced by many of my constituents—that is, the inability to raise the whole of the sum needed. However, it will take time for the idea to catch on, because, although demand is there, I think that supply will be longer in organising itself.
I said that the problems are most acute in our villages, of which there are about 60. Four starter homes of a type designed to appeal to young local couples, rather than to weekenders in search of something quaint, in each of those villages would go further towards solving the problem than Governments commonly ever get in pursuing solutions. Less than 50 acres would be involved, and the planning authorities have the power to permit and specify.
The spin-off in terms of the viability of village post offices, schools and transport is immeasurable. But here we run straight into the Peak park planning board and the county structure plans. Nobody talks about quotas, but the figure set in the national park plan for new housing in the villages is being approached faster than anticipated. I do not complain about that.
The board has been right and human to respond to pressure, but it means that sooner or later we must either have a freeze or have a progressive stiffening of resistance to the granting of permissions. That means that applicants will be processed on criteria other than the intrinsic merit of the application, such as the date on which the application is made. That
978
cannot be right and will increase the already formidable problem faced by the board in its relations with local people.
Like the phases of the planets, and with equal mystery, there will be auspicious and inauspicious periods for making planning applications to the Peak park planning board. I cannot even begin talking to the board about housing. It will simply throw the structure plan at me, as it is bound to do. I do not ask my hon. Friend to reply to this point tonight beyond acknowledging it, but I should like him to refer it to his right hon. and hon. Friends for further discussion.
I now return to West Derbyshire district council's housing department. There has been a muddle between the district council and my hon. Friend's Department over this year's housing investment programme financial ceiling. The delayed announcement of central Government cuts seems to have meant that the council was not scared off its financial commitment for which the Department had issued loan sanctions but which the council could not include on its HIP application until contracts had been entered into. By the time that the council was ready to apply, it was too late. Tenders had already been accepted.
Inside many hon. Members there is a housing official struggling to get out. I am not one of them. I have no idea who is to blame for this muddle, and I have little interest in seeing the apportionment of blame. On the question of whether West Derbyshire has been disingenuous or naive, I am inclined to think that it has had too little guile rather than too much.
I do not ask my hon. Friend to adjudicate or even to comment in any detail. A muddle there has been, and I ask him instead to look at the results, which I shall summarise to the House.
The financial commitments to which I referred are the Parwich and Carsington schemes, small schemes for village housing which cannot now be stopped. The HIP allocation is £1·8 million. Financial commitments already made by the council soak up the remainder of that money. The council has, therefore, frozen everything else. That is, specifically, all further ventures, including the Darley Dale project and all sheltered housing projects.

979
That also includes all new council mortgages, all improvement grants and general improvement areas, all adaptations for the invalid and disabled, and improvement schemes to the older post-war council estates, except for schemes already started.
My hon. Friend will have leapt ahead of my argument to anticipate its conclusion. The effect of this muddle has been to freeze the council into the very engagement with public sector housing from which it is Government policy that we should disengage ourselves. Improvement grants and general improvement areas were to revitalise the public sector at the bottom end. The Civic Trust had just persuaded the Abbey National building society to give mortgage preference in the GIA in Wirksworth.
Adaptations for the infirm keep them out of institutions. Helping the elderly unlocks their previous housing. Council improvements and mortgages increase saleability and sales. New starter homes launch poorer young people into home ownership. I need not develop the point.
It is clear that I must give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary time to reply. I do not ask for a detailed reply. I ask simply for the assurance that he will ask the officials in his Department again to discuss sympathetically with my council the special and pressing problems this year and in future years in West Derbyshire.
11.46 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) for his kind words. I certainly enjoyed my visit to Matlock last year and the opening ceremony that I performed at Victoria Court.
I am certainly interested to hear from my hon. Friend about the problems of housing in West Derbyshire, and I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the special problems which arise because the West Derbyshire district council and the Peak District national park overlap. When I visited that area last autumn, my hon. Friend mentioned that fact to me. I pay tribute to the careful way in which he represents the views of both his local authority and his constituents.
980
I understand that about two-thirds of the district lies within the Peak park, which is administered for planning purposes by the Peak park joint planning board. I am told that the only West Derbyshire town lying within the Peak park, is Bakewell but that the other towns and larger settlements of the district, which are Matlock, Matlock Bath, Ashbourne and Wirksworth, all lie just outside the Peak park.
In reaching his decision about the proposed housing policies contained in the approved structure plan for the park, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was conscious of the need to halt the decline in population by making sufficient provision for those for whom the park was a natural home and place of work together with some provision for inward migration to achieve a balanced age structure. For these reasons, my right hon. Friend modified the plan to increase the proposed scale of provision for housing in the West Derbyshire parts of the park. It remains, however, a very modest provision and, as is appropriate in a national park, the policies of the approved structure plan for development control generally confine new housing development to the larger settlements and mainly restrict it to a scale, design and location appropriate to the existing character of the settlements.
Because of the desirability of this area as a place to live—and I certainly understand that—pressures for the acquisition of available houses and building land are inevitably very heavy, both from people working further afield and choosing either to commute from the area or use houses there as weekend homes and from people wishing to settle in the area on retirement. Pressure of demand is, as my hon. Friend demonstrated very starkly, inevitably reflected in prices.
The local authority is, of course, very much aware of this problem, and in an excellent paper called "Housing Strategy for West Derbyshire 1979–86" it set out a number of policies to meet it. These include the identification in local plans of pieces of land for house building at higher than average densities to provide for lower-priced housing, the initiation of building-for-sale schemes in areas where new, lower-priced housing is unlikely to become available in the normal way

981
through the private sector, and the continuation of its policy of making provision for local authority mortgages and of making full use of the building society support scheme. It also intends to make provision for married and engaged couples joining the council house waiting list and to give high priority to improving the supply of public sector housing for those groups within the national park. In adopting these policies, the authority recognised one of the salient points of the Government's housing policy—namely, the need to look to the private sector to make a major contribution to solving its housing problems.
We have asked local authorities to encourage the development of starter homes, to release land, to participate with the private sector in partnership schemes for the provision of low-cost housing for sale and to help in channelling loan finance to those unable to obtain a mortgage in the usual way. Those and other measures, such as the acquisition of existing empty and rundown houses for improvement and sale and different forms of shared ownership, were discussed with the authority at a meeting in April between its officers and staff from our regional office.
The main problem is one of finance. The total housing capital allocation for 1980–81 had to be reduced because of the urgent need to curb public expenditure, which our predecessors had allowed to run wild. For West Derbyshire, that meant that the 1980–81 allocation of £1·84 million was 71 per cent. of its 1979–80 allocation, at a common price base, and 42 per cent. of its bid. Making that money go round became much more of a problem than would otherwise have been the case because two tenders for a total of 29 new dwellings, which would involve significant expenditure falling in 1980–81, were accepted by the authority in January 1980 before the 1980–81 allocations were notified to it.
That additional committee expenditure in 1980–81 has to be met out of an allocation which is less than it hoped to receive. I am bound to point out that the authority had been warned as early as November 1979 that its 1980–81 allocation was likely to be less than in previous
982
years and that it would be well advised to refrain from entering into further commitment until it knew the details.
It is undeniable that that limits the authority's opportunities for further direct action in the present financial year. However, I hope that it will continue to do all that it can to enlist the support of the private sector in the provision of low-cost housing suitable for younger local people. Bearing in mind the opportunities for augmenting housing capital allocations for 1981–82 onwards by sums equivalent to either 50 per cent. or in some instances 100 per cent. of its housing capital receipts, the authority should be in a better position to implement further policies to alleviate the problem next year.
All the funds available for HIPs this year have been distributed, so there is no prospect of an additional allocation. I have sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend about the muddle that took place. All that I can say to him is that I have noted that point.
As regards the points that my hon. Friend raised with me about the difficulties of housing because of the interaction of the national park in his area, I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who look after the difficult problems of planning boards in national parks. I shall ensure that they see what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall ask them to consider whether there is anything that they can suggest that will be of help to his constituents during the coming year.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the calm way in which he painted the picture as he saw it. I understand the difficulties that have beset a cautious and well-run local authority. I have noted that, and the matter will not be overlooked. I hope that what I have said will, at least, have shown my hon. Friend that the Department understands his problems, those of his local authority and, perhaps most of all, the problems of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Uganda
  Uganda
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970
  Taxation
  Taxation
  European Community Budget (Cash Flows)
  European Community Budget (Cash Flows)
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Private Sector Investment
  Private Sector Investment
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
EMPLOYMENT
  Tripartite Steering Group
  Tripartite Steering Group
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Staflex International Limited
  Staflex International Limited
  Disablement Advisory Committees
  Disablement Advisory Committees
  CBS Engineering Company, Liverpool
  CBS Engineering Company, Liverpool
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Female Unemployment
  Female Unemployment
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Part-time Workers
  Part-time Workers
  Small Businesses (Construction Industry Training Board Levy)
  Small Businesses (Construction Industry Training Board Levy)
  Redundancies (St. Helens)
  Redundancies (St. Helens)
  Jobs
  Jobs
TRADE
  Birmingham Airport
  Birmingham Airport
  Staflex International Limited
  Staflex International Limited
  Bicycles
  Bicycles
  Third Countries (Bilateral Trade)
  Third Countries (Bilateral Trade)
  Czechoslovakian Shoes
  Czechoslovakian Shoes
  Captive Balloons (Advertising)
  Captive Balloons (Advertising)
  South Africa (African Workers)
  South Africa (African Workers)
WALES
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
ENERGY
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
SCOTLAND
  Dundee District (Housing)
  Dundee District (Housing)
  House Building
  House Building
  Island and District Councils (Acquisition of Dwellings)
  Island and District Councils (Acquisition of Dwellings)
  Education Authorities (Staff)
  Education Authorities (Staff)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Substandard Houses
  Substandard Houses
  Belfast Enterprise Zone
  Belfast Enterprise Zone
  North Belfast (Redevelopment)
  North Belfast (Redevelopment)
  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  De Lorean Corporation
  De Lorean Corporation
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Terrorism (Damage)
  Terrorism (Damage)
  Cross-border Security
  Cross-border Security
  Northern Ireland Sports Council
  Northern Ireland Sports Council
  Government Policies (Publicity)
  Government Policies (Publicity)
  Nuclear Shelters
  Nuclear Shelters
  Security
  Security
  Football Pitch (Crossmaglen)
  Football Pitch (Crossmaglen)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRESIDENT BREZHNEV
  PRESIDENT BREZHNEV
  ITALY
  ITALY
  CHILDREN (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  CHILDREN (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  TAOISEACH (MEETING)
  TAOISEACH (MEETING)
  FRANCE
  FRANCE
  NEW ZEALAND BUTTER
  NEW ZEALAND BUTTER
  ESPERANTO CONFERENCE
  ESPERANTO CONFERENCE
  GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS
  GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS
  ECONOMIC FORUM
  ECONOMIC FORUM
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Journalists (Meals and Drinks)
  Journalists (Meals and Drinks)
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Young Offenders (Probation Orders)
  Young Offenders (Probation Orders)
  Prisoners (Segregation)
  Prisoners (Segregation)
  Prisoners (Confinement)
  Prisoners (Confinement)
  Borstal Detainees
  Borstal Detainees
  Wormwood Scrubs and Brixton (Educational Facilities)
  Wormwood Scrubs and Brixton (Educational Facilities)
  Mr. Omope
  Mr. Omope
  Deportation Orders
  Deportation Orders
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Magistrates' Court (Willesden)
  Magistrates' Court (Willesden)
  Immigration Offences
  Immigration Offences
  Mentally III Prisoners
  Mentally III Prisoners
  Isle of Man (Violent Crime Convictions)
  Isle of Man (Violent Crime Convictions)
  Alcohol-related Offences
  Alcohol-related Offences
INDUSTRY
  Selective Financial Assistance
  Selective Financial Assistance
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  National Enterprise Board (Disposal of Assets)
  National Enterprise Board (Disposal of Assets)
  Government Industrial Holdings
  Government Industrial Holdings
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  ASR Servotron Limited
  ASR Servotron Limited
  Lost Mail (Compensation)
  Lost Mail (Compensation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
ENVIRONMENT
  Dehumidifiers
  Dehumidifiers
  Rates
  Rates
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  European Community (Disaster Fund)
  European Community (Disaster Fund)
  Avon (European Community Assistance)
  Avon (European Community Assistance)
  Travel-to-work Costs
  Travel-to-work Costs
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Treaty of Rome (Greek Accession)
  Treaty of Rome (Greek Accession)
FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Angola
  Angola
TRADE
  South Africa
  South Africa
DEFENCE
  Assisted House Purchase Scheme
  Assisted House Purchase Scheme
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Hunter Aircraft Crash (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Hunter Aircraft Crash (Bury St. Edmunds)
TRANSPORT
  Rural Transport (Wales)
  Rural Transport (Wales)
  Disqualified Drivers
  Disqualified Drivers
  Roads (Stocksbridge)
  Roads (Stocksbridge)
  Bicycles
  Bicycles
  Vehicle Lighting
  Vehicle Lighting
  Motorways (Speed Limits)
  Motorways (Speed Limits)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Blind Persons (North-West Region)
  Blind Persons (North-West Region)
  Food and Drugs Act 1955
  Food and Drugs Act 1955
  Disabled Persons (North-West Region)
  Disabled Persons (North-West Region)
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Departmental Questionnaires
  Departmental Questionnaires
  Sun Tan Lotions
  Sun Tan Lotions
  St. George's Hospital (London)
  St. George's Hospital (London)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Potatoes
  Potatoes

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY THE LORD SANDYS
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal statement. Yesterday I had occasion to move that Standing Order No. 29 be read aloud, and I should like to tell the House that on reflection I appreciate that this particular Standing Order was not appropriate, as no personal offence was intended by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. For this I apologise to your Lordships' House.

HEATHROW AIRPORT/LONDON BUS SERVICES
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the present position and proposed development of the bus service for air travellers between Heathrow Airport, the Victoria terminal and the former West London terminal.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, British Airways operate the bus service between Victoria terminal and Heathrow Airport, and at present have no plans for any change in that service. The bus service between the West London Air Terminal and Heathrow Airport was discontinued in 1979, and there are no plans for it to be resumed.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, believing that the Minister
562
wishes to keep as watchful an eye on this area as I do, may I ask him whether he saw the BBC "Nationwide" programme on Wednesday, 7th May, when they televised a section on the declining numbers of tourists? Is he aware that they said that tourists and travellers had been greatly disadvantaged by the discontinuance of the bus service from the West London Air Terminal, something with which all sides of the House would agree? May I finally ask him whether, in view of that programme, he and his department would have a look at it, as I have given him the date and the time? And if he could write to me about it, perhaps I could put down another Question.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I did not see the programme to which the noble Baroness refers, but I shall certainly try to get hold of a transcript to see whether the things in it are relevant to the Question that the noble Baroness has put to me this afternoon. The noble Baroness referred to the declining numbers of tourists. I am not sure that that is correct in every field of tourism, but it is certainly the case that the bus service to which the noble Baroness refers has been losing money.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I forgot the most important part of my supplementary question. May I ask the Minister (because I have to put it in the form of a question) whether he is aware that this section of the television programme said that inquiries were on foot for a new bus service to serve the West London Air Terminal and the surrounding area? Would he take that on board as well?
Lord TREFGARNE: I certainly will take that on board, my Lords, but I can say, as I said in my original Answer, that British Airways have no plans for such a service.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the present Underground link is not in fact the most suitable form of link for passengers with heavy luggage, especially in the rush-hour? The Underground trains were designed for commuters, and if you have no heavy luggage they are perfectly adequate; but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he

563
would not take this into consideration in recommending to British Airways that they consider the re-establishment of that extremely valuable service to the West London Air Terminal.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the conduct of services such as this is a matter for British Airways, and they must make these decisions in the light of the commercial prospects. Both the service from the West London terminal, which was terminated a year ago, and the Victoria terminal are losing money, and this must therefore be a matter for British Airways. As for the general matter of passengers with luggage, while I accept that there are some difficulties for passengers with very large amounts of heavy luggage on the Underground service, there is already an existing Green Line bus service to London Airport; and I must say that those with large amounts of heavy baggage really ought to consider whether they should not use a car or a taxi of some sort.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is also aware that there are mothers with children who travel by air, that there are also disabled people and that there are also very elderly people? None of those categories can possibly manage to use the Tube if in fact, as is usual, they have any luggage as well. If you have small children, it is absolutely essential to have a bus service. Is my noble friend also aware that the use of a taxi service or a private car hire service is really beyond the financial means of most people?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are talking about people who are going to London Airport to travel long distances at very considerable expense. I certainly agree that taxis and cars are of course more expensive than the bus service, but the fact is that the numbers of people who want to use the bus service are not sufficient to make that service viable.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I know that he takes a great interest in these matters—that the matter which has been raised
564
today by my noble friend Lady Burton (and she has raised it frequently before) is something which really concerns a large number of us? In the last month I have had reason to go out to Heathrow on three occasions, and it is impossible to get direct transport from the Victoria terminal to Terminal No. 2. You can go to Terminal No. 3 and Terminal No. 1, but not to Terminal No. 2, from which a number of flights which are linked with British Airways leave. It is a serious matter to lug something across from Terminal No. 1 to Terminal No. 2. Alternatively, of course, one can wait for the inter-connecting bus. But does the noble Lord think that is desirable when, having gone out there and timed it carefully, one finds that the next bus arrives in a quarter of an hour's time? Does he not realise that it has become progressively more difficult to get out to Heathrow, and would he take this matter up seriously?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is right in that. The opening of the Underground service to Heathrow has proved a very considerable benefit for a great many travellers. Certain difficulties have been raised about travellers with, for example, a number of small children or a very large quantity of heavy baggage, and I have answered those questions. But it is not true to say that the arrangements are generally less good than they were; they are not.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, in the light of what my noble friend Lady Macleod said, would my noble friend ask the airway authorities whether they realise that there are a large number of passengers (and I include myself among them) who simply will not go to Heathrow now? If I cannot get to Gatwick, I go by train.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the services from Heathrow to Scotland, for example, then I must tell him that the surface links between Central London and Heathrow are just as good as the surface links between Central London and Gatwick, and I would advise my noble friend to think again.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if the existing coach link from Victoria is abolished for

565
financial reasons, London will then be the only capital city in Europe without a bus or surface rail link to its main airport?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I have said, British Airways, who operate the present service, have no plans to terminate it at the present time. If there are all that many passengers who think that the service ought to be maintained, as perhaps it should, then they will show that by using the service.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Underground have a very special hazard for people with even small amounts of luggage? They have a barrier above a set of stairs before one goes down so that one cannot take a trolley down to the platform. This is an absolute barrier to one getting through—and one does not even have to have much luggage for it to be quite a lot to carry down the stairs.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am aware that trolleys are not permitted on the Underground station at Heathrow because of the danger that the trolleys might fall on to the track. A lift is available there for use on request.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, I think the House will agree that we ought to move on.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: TALKS WITH ARGENTINA
3.10 p.m.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: 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 report on the outcome of recent talks with the Government of Argentina on matters concerning the Falkland Islands.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I must apologise for the length of this Answer. As was stated in another place on 8th of May, my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Ridley, met an Argentine delegation led by the Under-Secretary of
566
State at the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Comodoro Cavandoli, for wide-ranging and exploratory talks in New York on 28th and 29th of April. A Falkland Islands Councillor, Mr. Adrian Monk, attended as a member of the United Kingdom delegation. The exchanges were cordial and positive. Each side was able to reach a better understanding of the other's position. We made clear that we remained convinced of our sovereignty. No decisions were taken, though it was agreed that contacts on day-to-day matters between the Islands and Argentina should be expanded. Each delegation is reporting back to its Government. We hope to continue these exchanges.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I put one very important question to him? Bearing in mind that the lack of initiative and enterprise in the Falkland Islands, except for sheep farming, derives from uncertainty and indecisiveness by successive Governments throughout the century, will this Government now extend the fishing limits to 200 miles round the Falkland Islands and Dependencies? In my view, that would be in the best interests both of Britain and of Argentina, the more so because those waters are being heavily exploited and over-fished by Eastern bloc fleets, including Russians and Poles.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, dealing with the point made by my noble friend, fishing and the exploitation of resources by third parties round the waters of the Falkland Islands were discussed in the recent talks in New York. We continue to keep under close review the question of extending dependent territory fishing zones, including those of the Falkland Islands and Dependencies, to 200 miles; but there are no plans to do so at present.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend say what else was talked about; or were the talks only about fishing?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am afraid that these talks, like all such talks, are generally of a confidential nature and I cannot go into details.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that he cannot give us any idea whatever of the subjects, even the heads of discussion? He has said that the talks were cordial and frank and so on. Can he give us any idea of what it was all about?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend heard what I said earlier. Talks of this nature are always confidential.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we on this side of the House are certainly sensitive to the delicate nature of these talks and that we find what the noble Lord has just had to say in response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, encouraging? It is satisfactory that there is good feeling between Britain and the Argentine, two long-standing friends who look forward to even closer co-operation in the future, including co-operation in solving the problems of the Falkland Islands.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that helpful intervention.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on this side of the House some of us look with admiration on his efforts to answer every question across the board? He is almost a polymath in his efforts to defend the Government.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATES AND EXPENDITURE
3.15 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the reported increase in rates in the London Borough of Lambeth, they intend to see that local authorities fully contribute to plans for economies in spending on public service manpower.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, there are indeed indications that local government as a whole had budgeted for a higher volume of current expenditure in 1980–81 than is called for by the Government's expenditure plans. This is quite unacceptable. My right honourable friend proposes to ask all local authorities to revise their expenditure plans downwards and to submit new returns by 1st August. In the light of those returns, we shall consider whether further action is necessary. Since wages and salaries account for nearly three-quarters of gross current expenditure, it is clear that manpower reductions are essential if the proposed reductions in local government expenditure are to be achieved in 1980–81 and following years.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I hope very much that the Government will be successful in this. After many years in local government, I know that the temptation to appoint more people and to pay them more is very great. I hope that he will be successful in reducing the numbers employed by the local authorities.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those helpful remarks.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that local authorities are being forced by Her Majesty's Government to take this position: either to fail to provide vital local services or to increase the rates? As this House knows that the noble Lord is humane as well as a human being, which choice would he make if he were once again a local councillor?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as your Lordships would expect, I do not by any means accept the thesis that the noble Lord submitted. I think that the first thing that local government has to do—and there are many authorities doing it—is to ensure that they are getting value for the money that they spend. I would hope that no one in this House would for a moment intimate that that is not possible—because it is possible. Until that has

569
been done, the other questions that the noble Lord put to me are, I fear, secondary; but I should gladly expand on that on a more appropriate occasion.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Lambeth is by no means a typical local authority, and that many local authorities have tried for many years to curtail their expenditure?
Lord BELLWIN: Yes, my Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. I hoped I had touched upon it in my first response. I am aware that that is so; but it is unfortunate that sometimes the actions of certain local authorities (of which it would have to be said that Lambeth is one; although not the only one) in total contribute a great deal which rebounds adversely upon local government as a whole—when most people in local government are trying to do what the Government have said needs to be done to restore the economy to where it has to be. Then will be the time to talk about services being improved in the way that we all want to see them improved.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why Lambeth Borough Council is singled out for this Question? Does not the general principle apply to every local authority in the country?—for example, to the council in which I am interested, Westminster Council, where the rates have gone up excessively, to which I object. And I have no information about the manpower that is being used or abused. Why single out this particular council?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am not responsible for the Questions that are put down or for the way in which they are put down. I can only suspect that it is because Lambeth has been more vocal than others in declaring its intention to try to thwart the policies of the Government.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask, as a resident of Lambeth, whether the noble Lord is aware that the rates in Lambeth this year went up by 50 per cent.—which is a very heavy burden on those who live there? Is he also aware that there is tremendous scope for cutting down non-essential services and for a thorough
570
shake-up of manpower; because Lambeth Council is totally overmanned?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am very much aware of the point that the noble Lord makes. May I add strength to his point by reminding him (if as a Lambeth ratepayer he needs to be reminded, which I doubt) that the 50 per cent. to which he referred goes on top of the 40 per cent. in the previous year.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My Lords, if it is the intention of the Government, declared over and over again, to set the local authorities free, why do the Government insist on interfering with the local authorities?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, if the noble Lord says that it is interfering with local authorities to call on them to follow national policies, I would remind the noble Lord of the infamous Circular 45 of 1976 which the previous Administration put out—and to which local authorities responded in the way in which I am hoping they will respond to the circulars of the present Government.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that for many people living in the local authorities that he is attacking, including Lambeth and other London boroughs, the actions that those local authorities are taking represent the one bright spot in a sea of gloom and destruction being wreaked by the Government on social services and other services of the working people? It is absolutely disgraceful for him to say that these local authorities are giving local government a bad name, when they are doing quite the reverse.
Lord BELLWIN: The noble Lord is entitled to his view, my Lords. I represent a Government which have set policies for which they have a mandate from the people as a whole. They are entitled to expect that Lambeth or any other local authority pay and do their share to contributing to enable them to carry out those policies, in the same way as I said a moment ago that local government as a whole did for the previous Administration in 1976.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I think that we have heard enough on this Question.

BRANDT REPORT: GOVERNMENT'S CONCLUSIONS
3.21 p.m.
Lord ORAM: 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 have concluded their examination of the Brandt Commission Report, and when and in what form they propose to publish their conclusions and proposals for action.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we shall very shortly conclude our examination of the Brandt Commission's Report. The Government will hold a debate in another place on the 16th June in the course of which we shall give our considered views.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, should not the Government already have indicated their views? The term of art "very shortly" is one which implies a lack of urgency in this matter. Do the noble Lord and the Government not realise the extreme urgency of the world trade and economic situation which was so cogently analysed by the Brandt Report, and has not the president of the World Bank, Mr. McNamara, indicated his view that the world situation is even more urgent and grave than is set out in the Brandt Report? In view of that, will the Government treat the matter much more urgently? May I ask, for example, whether the Prime Minister is proposing—as I think she should—to raise these matters at the Venice Summit Meeting today or tomorrow?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I hardly think that we are exhibiting lack of urgency when I announced that our conclusions are almost complete and that we shall be giving them in a debate in another place on Monday next. But as for the report itself, of course it is an important report. It contains (if my memory serves me aright) nearly 200 pages and we have been no longer than usual—in fact, rather quicker than usual—in digesting it, absorbing it and coming to our conclusions. As to whether or not the matter will be discussed at Venice,
572
it is possible that it will be raised there but I cannot give an assurance on that.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, if the matter is not going to be raised in Venice, will the Government see to it that it is raised very urgently at the council meeting of the EEC?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can say that European leaders at their council meeting in Luxembourg on 27th and 28th April noted the significance of the Brandt Report and instructed that it should be taken into account in preparing Community positions on North-South issues.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Brandt Report does not call for urgent consideration; it calls for careful consideration? It covers a very wide field in very loose phraseology. If we are not careful we can find ourselves, out of emotion, led down a road which will take some sorting out later on. That could be the situation if we commit ourselves precipitately.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There are a number of important issues dealt with in the Brandt Commission's Report which need to have, and are receiving, careful consideration. It needs both careful and urgent consideration.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, is this good enough? If the Brandt Commission's Report or the matters arising from it are to be discussed at Venice during the current conference, would the noble Lord not agree that the Government's views should be put to Parliament before they are put to the Summit Meeting in Venice, in order to avoid the difficulty into which the Foreign Secretary got himself in Naples by announcing a policy which was not then supported by Parliament here?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I did not say that our considered views were going to be put to the meeting in Venice. It is, in any event, open to the leaders of every Government to speak frankly with their colleagues when they have these meetings.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the British Parliamentary Group for Population and Development, which is an all-party group of both Houses, has sent a message to the Prime Minister asking whether she will use her powers of initiative at the Venice Summit to get notice taken of the widespread extension of starvation and privation in the world today? There is an urgency about this matter, as my noble friend Lord Oram and others have said, and if time can be devoted to consideration of world affairs at the Venice Summit it will be a great service to humanity.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is quite right.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lorsdhips if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time.
The Committee stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for about one hour.
The Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1980 will be taken during this adjournment.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EDWARD BERRY AND DORIS EILLEEN WARD (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 3a.—(Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.)
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, I wish to take up one minute of your Lordships' time on a procedural point. I will take no more than one minute because I know that we have important business
574
ahead of us. This is an unusual Bill. I approve of it entirely and will of course agree to its Third Reading. But it is a Private Bill, which is very unusual. I want to make certain that we are clear what will happen when it leaves your Lordships' House.
The reason why I raise this point is that we have been having trouble recently over a Private Member's Bill—which is not the same as a Private Bill—leaving your Lordships' House with approval from all sides. It was non-controversial but was treated in another place in a way in which I do not think we would dare to treat a Private Member's Bill brought up from another place to your Lordships' House. I must be very careful not to say anything that would exacerbate feelings between the two Houses. I draw your Lordships' attention to the treatment of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill, in which I have declared an interest, because it covers the greyhound industry with which I am concerned. That Bill was used as a "ping-pong" in another place when they were engaged in controversy over the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
The contact between greyhound racing and abortion is, to say the least of it, tenuous. Nevertheless, this little Bill was pushed backwards and forwards Friday after Friday as a part of the political tactics to which the other House is entirely entitled. It was aggravating to those from all sides in your Lordships' House who had wholly approved of the Bill. Eventually, thanks to the cunning of an old friend on the Back-Benches, the Bill was slipped through on a wet Friday afternoon when nobody was paying full attention. It was passed and now becomes an Act.
This is something I have raised with my noble friends on the Front Bench and they are a little concerned. I hope that noble Lords opposite are equally concerned in this matter. The amity between the two Houses on Private Member's Bills should not be prejudiced by parliamentary "ping-pong" in another place. I am merely asking the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill, not to give me an answer, because he may not know it, but to make quite certain that no risk runs this Private Bill as ran Private Member's Bills in days gone by. As I

575
strongly support this Bill, I should hate to see it share the same fate as mine so very nearly did.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been good enough to say regarding the procedures and some difficulties he has experienced in regard to Private Member's Bills in another place. As he will appreciate, the present Bill is not a Private Member's Bill but a Private Bill promoted by two persons from outside Parliament. The Bills with which he has apparently had problems in the other place—and of course I cannot comment in any way on procedures in another place—have arisen on the initiative of Members of Parliament and therefore are dealt with by quite different procedures.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I hope this Bill will quickly pass through all it stages. I also endorse the hope expressed by many Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, that this couple will soon be able to have a happy marriage.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EMPLOYMENT BILL
3.32 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—[The Earl of Gowrie.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Time off for ante-natal care]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount ROCHDALE: I want very briefly to raise one matter at this point.
576
Under this clause, employers will have an obligation with regard to pre-natal care to allow their employees paid time off. That is fair enough. The importance of it is not questioned, and in fact I think it is becoming increasingly recognised. This obligation that employers have is subject to one or two conditions. The individual employee has to produce a certificate of pregnancy and an appointment card, but with those an employer cannot reasonably refuse the employee's application. There are many companies today who provide this paid time off voluntarily, and no doubt it could be that a great many more could be persuaded to do so. As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would be preferable for this to he made a statutory obligation. Undoubtedly that goal is a good one and I have no doubt, knowing my noble friend's concern for maternity problems, which I share with him, that he thinks this is right, despite two possible points I have heard mentioned. The first is that it could be a disincentive to some firms to employ too many young women, though I do not myself think much of that argument. Secondly, it could add an unusually great burden on some of the very small firms. The point I want to make is on a narrow part of this only: that is whether the obligation on the part of the employer should be allowed to apply not only to whole-time workers but to part-time workers also. When I say "part-time workers" I use the definition which is given in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which is as follows:
"… part-time workers being those who work less than 16 hours in the week."
At present the clause applies to those part-time workers, so that an employee can claim paid time off even if she works less than 16 hours; and the argument surely must be that in that case she would find the time for pre-natal care in the other 20 or more hours when she is not working. That seems to be fairly obvious.
I am not suggesting that this right is likely to be abused; not at all. However, I not not think that from the employer's point of view the defence of "unreasonableness" is really a very sound one, because if the employer wants to put up a defence that this is unreasonable he has to go to an industrial tribunal, which

577
may be costly, and which is time-absorbing, and of course he does not know what the outcome will be. Therefore my question to my noble friend is: will he consider favourably, perhaps at the next stage of the Bill, an amendment which would limit the operation of this clause to whole-time workers? Would he perhaps accept such an amendment, or, better still, would he himself put down an amendment to that effect? I am sorry to have delayed your Lordships on this point, but it is important and I look forward with interest to what my noble friend has to say.
Lord McCARTHY: I want to say just one or two very quick things about this clause which, in general terms, we are very glad to see there and which we welcome. I remember that the noble Earl said in response to a question of mine in an earlier debate, that he had done something as a result of pressures from the Trades Union Congress and that it was unfair of me to say that he had not. He trotted out time off for ante-natal care, and I am very glad to see it there and we welcome it.
I am also very glad to see that under this provision no exception is being made for small firms. The philosophy of small firms is not to apply to ante-natal care. The only point of clarification I want to make concerns the words "not unreasonably refused". I suppose the noble Earl would say that is a matter for the tribunals. What concerns me is that "not unreasonably refused", as it stands, might give the individual employer a considerable degree of latitude and it would only be if the individual worker—to some extent this is an answer to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale—went to a tribunal because in her opinion this particular phrase "not unreasonably refused" was being unreasonably interpreted that she would find out whether or not it was reasonable.
The kind of interpretation which an employer might put upon this, which he would think would be quite reasonable, would he to say to the employee: "You can get off for ante-natal care but I cannot spare you on Friday afternoons because we are very busy then", or the man might say to his secretary: "You can go when I am out of the office", or "when I am in the office" or, in the case of, for
578
example, a very small retail establishment, he might say: "This is our busy time of the year. I am afraid we cannot spare you at any time over the next four or five weeks."
What I am asking really is: have the Government any plans to try, for example, in a code of practice either by the Secretary of State or ACAS, to give tribunals, or indeed management, guidance as to what "not unreasonably refused" means? In this area it would be very widely interpreted, sometimes against the interests of the woman concerned.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I should also like, with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to take the opportunity of clause stand part to pay tribute to the efforts which the TUC, in particular, have made, and are making, to assist pregnant women to a safe and healthy pregnancy and childbirth. They have not only pressed for legislation on the lines of Clause 12, and given a lead on workplace health education projects for pregnant women; they have also encouraged affiliated unions to participate in campaigns and to promote projects and co-operated with the Health Education Council and its "Mother and Baby" campaign. The Government are anxious to play their part here and to help along similar lines.
Of course, we know that the great majority of employers already behave reasonably about allowing paid time off for ante-natal care. But we feel that this provision will encourage women who might otherwise be reluctant to take time off or even to ask for it for this important purpose. That is really why we feel that a little statutory underpinning would not provide any serious difficulty.
Coming to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Rochdale, I understand my noble friend's concern when he says that the right could be abused, if a part-time employee asked her employer for time off to attend a clinic, when she could so easily do so in her own time. But employers are protected, since sub-section (1) of the new provisions states that an employee who is pregnant shall have the right not to be unreasonably refused time off during her working hours. Therefore, if the employer has reason to believe that the woman is abusing her right to ask for time off,

579
it would be reasonable for him to refuse it. As we have said in many other contexts during the debates on this Bill, industrial tribunals are well accustomed to assess reasonableness in situations of this kind, and I am sure that they would reach common-sense decisions.
On the point of the issue of guidance, which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised, I must say that I rather doubt whether there will be many cases of this kind coming before industrial tribunals. It seems to me very unlikely that an employer would refuse a woman time off for this kind of activity, and I should have thought that sensible arrangements would, in 99·9 per cent. of cases, be reached between the employer and the employee. We regard it as of overriding importance that all women should be afforded the opportunity to receive ante-natal care, particularly because it is often the part-time low paid employee who is most at risk during pregnancy, and for whom the right to paid time off for ante-natal care is so important.
Therefore, I should prefer to stick to the lines along which the Government are thinking. I should have thought that the amount of time off involved would be too small for there to be any reasonable likelihood that a small firm would be in any way incommoded. But I will monitor the progress of the provision and, if it looks like causing difficulties for small businesses, of course we can always come back.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Guarantee payments]:
3.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCARTHY: I am afraid that we have to start carping again at this stage—gently. We regard what is being done in Clause 13 as small-scale meanness. It restricts the guaranteed pay provisions to no more than five days in a rolling period of three months, as against the present fixed period of three months. This is a technical issue to many people, but it is really quite simple. It means, in effect, that workers are not likely to get
580
two periods of five days in a short time. Yet it is admitted, and was admitted by all parties at the time when the present system was introduced, that a rolling period would be a more complicated system, requiring additional records on the part of the employers, as well as meaning, in certain circumstances, certain dis-benefits for the workers concerned. Indeed, at that time the CBI was quite strongly in favour of the present system of fixed periods.
It was also accepted—and, indeed, it cannot be denied—that any movement away from the present system to the rolling period system will produce more anomalies, in which two workers in very similar circumstances could find themselves with what they thought were quite different rates of benefit. Even today—when, I am afraid, the CBI has changed its position, largely because I think it has been very heavily lobbied, this time by a few large firms rather than small firms, who say that in short intervals they have had to pay for two five-day periods—this change is still opposed by a number of other management organisations, and was most effectively opposed in the evidence of the Institute of Personnel Management, as well as by the TUC.
On this, it seems to me hardly possible to deny the views of the Low Pay Unit, and I quote from its evidence. It said:
"The proposed limitations of guarantee payments to no more than five days in any period of three months further extends the labour market disadvantage of the low paid. The low paid manual or lower grade clerical worker is more vulnerable to unemployment and short-time working, which already puts entitlement to social security benefits at risk. Moreover, because the low paid are less likely to be organised, minimum legal provisions are of correspondingly greater importance. Low paying industries have been over-represented among those most affected by stoppages and short-time working. The weakening of protection against fluctuations in earnings will only compound the poverty of the low paid".
Therefore, although this is a small and technical matter we think that it is important and we oppose this clause.
3.48 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: I should like, briefly, to support the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, at least to the extent that our feeling is that the provisions of this clause are, on the face of them, retrograde, if only because in moving, as the Government propose, from fixed to so-called rolling periods they appear to be widening

581
the differences in employment conditions between so-called white collar and blue collar staff, at just the time when, surely, everything should be done to narrow that gap. If I remember rightly, it was on that score that the Institute of Personnel Management also had something to say. At least, I welcome this opportunity of inviting the noble Earl to comment on that aspect of the matter, before we accept that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord LYELL: The Committee will have been interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He made great play with the problems of the lower paid, but I wonder whether those problems are relevant to the provisions of this clause. I should like, first, to remind the Committee that under the provisions of Clause 13 an employee is entitled to a guaranteed payment by his employer to a current maximum of £8 a day for the first five days of lay-off in each quarter. One wonders what are the reasons behind these provisions. It would be interesting to examine them. They were primarily designed to cover lay-offs of short duration. The responsibility for paying workers during lay-offs of this kind, which normally last no more than a few days, should fall just as properly on the employer as on the state. The present provisions, with the built-in limits, were designed to ensure that employers should provide minimum standards of protection to workers on temporary or short-term lay-offs.
Before these provisions were introduced, the Committee will know that very wide variation in protection was afforded to differing groups of workers. I do not know whether that was what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was aiming at in his comments about blue and white collar workers. We hope that by means of these provisions there is unification of the protection. The majority of manual workers already had considerable protection through voluntary agreements with the employers, but many such workers received no payment during lay-off.
These provisions set out some minimum rights for employees at relatively little cost to the employer. That is an important point which we have to remember. The limit of five days in each quarter was so restricted as to take special account of the
582
fact that the provisions would fall to be complied with at a time when employers would already be faced with financial difficulties which, in many cases, would cause them to lay off workers.
We might admit that the provisions could be open to one minor criticism. As they stand, where the lay-off spans two quarters the employer can be responsible for paying 10 days' pay in quick succession. That would be five days' pay for lay-off at the end of one quarter, followed immediately—or very closely, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seems to accept—by five days' pay at the beginning of the next quarter.
Even with the present limit, we think that this imposes a very severe burden. What it amounts to is a windfall for the employee. The Committee will be aware that such a situation arose especially during the winter of 1979 when the road haulage dispute was in progress and, indeed, to a lesser extent during the early months of this year while the steel dispute was in progress.
I do not think that I am able to say much more on the clause, but may I reply to one point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I hope he will not forget that any of those workers who are not in receipt of guaranteed pay qualify for unemployment benefit in the usual way, which will probably be more generous than the lay-off pay and the guaranteed pay.
We believe that the provisions of Clause 13 are an attempt to bring some reasonableness to the anomaly of lay-off pay, because we believe that this system, as it is in effect at the moment, provides what we call a windfall for the employee at the expense of the employer who will already be under considerable financial pressure. I hope that the Committee will accept the reasons for including Clause 13 in the Bill.
3.54 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: With the leave of the Committee—I am sorry to go on about this—may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, did not quite understand what it was that I was saying, or perhaps I did not make it sufficiently plain. I fully understand why it is that the Government have introduced this provision, in

583
the light of the damaging national strikes which took place last year and again this year. Perhaps I had better keep away from the expression "blue and white collar staff". What it amounts to, broadly speaking, is that in the case of those people who are paid salaries by the month, no question of guaranteed payments arises. Their salaries are protected throughout disputes—for quite long periods of time. The difficulty arises in the case of people who are paid on a weekly basis, and in whose case there is a limit to the number of days of guaranteed pay which they may receive.
As I understand it, the effect of this clause is to reduce the number of days of guaranteed pay to which they are entitled. That has the effect, as I was trying to say earlier, of widening the gap between people who are paid by the week and people who are paid by the month. It is that point about which we are concerned.
Lord McCARTHY: On that point, may I quote what the Institute of Personnel Management said:
"Although it may seem logical to adopt a rolling period approach to guaranteed pay, the Institute strongly opposes the intention expressed in the consultative document, in so far as it would have the effect of worsening blue collar conditions of service vis-à-vis white collar employees".
That is exactly the point and it has not been answered by the Government.
Baroness SEEAR: Surely it is stretching language somewhat—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I think that we ought not to have too many speeches from the Liberal Benches without somebody else coming in between. When the noble Lord was speaking a moment ago he referred twice to the windfall to the workers which the incidence of the present law gives in certain cases. Anybody would think, from the use of the word "windfall", that they had won something on the pools—that some bounty or bonus had come their way. Actually, this is only compensation for what would otherwise be loss of pay for the day. This is an important matter for any worker. Compensation, which may fall well below his actual earning rate for the
584
day, can scarcely be described as a windfall.
I think this is a mean little clause—a hangover from that bitter winter which we keep bringing up as a justification for doing many dubious things. It is true, of course, that the definition of "quarter days" in the Act does, in certain cases, lead to two lots of compensation within the same quarter, but it allows only of a maximum of 10 days in such circumstances: five for each of the two periods, but both within the period of three months. There is nothing extravagant about this.
The noble Lord says, "Of course they can go off and get unemployment benefit". But some people do have a little dignity left, even though they are in employment. To say, "Well, off you go and sign on and get your unemployment benefit", when the stoppage of employment is going to last for only a few days is, I think, a little humiliating for any zealous worker. These people turn up for work, and in certain circumstances the work is not there. That is what we are talking about. The law already provides that when the lack of work arises from an industrial dispute internal to the organisation they do not qualify. It is only when there are outside influences of the kind which occurred during the lorry strike of that winter that the clause becomes operative.
In the circumstances, I think that the Government ought to withdraw this clause. It is a spiteful little thing. I do not see that it is justified by any considerations of equity or fair dealing. My final word is this, that we do not want to go on re-emphasising the distinction between the white collar worker and the blue collar worker; we want to bring them closer together. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, if you are a clerk or an executive officer—a monthly paid office worker—you do not suffer from this sudden interruption of earning capacity from which many other workers do suffer. I think that on all counts this clause stands condemned and ought not to be pursued.
The EARL of GOWRIE: I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has not borne in mind the fact that the Government have been under very considerable pressure to go much further in respect of these guarantee pay

585
provisions. We have during our long consultation period on this legislation received an enormous number of representations that employers should be relieved of the obligation to pay employees who have got to be laid off as a result of extraneous industrial action. We have resisted these representations; so much, I think, for the accusation from the noble Lord, whose views on all these matters I respect so much, that we are behaving in some niggardly or mean way and should withdraw the clause. We think that that would be to go too far altogether and would also get us into difficult problems of definition.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that we recognise that there are occasions when guaranteed pay would have been greater than the unemployment benefit actually payable, but I think we must take account of the potential burden on employers which can exist there. We have resisted some representations to go further, as I have just said. We feel that it is a reasonable and balanced clause between the interests of the parties concerned, and certainly I have no intention of recommending that the clause be withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Action short of dismissal relating to Trade Union membership and activities]:
4.2 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 75E:
Page 15, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: This is a clause which it is very important for your Lordships' Committee to consider in some detail, for the reason that it replaced a previous clause in the Bill which was withdrawn in the Committee in another place and was put in on the last day of Committee in another place, and, no doubt through nobody's fault, has not yet received extended discussion. It is commonly believed that Clause 14 of the Bill as it now stands applies to closed shop situations. That is true so far as subsection (2) is concerned, but it is not true of subsection (1), and the purpose of this amendment is to remove sub-section (1), to remove a subsection which
586
would apply across the face of industry without reference to the closed shop.
The new clause relates to the rights of workers which were introduced in 1975 and became Section 23 of the 1978 Act. They relate to a new concept in employment law known as action short of dismissal. They lay down the employee's right not to have action short of dismissal taken against him for certain purposes, such as to prevent him from taking part in trade union activities.
One of the paragraphs in relation to which the employee was not to have such action short of dismissal taken against him and no penalty placed upon him and no deterrent placed upon him by the employer was, in the earlier legislation, related to there being no action to compel him to become a member of a union which is not independent; that is to say, what is sometimes known as a "sweet-heart" union, in the American phrase, or a house union dominated by the employer. There was also in the clause, from the very beginning, the right of a worker who objected on religious grounds to joining any trade union whatsoever, not to have the employer take action short of a dismissal against him to compel him to join a union.
What the Government are going in Clause 14(1) looks a very small amendment, but it is about as small as putting in or taking out a "not". Instead of reading, as the clause does, that the employee shall have the right not to have action short of dismissal taken against him by the employer to compel him to become a member of a union which is not independent, the words "which is not independent" are to go, and so across industry every employee is to have the right under this Bill to have no action short of dismissal taken against him by the employer for the purpose of compelling him to be or become a member of a trade union. It is interesting that the Government do not specify here whether it is independent or not. The concept of action short of dismissal is one of which no definition was placed in the earlier legislation or in this legislation. It therefore covers a very wide range of actions which could be taken by the employer.
In a recent industrial tribunal decision in Liverpool the tribunal tried to cope

587
with the problem of just what kinds of actions are meant by actions short of dismissal. This is made doubly important—perhaps a hundred times more important—now that the section is to be amended if it is in this new form. The tribunal spoke of the very wide meaning of action short of dismissal not limited by definition in the Act and said it certainly includes forms of disciplinary action, suspensions, transfer to less desirable work, demotion; and it now includes omissions, commenting there on previous discussions about the employer failing to do for the worker something which he might otherwise do, which might in many cases be action short of dismissal.
Let us take a normal industrial situation, not one where there is a closed shop but where there is a high degree of unionisation, as there is in the larger and medium-size firms in this country—70 per cent. unionisation. Suppose a worker who is not in the union, with no bad feeling between him and the trade unionists, has a grievance against management. He feels he has been treated unfairly in some matter and takes it up with the works manager or his local personnel manger. Very often in these cases the manager will sensibly say, "Well, if it's to go through the procedure negotiated with the union you'd better discuss it with the shop steward". Sometimes shop stewards do help non-members actually to process grievances, but very often they say, "Well, look, if I'm going to represent you properly, you'd better join the union".
This is a perfectly well accepted and normal way of recruiting members on the shop floor when they have a grievance against management. If the shop steward thinks that it is at least a reasonable one he will say, "I'd do it better if you were part of the union and then I could represent you without any difficulty with the other members, who might make difficulties if you don't join". In the normal case that situation is often resolved whether or not he joins, but under this clause it would be quite different. Suppose the non-unionist says, "I'm not going to join the union. This is all a plot to get me to join the union". Off he goes to the industrial tribunal and says that what the employer is really doing is not allowing him to use the grievance
588
procedure together with the union unless he joins the union.
Then one has a legal case. The question whether the employer has in such a case taken action short of dismissal is one on which I would welcome the noble and learned Lord's advice, if he is to reply. It could be a case that could easily go to appeal, because grievances of this sort might or might not count as action short of dismissal, just as grievances of not being given adequate overtime might count as action short of dismissal.
Let us take, however, a case that might cause rather more notoriety. Let us take a case where there is, again, no closed shop but a high degree of union density and a worker who is on rather bad terms with the local union branch, stemming from the fact that they have always wanted him to join—perhaps he was a member once and has resigned. This is a situation well known to union officials and managers, who often have to work out very sticky situations of this kind. Suppose this man says, "I'm not going to join the union and I'm going to attack it". Very often hot feeling arises and eventually the trade union members, perhaps even against their official's advice, say, "We're not going to work with him any more. We've had enough, and he'll have to go out of the shop".
What happens very often in these cases is that management says to the worker concerned, "Look here, there's a very bad situation. We'll have to suspend you for a bit". Frequently such a worker is suspended. Where such situations arise the solution is frequently found through a period of suspension to allow tempers to cool and to allow a permanent solution acceptable to everyone to be found.
Now that action short of dismissal of this kind is to be extended as the Bill proposes, however, faced with suspension on full pay, for example, the employee who does not like the union says, "I am not having that: I shall lose my night shift bonuses", or "I shall lose my share of the overtime: I am going to the tribunal". He takes the employer to the tribunal, but this time the employer's lawyer will say, "You cannot look at Clause 14(1) in isolation; you must con-

589
sider it in relation to Clause 14(4)", which of course applies if he joins an action, which we discussed in regard to Clause 9, where the employer can join the union. What is more, if he is a good lawyer I think he will say: "If you are going to be sued in the tribunal because you have taken action short of dismissal, to the disadvantage of the worker, and you are going to join the union, you must not stop by just joining the union, because this is a case where the union might say that it had advised the lads not to do it, so you had better join the organiser of the threat to take action if the dissentient was not suspended". Off the case goes into the legal process, which would then acquire headlines and television coverage in a way in which such disputes happily normally do not.
There are such problems in industry to which no doubt all sides contribute but today, happily, in 90 per cent. of the cases they are solved largely by hard work on the part of shop stewards and officials, workers and especially works managers and personnel managers getting round the table and working out a solution. This Bill invites any such complainant to go to the tribunal any time he can say he has been in any way penalised. It is not even a question, as unfair dismissal is, of unfair penalisation, which no doubt would affect the compensation. It is any penalisation with what the tribunal finds on the evidence is the purpose of compelling him to become a member of the union, with the joinder of the union and the joinder perhaps of individuals.
I can think of nothing worse than a clause of this sort to inflame a difficult situation. Not to extend the examples too far, I will only add that of course one then has to consider the case of those who, in such a situation, threaten to form a breakaway group or a breakaway union. Their rights in this connection will become quite different in practice in terms of their relationship to the law.
So the deletion of three words in Section 23(1)(c) of the 1978 Act has, in our submission, very wide-ranging and serious consequences for the likelihood of the number of occasions upon which common or garden workplace problems will be legalised and in a broad sense politicised and given a great deal of attention by the media, which will only
590
make more difficult the job of those who want the wheels of industry to go round. This is the first time that the consequences of Clause 14(1) can be tested in a debate. If ever there was a case where a revising chamber (the matter not having been discussed at length in another place) should ask the Government to take another look at Clause 14(1), this is such a case. I beg to move.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I certainly agree with my noble friend that the Government should take another look at this matter, but I have a few cautionary words to offer to my noble friend on the amendment which he has moved. The origin of the section of the 1976 Act was really the utter dislike by the trade union movement of the non-independent union. As my noble friend explained, it was the evidence of undue pressure being put by employers upon their workers to join house unions that gave rise to the provision in the 1978 Act to safeguard workers from being put under that form of coercion, because that is what we are talking about.
Unfortunately, by taking out the significant words which justified the section of the 1978 Act, namely the words "which is not independent", the Government then leave something on the statute book which was never there before and I doubt whether it is justified now. The section of the 1978 Act was justified in relation to the purpose which it attempted to serve, namely to relieve workers of undue pressure to join house unions. But when that is taken out, one leaves the law in an unsatisfactory condition. If my attention to his words can be relied upon, I do not think my noble friend used the word "compel" in his address.
What we are talking about is the right of the employee not to have action taken by his employer to compel him. A number of the examples given by my noble friend were, as I thought, not instances where the worker was being compelled to join but where he was being persuaded to join. This is the great divide: are we talking about persuasion or are we talking about compulsion?
It is so difficult to distinguish between persuasion and compulsion that one puts the words in an Act of Parliament only if they are really necessary. In my view

591
they were justified in relation to the purpose which the section of the 1978 Act sought to achieve. But once we take out the words "which is not independent", it seems to me that the residual clause is not justified or satisfactory to be left where it is. I believe there is more to be thought about here.
A postscript to what I have just said is that in all these matters relating to human affairs in industry and elsewhere, we need now to be on guard against the use of coercion. I really think that the freedom of the individual, harmonised and reconciled with those with whom he may work, those with whom he may live and have other association, is becoming of prime importance, because, as society becomes more complicated and industry becomes more complex and as freedom is on the way out in so many places, it is important to be on guard against coercion. I am against coercion. I am afraid that if the Government amendment to the section of the 1978 Act stands we shall be left with a clause in a very unsatisfactory condition. On the other hand, it probably would be the best thing to take the clause out of the Bill altogether.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Would the noble Lord apply those sentiments equally to the employer; that he should not be coerced?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I was talking about individual liberty. Usually, the employer is not an individual, he is an institution.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Not always; not by any means.
4.19 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think perhaps it might be useful if I were to try to set this clause in its place in the general structure of the Bill before I deal specifically with this amendment. Clause 14 is necessary in the general scheme of the Bill on grounds of both logic and practicality. We have already discussed the provisions on unfair dismissal in Clause 6 and joinder of union in dismissal cases in Clause 9 as these affect the closed shop. This clause deals with actions short of dismissal, a matter, as has been pointed out
592
already, which is covered in Sections 23 to 26 of the 1978 Act in respect of actions short of dismissal which have the purpose of compelling a person to join a house union. So it is a provision designed to prevent coercion on an individual to join a house union; that is Section 23 of the 1978 Act. What we are seeking to do here is to make a parallel provision in relation to unions generally, because if coercion is bad—and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that much more eloquently than I can—it is equally bad whether it is applied to forcing a person to join a house union or to join another union. So these sections in the 1978 Act broadly parallel as remedies the provisions of that Act on unfair dismissal.
It is obvious why this should be so. First, it would be strange to adopt different standards in respect of matters like discrimination or promotion or disciplinary treatment from that of dismissal, because that would just be an invitation to the employer not to dismiss but to treat the man so badly that he would want to go in any case. Secondly, if dismissal for certain reasons is made unfair and action short of dismissal for similar reasons is permitted, you have a clear invitation to go round the statutory provisions. Accordingly, it must equally be right to make provision for the situation where unions press the employer to do this. So it makes sense, in our submission, for provisions on actions short of dismissal to follow the same principles as dismissal.
Clause 14 is, therefore, necessary. It complements in this area the changes the Bill makes in dismissal in a closed shop and joinder in cases of pressure to dismiss. Your Lordships have already approved these changes in Clauses 6 and 9, and I would submit that this clause is necessary for the same purpose. If the amendment we are talking about now were agreed to the result would be that Clauses 6 and 9 would be deprived of a great deal of practical effect, for the reason that the union would go for pressing the employer to take action short of dismissal instead of dismissal as the way of treating somebody who was not prepared to join the union. Accordingly, in my submission to your Lordships, this amendment, which of course is a completely wrecking amendment so far as this clause is concerned, should not be agreed to.

593
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, gave a number of examples and invited me to coment on them. I think it is perhaps useful first of all to remind ourselves that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said hard work, persuasion, getting together of the people involved solved 90 per cent. of the cases at the moment. Very good, if that is so. This provision is ideally suited for dealing with the remaining 10 per cent. that presently co-operation cannot solve. The cases he gave all fall to be settled by the criterion: does the action in question amount to seeking to compel the person to join the union? Certainly so far as the first case is concerned I would think it did not, on the facts as he stated them. I would think very much the same of the second case, if the ill-feeling was generated in some way which was independent of compulsion to join the union. The breakaway case is a little more difficult. I think it would depend on a full account of the circumstances. I doubt whether the noble Lord's example gave sufficient of the circumstances to enable a confident answer to be given. In any event, I would invite your Lordships not to agree to this amendment.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I am disappointed in one respect, that the noble and learned Lord thought that this was meant to be a wrecking amendment. I should make some remarks to explain to him why, in our view, that is not the case. First, let me agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton that the problem of what amounts to compulsion—and here I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—is a very difficult matter. I personally think, and I have discussed it with others, that the three examples I gave are at least within the ballpark of argument as possibly amounting to compulsion, increasingly probable as one goes on. When the noble and learned Lord says that because 90 per cent. of the cases are dealt with by voluntary methods now they will continue to be so, I think that discloses a difference of philosophy between his side of the Committee and ours. We
believe that an undue offer, as it were, of legalistic processes will inevitably, like a magnet, draw too many of the cases which are now solved voluntarily into legal argument, just as in a sense, if he wanted to criticise the 1975 legislation, there may have been one or two legalistic procedures that attracted attention there.
With regard to the question of its being a necessary and complementary amendment to the 1978 Act, necessary because it complements in parallel Clauses 6 and 9 of this Bill, which was the noble and learned Lord's main platform, on that I join issue. It has no doubt a certain logic to move Clause 14(2), because that deals with the question of the exemptions in a closed shop situation and the parallel exemptions are being moved there, although we are unhappy about it. But when it comes to saying that Clause 14(1) is the parallel to unfair dismissal, on that I suggest, with respect, he is wrong. This is not a question of unfair or unreasonable action short of dismissal; it is any action short of dismissal with the element of compulsion attached to it. So it is any action for a particular purpose. Unfair dismissal is any dismissal which is unfair.
If the Government wish to bring forward a different subsection, parallel to the unfair dismissal provisions, amending action short of dismissal in this context in relation to unfair action short of dismissal, there would be more logic in the noble and learned Lord's position. But at the moment, with great respect to him, I am unable to agree that it is parallel, and my noble friends and myself, on the basis that we believe that this will give rise to quite unnecessary legal argument and attention, and intervention of legal disputes into an area where voluntarism is the best road to industrial harmony, intend to vote against this subsection by moving our amendment.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 75E) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 138.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Aylestone, L.

Bowden, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

Collison, L.

Birk, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Blyton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

David, B. [Teller]

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leonard, L.

Segal, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

Shinwell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Galpern, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strauss, L.

Gosford, E.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Henderson, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wall, L.

Hey cock, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Phillips, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrier, L.

Newall, L.

Amherst, E.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orkney, E.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Banks, L.

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

Piercy, L.

Barnby, L.

Porritt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bellwin, L.

Harvington, L.

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

Hatherton, L.

Renton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hawke, L.

Richardson, L.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Ridley, V.

Bourne, L.

Hives, L.

Robbins, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brentford, V.

Hood, V.

Rochdale, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochester, L.

Byers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Caccia, L.

Ilchester, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Caithness, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kemsley, V.

Salisbury, M.

Cathcart, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sandford, L.

Chesham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Clancarty, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Savile, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seear, B.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V.

Selkirk, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Lovat, L.

Simon, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Croft, L.

Luke, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Spens, L.

Davidson, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Stamp, L.

De Freyne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Teviot, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Torphichen, L.

Denham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

McNair, L.

Trenchard, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Westbury, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Milverton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monson, L.

Wise, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 75F not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): Amendment No. 75G. I must point out that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 76,76A, 77 or 77A.
4.37 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 75G:
Page 16, leave out lines 15 to 28.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 75G. I think that the noble Earl has very little fear that the subsequent amendments will not be called, but I wish on behalf of my noble friends and myself to take the opportunity of presenting again some arguments against the second part of the clause.
We have concentrated on the ballot and I do not wish to repeat the arguments which took place across the Committee concerning the nature of the validation of new union membership agreements by ballot requiring an 80 per cent. majority of the electorate, which we had as regards the previous clause. I wish, simply for the record, to state that naturally we have parallel objections here, just as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has already pointed out to me that the Government have parallel wishes here.
We want to say to the Government that the extension into the area of action, short of dismissal, might have consequences even worse than those which we put forward as the undesirable consequences for new union membership agreements in the previous clause, Clause 6.
It is worth remembering that we are talking about union membership agreements—agreements between management and specified trade unions. We reached a measure of agreement, in a sense, in previous debates on earlier clauses, because I noted that the Government Benches and ourselves were united on one point; namely, that the closed shop practice or union membership arrangements are a fact of life in British industry and it would be very stupid and foolish to attempt to legislate them away. In a sense, it is an extension of that point that causes us grave concern about the extension of the ballot arrangements for validating new union membership arrange-
598
ments, not only in respect of unfair dismissals, but even in respect of any action short of dismissal, of the kind covered by this clause, which involves compulsion to join a trade union.
Without wishing to reopen the argument with the noble and learned Lord, I again say that the word "compulsion"—as the Government found in arguing before the European Commission of Human Rights—is a very difficult word indeed to tie down in any legal sense. But by demanding that new union membership arrangements should go through the process of a ballot, which in our view will make union membership arrangements almost impossible to create in the future—an 80 per cent. majority of the electorate is needed—what, in fact, will happen? Here I relate very closely to the remarks made on the previous amendment by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Faced with a clause of this sort added to the 1978 legislation, what is management and the union likely to do in the real world? Whether or not one approves of this is, in a sense, beside the point for the purposes of discussion of this clause, because one is entitled to ask what will actually happen, what will be the consequences of what the Government are putting on the statute book?
What will happen when management thinks: "We have a very good relationship with our union; we have always had good industrial relations; we do not actually have a union membership arrangement or agreement, but it is obvious that we are moving towards one and it would probably be sensible to get, as it were, a price from the union for such an arrangement", as management usually does end up with such an agreement?
What is likely to happen in that very common situation is that management will tighten up on its screening procedures in the recruitment of workers. That is not a party point and I say this as someone—as many noble Lords may well be—who is afraid of the future in terms of the amount of information which will be known about each of us and each of the citizens of this country in the computer banks that will exist and the terminals into which various agencies and persons will be able to plug. If we look ahead five years and think of the employer (perhaps the unions too which might make it

599
worse) plugging into the computer bank to find out whether Smith, before he is engaged, is likely to vote against the ballot and ruin the 80 per cent. majority of the electorate, it seems to me that that is an undesirable future to encourage by legislation.
Indeed, it is caused by another fundamental problem with the Bill before us; that is, that the Government never do anything to disturb the untrammelled right and the prerogative of management to hire or not to hire whom they want. The union is to be controlled as to who is to be admitted and expelled, and it is true that in a union membership arrangement unfair dismissals are covered. Action short of dismissal is covered, but only where it relates in particular to trade union activities or to compulsion to join a union.
As regards the right of management to say, "You cannot have a job", that has never been within the Government's purview as something that ought to be controlled by law at all. I note that the Government Front Bench agree; perhaps I could put it to them that at some point they might reflect whether it would not appear odd to working people that everything else has to be controlled, including their organisations, but that no further trammel be put upon the right and prerogative of management.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I do not think that any such suggestion was part of the last Government's legislation. I do not think that that has ever been mooted.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: The logic of the last Government's legislation was such that the argument for it was not as strong as it will be under the Bill. It has certainly been mooted. If the noble Earl has not heard the argument that where there are controls over trade union rights to admit and expel, there should be controls over an employer's right to expel from and admit to employment, I suggest that he extends his audience a little. I think he will find that that argument is very common among workers in British industry. But that is an aspect of the possible consequences of this clause.
600
What I am saying, and what my noble friends are saying, is that to operate this kind of ballot arrangement in a situation where a perfectly sensible and orderly union membership arrangement might well be the desire of management and union, would not cause a great difficulty, where even those who would have voted against the ballot might well be taken on and in various ways accommodated. Because, of course, the latest research in respect of union membership arrangements carried out for the Department of Employment itself—and I am sure that the noble Earl has looked at these surveys by Mr. Gennard and his colleagues—show that virtually all new union membership arrangements make certain exemptions for existing employees and for others.
But when this kind of process is introduced—the desire for the ballot, the fear of management that perhaps the orderly arrangement will be disturbed by getting a 79·99 per cent. vote of the electorate instead of 80 per cent.—the screening procedures are bound to be stepped up. I cannot believe that that is the intention or the wish of the Government. But it is one of the reasons. Other reasons will be developed by my noble friend Lord McCarthy in relation to the clause as a whole. But it seemed right to us to draw attention to this one particular matter in relation to the ballot and the undesirable consequences industrially which the Bill will have.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The 1978 Act recognises there might be a possible conflict between an individual's right to organise and participate in the union of his choice and the stability of existing collective bargaining arrangements. The compromise currently is that rights to use the employer's premises are limited, where there is union membership agreement, to activity on behalf of unions covered in that agreement. The Government intend that after the Bill is enacted union membership agreements should be introduced only after the ballot, to which we have already referred. The Government cannot accept that any other new union membership agreement should be used as a justification for limiting the rights of members of non-specified unions.
This would be incompatible with the other closed-shop provisions of the Bill

601
and unacceptable because such restrictions on rights can be justified only if the agreement is demonstrably introduced with the overwhelming support of those to be affected. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord dealt with rather more general matters—not themselves, I think, the subject of this amendment. I would invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: The noble and learned Lord pursues the legal logic, which I follow, under the Bill. He did not pursue the practical consequences which we believe arise in particular from the very lines which we suggest should be deleted. We shall not divide on the issue, but we shall not withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
4.47 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16, line 20, leave out ("either").
The noble and learned Lord said: It might be convenient if I seek to explain both Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 together. The sections of the Bill which these amendments delete were inserted in the Bill by part of a group of amendments tabled by the Government at the Report stage in another place. The amendments were intended to be withdrawn, but were moved formally in error and they now stand part of the Bill. These amendments merely correct that error.
The intention which the Government had in tabling the amendments to the Bill, which are removed by the present amendments, was to cater for the technical possibility of the ballot provisions of the Bill causing difficulties for the very small number of employers who might seek to enter a long-standing industry-wide closed shop. However, on re-examination the Government concluded that there was not a real problem here, and it was intended that the amendments should be withdrawn. I hope that your Lordships will see your way to agree with that. I beg to move.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I am obliged to the noble and earned Lord for that explanation and,
602
of course, in view of the Government's amendments we shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 76A and 77A. Our intention in moving those amendments was to find out what on earth was meant by this new provision which was included by the Government on Report in another place. My noble friend and I spent many hours—we do not complain of this—trying to think what on earth they were about. I now find that the whole thing was a mistake. I am delighted in a sense to find out that they were moved formally in error because they must no doubt also have been drafted in error.
My noble friend and I found it difficult to see what they meant except for the possible case of, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, an employer joining an industry-wide closed shop made by an employers' association at some date later than when it was originally made. We went through the books; we talked to people; we asked people: is there such a case possible? We could not find one. But I see that the Government were trying to provide for something that is so far outside the range of probability that they now want to withdraw it. We understand a little more about what it means, and we are delighted to support for once an amendment from the Government Front Bench.
[Amendment No. 76A not moved.]
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 16, line 23, leave out from ("58A") to end of line 28.
[Amendment No. 77A not moved.]
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCARTHY: We wish to oppose this clause. The Government have said that the aim of this clause is, as it were, to stretch a kind of penumbra around the area of the closed shop so as to say that if closed shops are only to be related to the carefully defined union membership agreements so far as dismissal is concerned,

603
similar kinds of constriction must be existing for action short of dismissal. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said why it is that we find that that is not a plausible argument, and we have tried to put forward to the Committee a number of amendments to modify the impact of the clause, in so far as it affects closed shop areas.
But, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, stressed, the first subsection of the clause stretches way beyond the closed shop area—and that really is the central reason why we must oppose this clause—and in fact attempts to sweep up all areas where trade unions might organise, and might have members, whether or not there might be closed shops, or quasi closed shops, or union membership agreements, or anything of that kind. Therefore, I rise not simply because our amendments dealing with the closed shop area have not found acceptance by the Government today, but because I should like to return mainly to the question of subsection (1) of this clause. These are the main reasons why we feel that we must make this opposition to the clause known at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has spelled out a number of areas where we think this will affect trade union recruitment and industrial relations. We have been told by the Government that it may not do so. We have been given in effect the same kind of arguments as those we were given the last time we debated the Committee stage of the Bill—that the industrial tribunals in effect would not decide things of that kind. They would be too silly for them to decide, but some of the examples given represented compulsion.
We answer to this that we are not convinced. The fact is that in industry shop stewards, particularly when firms are relatively well organised, particularly large firms, take on a whole range of jobs which it is common now to call their helper functions. They help in the allocation of overtime in most firms where shop stewards are at all well developed. They help in the allocation of rotas in the difficult problem of gaining consent for the workforce for the distribution of work. They help in agreeing manning scales
604
They help in respect of the introduction of new processes. They even gain consent for majority decisions in wage issues, for example, piece work prices, and in all those areas understandably their work is confined to trade unionists. It does not include non-unionists.
It is not really humanly possible to ask shop stewards, who belong to unions, work for unions and are supported by unions, to take non-unionists into account when they carry out their helper functions. Therefore, these people will, in a sense, be discriminated against. These people, in a sense, are left out of the democratic process. These people, in a sense, will have a case if they come along and say that they are compelled to accept the consequences of the exclusive brethren of trade unionism carrying out the helper functions of shop stewards. We are worried about this kind of position, which is extremely widespread in British industry, if it comes before an industrial tribunal.
It is also universally the case that shop stewards and trade union representatives will not handle the individual grievances of non-unionists. Once again I say to noble Lords it is not humanly possible to ask shop stewards to spend their time looking after the particular individual grievances of non-unionists. No employer with experience of industrial relations would expect them to do anything of the kind. He would say, if an individual non-unionist wants a grievance remedied, that he would do his best to remedy that grievance at his level, but if the individual non-unionist wishes to follow what is basically a trade union collective agreement procedure, he would say, quite openly, "That is confined to trade unionists".
That is one of the routine ways in which people have an incentive to join trade unions. Far more people join trade unions in open shop situations because they have an individual grievance which they cannot process into the upper echelons of the procedure unless they join the union, than ever join the union by coercive closed shop arrangements. We say again that we are not certain where these exclusion practices would be under the terms of the first subsection of this clause.
But there are all kinds of other practices. Trade unions enter into joint pension

605
arrangements in which the trade unions make a contribution and the employers make a contribution. The employer makes a good deal more of a contribution, I should say, than the trade unions do. But the benefits are confined to trade union members. Again, we are not certain what will be said about this. It is certainly discrimination; it is certainly used very often to put some pressure on people to join trade unions. The question is whether this is inside or outside what is allowed under the clauses of this Bill.
Finally—and I could give your Lordships many more examples—there is in the steel industry, in the textile industry, what is known as the promotion veto shop, where it is quite impossible for anybody to get promoted from third hand to second hand, or second hand to first hand, and so on, unless he is fully in compliance with his union card. If he is one or two weeks in arrears his promotion is passed over. It is just impossible to break practices of that kind, and we are doubtful whether or not practices of that kind would be said to be unlawful under the terms of this clause. Therefore, we say that this kind of discrimination, which is part of the very stuff of industrial relations —frankly, I doubt whether the Government have thought it through or knew that the facets all existed—is nevertheless placed at risk by this clause and we must oppose it.
4.59 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I think that we have discussed in principle most of what the noble Lord has said in this part of his argument. He has given a number of examples, but I should have thought that action short of dismissal is not the most important part to give attention to. It is action short of dismissal for the purpose of compelling a person to join the union. Really those who oppose this clause are standing up for compulsion in this situation, because the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has explained to us that, even with the best will in the world, you get a number of cases of people who are subject to this 10 per cent. (I think he said) not capable of being dealt with under the present arrangements. If this clause goes, no help is given in these cases at all. I invite your Lordships to agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I tell him that the 10 per cent. to which I referred represented 10 per cent. of cases which were not easily solved by voluntary methods? As a lawyer, he must accept that among the examples of the common, everyday practices in industry which my noble friend gave—I put aside my own and let us also leave aside the industrial tribunal and take the Court of Session or Court of Appeal, whichever he wishes to choose—it is not unlikely or impossible that many of those situations would, to the judicial mind in the aura of the courtroom, where industrial reality is sometimes not easy to introduce, appear to be forms of compulsion. The word "compulsion" does not involve putting somebody in shackles.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I have no reason to believe that the judges in the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session are not capable of understanding the realities of industrial relations, especially when they are eloquently explained to them on both sides of any case by people who are very familiar with them. I believe the judges are capable of recognising compulsion when they see it, and of course I perfectly understand that one does not need to put people in shackles to have effective compulsion. The judges are perfectly capable of recognising compulsion, and it is against compulsion that this clause stands.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): I would say on behalf of the English judges, since my noble and learned friend belongs to a different jurisdiction, that the words in Section 23 of the Consolidation Act depend upon a purpose, and English judges as a whole understand the meaning of the word "purpose" in the English language.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Picketing]:
5.2 p.m.
Lord McCARTHY Lord McCARTHY moved Amendment No. 77B:
Page 17, line 26, after ("work") insert—
("or a place of work either of other workers who are members of the same trade union or who are parties to the trade dispute, or

607
occupied or used by any person who is giving or is likely to give aid or support to an employer party to the trade dispute by way of trade or business relationships").
The noble Lord said: I will, with permission, discuss at the same time Amendment No. 77E. This brings us on to the famous Clause 15 on picketing. The object, as I understand it, of the Government's proposals on picketing is to reduce picketing to what is now rapidly coming to be called "on site picketing", but in addition—and this aspect of the clause has not had sufficient publicity—it is to restrict the role of shop stewards and trade union officials in respect of their job on the picket line. We shall be arguing subsequently on later amendments that we consider that the provisions of the clause in relation to the activities of shop stewards and officials on the picket line are possibly just as dangerous and unjustified as the other aspects of the clause.
Before coming to the precise details of what we are proposing in these amendments, let me say that we are not coming before the Committee today in any way justifying everything that happens on picket lines. We are not here justifying violence, intimidation, watching and besetting and many activities which occurred in the famous winter of discontent in a minority of instances under the overall umbrella of mass picketing. Our position is that they are all against the law already and are best left to the ordinary operations of the police, and we would cite in support of that—I do not want to quote from them because they were quoted on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton—the very interesting evidence of chief constables on the legal immunities of trade unions to the House of Commons Employment Committee which, I would say, broadly supported that point of view. Nevertheless, we think it worthwhile, within the general opposition we have to the provisions of Clause 15, which we shall be picking up during the afternoon, to try to make a number of changes which perhaps might make it a little less disruptive in operation, and this is one of those changes.
In Amendment No. 77B we are trying to widen slightly those who have the right
608
to picket as affected by the Bill to include, as we say:
"or a place of work either of other workers who are members of the same trade union or who are parties to the trade dispute, or occupied or used by any person who is giving or is likely to give aid or support to an employer party to the trade dispute by way of trade or business relationships".
In Amendment No. 77E we are trying to do something similar by saying:
"or place of work either of other workers who are members of the same trade union or who are parties to the trade dispute, or occupied or used by any person who is giving or is likely to give aid or support to an employer party to the trade dispute whether by way of trade or business relationship".
As I say, these two amendments are designed to widen somewhat the right to picket as affected by the Bill. It would, therefore, still be lawful, say, to help out on the picket line other members of your own union; it would still be lawful, say, to help out other trade unionists involved in the dispute with you in a common trade dispute, whether or not they were involved in one at your place of work; and it would still be lawful to influence other workers whose employer was helping your employer, say, by carrying out his contracts.
In very broad terms, what we are trying to do is to distinguish between those who might be thought to have legitimate traditional loyalties to those in the dispute who might be said to be justified by the ancient trade union principle of borrowed strength, from those who might be thought to have no relationship to the dispute; groups who might, say, be brought in by others who have no direct interest in the dispute, sometimes described—more by noble Lords opposite than by noble Lords on this side—as mindless militants, King Street irregulars or Rent-a-crowd.
We are saying that if one wishes to narrow the area of picketing, the most feasible way to narrow it is to try to run to some extent with the traditional bases of strength, taking in people involved in the trade dispute—taking in members of the same union; and taking in those whose employers are helping your employer—and distinguishing them from other people. In broad terms—and I should say that I have no authority on their behalf to say this, but it strikes me as being in some way relevant—the sort of line we are trying to draw here is not all that different from the kind of line the TUC sought to draw in

609
their Guide to Picketing, because in section 9 of the guide the TUC say:
"Unions should in general, and save in exceptional circumstances, confine picketing to the premises of the party to the dispute, or the premises and suppliers of customers of those patties".
They go on to say:
"The effect of a large body of trade unionists outside a workplace demonstrates the depth of feeling that exists among strikers and also may constitute an effective appeal for solidarity. However, the police may regard a large body of workers as obstructing entry to the premises or as intimidation towards those who wish to enter. Trade unions need to be aware that it can sometimes be difficult to control a large group of pickets".
We are saying it is possible, if the Government are hell bent on this procedure, to find a way of limiting the mass picket to those who feel they have a legitimate loyalty to those involved in the picket; but it cannot be done as the clause is drafted and it might be attempted by the use of our amendments. I beg to move.
5.10 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, phrased his case very delicately and tried plausibly to impress us. He spoke about "widening slightly" and then "widening somewhat", which was getting nearer the case. I would say that he is driving a great big hole through the entire clause, and that is obviously his intention. In fact, he is endeavouring to turn upside down its entire purpose, and I believe that we need to read his speech in that light.
Earl DE LA WARR: I wish to support my noble friend, who referred to the extraordinary use of the adverb "slightly". My noble friend dealt with the point adequately, but I ask your Lordships' Commitee to consider what would happen if one of the mass membership unions, a union with a membership of seven figures, were involved in a matter of this kind. God bless my soul! it could be the secondary picketing of all time.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, as I understood him, adduced in aid the guidelines that were produced by the TUC. From what the TUC said, I did not detect that they were advising their members to make use of their strength to the point that the whole union could go and lend support, which was what I understood the noble Lord to be implying—
Lord McCARTHY: Not at all.
Earl DE LA WARR: Well, no doubt the noble Lord will tell me why not. I found what he said to be an extraordinary and novel doctrine on two counts: first, in regard to the use of the word "slightly"; and, secondly, by the praying in aid of the advice that the TUC gave their members.
Lord McCARTHY: If the noble Earl will allow me to intervene, I should like to say that I do not want to upset him unduly. I was trying to say that it is in fact impractical, and I would add unjustifiable, to tell a member of a union, perhaps a man with 20 or 30 years' membership, that the law prevents him from going to the aid of other members of his union. That seems to me to be both unjustifiable and quite impractical. It does not mean to say that because the law permits him to go to the aid of other members that the entire 2 million members of the Transport and General Workers' Union will turn up at every picket. The fact is that sometimes it is extremely difficult to get anyone to picket. Picketing is not all that popular, nor all that easy. I am suggesting that it is impossible to stop some members—perhaps half a dozen—of a union going to the aid of other members of the union. The law should limit itself to what is possible.
Earl DE LA WARR: I take the point, but that is not what the noble Lord's amendment says. The amendment permits as many as there are in the union to go in aid. The noble Lord has told us that he wants to widen things "slightly". Had the amendment been true to the description he has given, it would have been quite a different matter, but the amendment is not worded in the way that the noble Lord has put the matter.
Lord McCARTHY: I do not want to help the Government, but the Government's Bill would allow every single member of British Leyland in Oxford to turn up on a picket line in Oxford. That would be the mass picket of the year.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: I find myself in some considerable difficulty and I have been somewhat dreading our reaching the picketing provisions of the Bill, because I am not in agreement

611
with my noble friends in their attitude towards picketing. Despite my noble friend Lord McCarthy—for whom I have much regard—having been so reasonable, I really and truly believe that, however much expertise people may have, there are things more important than expertise. I should have been very nervous about rising had I not felt so strongly on this matter, but I believe that the feeling of the general public is more important than expertise.
I know that many of my noble friends agree with me, but have decided not to come to the Committee today. There are times when one must come and say what one feels, even if one gets into trouble for doing so. I feel very strongly about this matter. I recall one of the learned Clerks at the Table—not the one sitting there at the moment—saying to me, when I made a remark of that kind, "Well, you don't come to the House of Lords to be popular." I have always tried to remember that.
I should like to return to the matter in question and speak on it in general terms. I strongly believe that the general public of this country want action taken to curb picketing. Of that I have not the slightest doubt. I believe that this applies also in all political parties as well as among people who are not particularly interested in politics. In the light of the winter of discontent, or the winter of 1978, whichever Government won the last election would have had to do something about picketing. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about that. I must say that personally I support the step by step approach of the party opposite on this matter.
It seems to me that the majority of ordinary trade unionists—and I sat for a trade union constituency back in the 'fifties —are not in agreement with mass picketing or with the holding of meetings where decisions are taken by a show of hands, which causes intimidation. We have all seen that the show of hands, as added up by those doing the counting, does not always seem to be substantiated in terms of the actual numbers of those voting.
I should have liked my side of the Committee, or my colleagues in another place, to have been more constructive on
612
this matter of picketing. If my two noble —and, with due apologies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, I should like to add—learned friends on the Front Bench were to say that what the Government are proposing to do by means of the Bill will not cure the problem, I am sure that with the mass of papers that they have they would be able to prove their case. But I do not think that they would prove it to the general satisfaction of people in the country.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy said that those actions of the pickets which were most resented were carried out by a minority. That I accept, but one cannot call it a minority when there are bus loads totalling 10,000 brought in to stand outside a factory. I would think it to be a pretty large minority.
We have seen pickets on television, and it is no use saying that television seeks out the worst elements of picketing. I am afraid that picketing is news. When I saw on television pictures of the picketing at, say, Grunwick, or in the steel dispute I was terrified. I do not know what ordinary people actually looking on would have felt. I do not know how many policemen were employed at the Grunwick dispute—I have in my notes here a figure of 5,000 policemen—to keep the peace. It seems to me that things have reached a pretty pass when we come to that state.
If one can place any reliance on opinion polls—I suppose one chooses the polls that prove one's case—it seems that recently they have shown that trade unionists, and not only the public at large, really want something done about picketing. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt about this. I believe that if my party were to go to the country on the basis of taking no action on picketing, or of being against the Government in what they propose to do about picketing, there would be a landslide against them, because I do not think that that is the feeling of the public.
I should like to say before I sit down—I have probably said far too much already —that I do not believe that violence or intimidation are part of the British way of life; I really and truly do not. What is more, I think that they are contrary to

613
public opinion in this country. The guidelines put forward by Mr. Len Murray and the TUC (and referred to by my noble friend Lord McCarthy) were excellent guidelines, but what distressed me so much were pictures on television of pickets who had not seen the guideline, or who had not heard of them, or who laughed at them. I have felt very strongly that in regard to picketing the union leaders have not been able to deliver the goods. I say with great regret that I shall not be able to support my noble friends on any of the matters relating to picketing.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will feel able to reply to the very serious argument which has just been addressed to him, from behind him, because I think he will find that in most sections of the Committee there is much sympathy for the view so characteristically courageously expressed by the noble Baroness.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm what seems to me to be the quite extraordinarily possible, but no doubt intended, effect of his amendment. As my noble friend has pointed out, the amendment was presented to us as "slightly" extending the permitted scope of picketing. But am I right in reading the noble Lord's amendment as, if adopted, making lawful, where there is a dispute at, say, one plant, attendance by way of picket of any member of any of the great major unions that may be involved? Is that really the intended effect? If it is—and the noble Lord seems to nod—then, frankly, his introduction of it as "a slight extension" is really quite extraordinary unless, indeed, he was intending to pull the leg of the Committee, which is perhaps the most charitable view of it. But if that is so, I really would ask him to think again.
The lawful and proper purpose of picketing—and it is, indeed, re-enacted in the clause—is to communicate information or peacefully to persuade. That, historically, is the purpose of picketing; and it makes a nonsense of that if you arrange for hundreds or, as we saw last winter, thousands of people to attend at the same time and place. Because so far from facilitating peaceful persuasion, it at least suggests intimidation—numbers can do so—and, so far from helping to
614
communicate information, it makes it impossible. Whereas it would be perfectly possible for one, two or three men to communicate information to the noble Lord, if I were to assemble 2,000 people simultaneously to address him it would really be extraordinarily difficult, technically, to communicate any information to him at all.
My noble friend must recognise, as the noble Baroness does, that if there is one thing which has done damage to the trade union movement in this country it has been these immense mass picketings, with every indication behind them of intimidation: pickets which it was very difficult for anybody, except somebody of exceptional courage, to face in exercise of their right to pass through on their way to work. If there is anything which has damaged the trade union movement in the eyes of people in the country it has been that; and I say to my noble friend in all seriousness that if he wishes to serve the good name, the reputation and the standing of the trade union movement, he really will not press an amendment of this sort, which would legalise that very action which any good friend of the trade union movement would wish to see prohibited.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: Before the noble Lord sits down may I address a question to him? I do not wish him to understand my question to mean that incidents of the kind that he suggests do not take place on the picket line, but I want to ask him whether he has read the evidence given by the chief constables of five major areas of Britain to the Select Committee of another place. That evidence included the evidence of the Chief Constables of South Wales and South Yorkshire, both of whom described the situation, even where you had very large numbers of pickets, as "normally peaceful". To use the words of the Chief Constable of South Wales, they come "out of comradeship and solidarity", and, except in a few cases which do exist but which are very much in the minority, they do not represent the type of intimidation which the noble Lord has described. Has the noble Lord read that evidence?
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: As the noble Lord is good enough to ask me the question, let me say that I have read it,

615
and I read it with great interest. Having read it, I can tell him that the chief constables make it clear, first of all, that there have been, as he himself admits, incidents of an intimidatory nature; and, secondly (and he really has not faced this point), that the mere assemblage of numbers, even though the invididuals concerned behave themselves decorously, can intimidate—and I challenge him to dispute that.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I feel that your Lordships ought to leave the other House to take full responsibility for what is being done in this Bill, particularly in this clause. I do not think it is our job to revoke or to repudiate what the elected Chamber has done in this delicate field of human relationships in industry. Because—and do not let us shirk this—we are now getting very close to the unacceptable face of trade unionism. This is a very delicate subject on these Benches, and it is one which troubles the public greatly. I think that we shall not be doing our duty if, in a debate of this kind, we do not say quite frankly from these Benches, as well as from elsewhere in this Committee, what we feel. My noble friend Lady Burton has undoubtedly said what a great many people in the trade union movement are thinking, and what a great number of people throughout the country have been thinking for a long time about the use made of picketing in the course of industrial disputes.
It is a great pity that we are having to spend so much time in Parliament on these matters of disputes and on how to deal with them, on the consequences of strike action and on the mode of conducting strike action. This is a great pity. Would that we could be devoting that time to the constructive side of building up mutual confidence and fruitful relationships between workers and management which would minimise the occasions upon which disputes of this kind arise! My fear is that in many cases the strike weapon has become the negotiation of the first instance, and that is to be deplored. In many cases strike action is taken far too quickly after differences of opinion arise. I am greatly bothered about this—greatly bothered—but I do not think that the role of your Lordships' Committee is to savage what has been approved by another place. I
616
think we have to recognise the limitations of our role in the legislative process.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy, for whom I have great affection, introduced this amendment in tones of a peaceful, agreeable man. He said, "Of course, we are not coming here this afternoon justifying all that has happened in past disputes; many of the things that have happened are unlawful at present". But it is not enough to say that we do not justify some of these things. We ought to be saying that we condemn them, because they are doing great harm, I think, to relationships within the party, within the trade union movement and in society generally.
Another phrase which my noble friend used was that this amendment, he said, would permit members of a union in one place to go and "help out"—those were the words he used, "help out"—members of their own union on strike at another place of work. Those words "help out" may mean 500 workers going from one place of work to another place of work in order to man the picket lines, and some disgraceful scenes have been witnessed on the picket lines in disputes in the last several years. I sometimes think that actions make a mockery of the traditional words in the trade union law on this subject, right from 1906—"peacefully obtaining or communicating information", or "peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working". The word is "peacefully". What we have seen has not been peaceful persuasion; it has been sheer intimidation —there is no doubt about that. A mass of people on a picket line is itself a formidable form of intimidation.
When there was a Civil Service strike not far from where I live, picket lines were mounted and girls trying to go to work had to pass through a channel—not a picket line but picket lines; they had to pass through a channel—to the door of their office, and as they walked there they had catcalls all the way to the door. Is that peaceful persuasion? How does one feel, passing along a picket line by which you are made to feel lower than vermin? That is not peaceful persuasion; and I think we have to be very careful indeed when drawing the line beyond which action which may lead to manifestations of such an undesirable character may not

617
take place. I think that this amendment goes too wide. It says:
"or a place of work either of other workers who are members of the same trade union or who are parties to the trade dispute, or occupied or used by any person who is giving or is likely to give aid or support to an employer party to the trade dispute by way of trade or business relationships".
That is the wide, wide world, it seems to me. I cannot really feel that we on these Benches should be attempting to put into this Bill an amendment of this kind. I think that Parliament, the elected Parliament, must take responsibility. All that we can offer is such wisdom as maturity bestows upon us and such experience as we have. My instincts lead me to feel that the problem of picketing is possibly insoluble by law. Attempts to repair deficiencies in the law sometimes may lead to further complexities, but I think that one must make the best job that one can of the law, if the law is the only remedy.
I wish that we had the possibility of getting a firm agreement among the trade unions as to how people should conduct themselves. That would be the best solution. I aim time and again to try to get it. What this clause provides for is the financial penalties—not to be convicted of a crime that is unlawful, actionable. The individuals are actionable, but we all know of the problems of taking action against individuals in the mass and of recovering damages awarded against them in the mass—when they will probably go out on to the streets, march to court with a brass band in front of them, all have damages awarded against them and then they will form in column of route outside the court and march back to the square with a brass band and mightily and loudly say, "We ain't gonna pay." And then what? That is the problem.
We do not, I think, deal with this matter by extending the area of mischief. If we can limit it, then all the better. What I hope will happen as a result of this Bill, however reluctant the trade union movement may be to come to terms with reality, is that I hope that they will recognise that they have a public case to answer on picketing and that they will satisfy public anxieties on this very grievous question. Then it is our job, I think, as a Parliament and as the public to try to get rid of this divisive force which
618
splits the nation—the two sides of industry, the two sides of the House, the two sides of everything—in adversarial politics and in correspondence which is putting us so far behind those countries that long ago were able to find the reconciliation in politics and the harmony in industry which is enabling them to forge ahead of this country in almost everything they do.
5.34 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I have here quite a substantial winding up speech to what I imagined would be the principal debate on this issue of secondary picketing. But it would seem to me—and I say this with great earnestness to noble Lords opposite—that it would be far wiser for them to listen on this occasion to the words which have been said by people with very much more experience of the working of the trade union movement than I myself have, speakers such as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Therefore, I would beg them to attend to those speeches and to consider what the Government are doing, and to look at this as a principal platform of our policy not just in terms of the Bill but in terms of our policies as a whole: that picketing should be limited to one's place of work and that they will take the counsel of Lord Houghton of Sowerby and others rather than mine on this, and withdraw their amendment.
Lord McCARTHY: I am afraid that I cannot do that. I am thankful to the noble Earl for not making the speech that he was about to make. It enables me briefly to answer some of the things which have been said behind. As far as my noble friend Lady Burton is concerned, she will have no trouble with me; she is still a pin-up of mine. I am not threatening her with anything. Nobody is threatening her with anything except, perhaps, with not agreeing with her. That is all. I hope that we can answer some of her fears.
As far as my noble friend Lord Houghton is concerned, I want to say a little about what he said; but let me say that if he wants me to condemn violence on the picket line, I am pleased to do so. I am pleased to condemn violence on the picket line, on mass pickets, anywhere. Of

619
course we condemn violence and intimidation and anything of that unlawful kind, or watching or besetting, in a civilised society. We are not arguing about whether we condemn violence, but about what the Government are proposing to do and whether we think it will help; that is all. If we could solve these things by condemning them, there would be no problem. I would condemn inflation tomorrow if I thought it would help. Condemnation does not help, I find, on the whole, but if people want me to condemn then I will condemn, and I will condemn violence on the picket lines.
Now perhaps I can address myself to the amendment. First, I should like to address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Yes, it would be all the T and G. It has been all the T & G since 1906. Before 1906, in 1890, there were thousands and thousands of men on the picket lines from all over the country. In the great dock strike of 1899, a great deal of violence took place. All of it was unlawful and it was very difficult for the police at that time to do anything about it. We are saying in this amendment that it might be possible—we are trying to help the Government—to gain acceptance (and that is what is important, and that is what the chief constables say, as I shall have briefly to point out) of what is acceptable on the picket line. It might be possible to help the Government gain acceptance and to draw a cordon sanitaire around "Rent-a-crowd", people who come to the picket lines with no purpose except to disturb it. It might be possible to draw that line.
But if you seek to draw the line round fellow members of the trade unions, then I say to noble Lords opposite and to noble Lords behind me that all the evidence of history (and my noble friend Lord Houghton, I think, really accepts this) shows that you cannot do that. Above all, you cannot do that by law. It is not as if we have not had laws against pickets in the recent past. Virtually every single activity of the National Union of Mineworkers in the two great mass pickets of 1972 and 1974 were unlawful. Anyway, it was all being done by an unregistered union, a union outside the law in terms of the strike itself. We know that the very inception of modern times of the problem
620
of mass pickets came at a time when the activities were unlawful, when the unions were outside the law because they had not registered. If they do not tell something about the limits of the law and about what could be done for the law, I am afraid that there is no help for them.
We are not saying that we are in favour of violence or of intimidation, but that at this point—because we shall be saying other things about what is wrong with this clause subsequently and what it lays people open to—in this amendment it might conceivably be possible, practically, to draw some kind of cordon sanitaire around the picket line; but not at the point where the Government want to do it. So I must press this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.40 p.m.
Lord McCARTHY Lord McCARTHY moved Amendment No. 77C:
Page 17, line 29, leave out ("and whom he represents").
The noble Lord said: I hope that we may carry people with us on this amendment—I do not hope very much, but I hope. I should also like to take with this amendment Amendments Nos. 77D and 77G. This directs the attention of the Committee to some other aspects of Clause 15, which we think are unhelpful. I would have hoped that more people could see with some clarity that they were unhelpful than perhaps those who could see that what we were saying in the earlier amendment was not helpful.
In Amendments Nos. 77C, 77D and 77G, we are trying to get rid of what we regard as the unjustifiable and extremely unhelpful limitations on the freedom of trade union officials to—and I say this word with some care—in effect "police" the picket line. What we are saying is that the Government are limiting the access of trade union officials to the picket line. The Government are saying that trade union officials on the picket line should be limited to the area they represent. That is the effect of Section 15(1) of the 1974 Act. We are trying to take that out. We are trying to take out in particular anything in the Bill which is suggesting that there should be a limitation on the area of activity of the trade union official.
In other words, we are saying that it is a lunatic misunderstanding of the role of full-time officials and shop stewards on the picket line to think that their area of movement should be limited. The evidence of the chief constables given before the Employment Committee of the House of Commons shows they are universal in making the point that it is the unions that must be finally responsible for order on the picket line. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire said that the union should accept responsibility of communicating with the police. He said:
"I feel that this is the job for the unions. They can have somebody there with whom the police can communicate".
Mr. Woodwock, the Chief Constable of South Wales, said:
"I agree with Sir Philip Knights in relation to the TUC guidelines; it would be a matter for them. Having said that, there is definitely a need for better understanding by ordinary workers as to what their rights are".
I suggest that the best people to tell ordinary workers what their rights are are the trade union officials, are the shop stewards. Even if the Government wish to narrow those rights—as they undoubtedly do—I dont think they should narrow the freedom of action of the trade union officials. The Chief Constable of South Wales went on:
"Quite frequently there are occasions when pickets are there in large numbers and all is peaceful and no great difficulties are caused. They are sometimes there for comradeship or solidarity. You must not assume that on every occasion there is a mass picket there is going to be trouble. You sometimes get a very jaundiced picture from the news media who tend to highlight the occasions when things go wrong, but this is by no means the norm because there are many other incidents which pass off day by day".
He then goes on again to say that it is the responsibility of the trade unions to maintain order on the picket lines. I have already quoted from the TUC guidelines, and I do not want to do so again at length, but paragraph 13 of the TUC guidelines says:
"Pickets should be advised to act in a disciplined and peaceful manner even if they are provoked by non-unionists or others. It will help to ensure that picketing is peaceful if an experienced member, preferably a union official, is in charge of the picket line. He should have a letter of authority which he can if necessary show to police officer or to workers attempting to cross the picket line. He should ensure that the number of pickets is no larger than is necessary".
If that is the policy of the Trades Union Congress in so far as they can get
622
the trade unions to accept it—we cannot ask them to thrust it down their throats; they are a voluntary organisation—I would have thought the Government would want to facilitate the movement of trade union officials round the picket lines.
The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, again, said:
"Some of the experiences I have had are where the unions have not controlled the pickets. Their marking of pickets has been haphazard with pieces of paper stuck in pockets or on their lapels; some had armbands. But we did not have just one union".
He said it would have helped if they had. Again he said he felt this was a job for the unions.
So what we are saying in these related amendments was something which noble Lords could accept: it helps to have trade union officials on the picket line; it helps to have them moving about the picket line and anything in the clause which limits the area where they can move to those who they happened to have been elected by, which would incidentally rule out, for example, a senior shop steward or convener moving around his own factory on the picket line, although might be the natural person to control that picket line, is a very bad policy for this Government to adopt even with the general objectives of this Bill. I beg to move.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: These amendments aim to remove words introduced by Government amendment at Report stage in another place. A number of those who commented on the Bill prior to Report expressed fears that the clause, as originally drafted, would have allowed very wide scope for picketing by trade union officials whose members were picketing. It would have meant, for example, that where union members were picketing at their own place of work—where we seek to limit picketing—it would be perfectly lawful for any official of that trade union, including shop stewards from another place of work, to join those members on the picket line.
These comments led us to look at the clause again. We concluded that the scope of the clause was unnecessarily wide and carried some risk of abuse. At the same time, we recognised—and I recognise

623
the wisdom of some of what the noble Lord said—that it would often be desirable for an experienced trade union official to join the picket line in order to advise and organise his members and, I would say in most cases, to keep good order there.
Accordingly, the amendment which we introduced at Report, and which was agreed and incorporated into the Bill, seeks to limit the scope for picketing by trade union officials without limiting the right of any union official who has a legitimate interest in the dispute to picket lawfully alongside his members.
We think that the clause as now drafted represents a sensible and realistic position. It allows trade union officials to picket alongside members whom they represent. That is not a difficult or complex requirement. It is explained in subsection (4) as meaning just what one would think it meant: that an official is regarded as representing those members he has been specifically elected or appointed to represent. In other words, a shop steward represents only those members he has been elected to represent at a particular factory; branch officials represent members of that union in their branch; regional officials members in their region and so on. And in the case of the few, mainly national, full-time officials who have not been appointed or elected to represent one specific group of members, they are to be regarded as representing any members of their union.
The general point which concerns us throughout the clause as a whole is particularly the possibility of a trade union bussing—to use what is one of my least favourite transitive verbs in the language, but I cannot find another one —large numbers of shop stewards, perhaps specifically appointed for that occasion, around the country in order to bolster picket lines. If Clause 15 had simply allowed union officials to picket anywhere their union members were picketing, which I think is what the noble Lord opposite would like, there would have been a clear risk of mass picketing by officials.
The requirement that officials can picket only alongside those members whom they represent has, in our view, removed
624
that risk. It means that shop stewards can only picket at the factory where they work and where they represent ordinary union members. As I said, the national branch officials and others will be able to picket, but by definition they are limited in numbers. There is only one regional chairman for each region and only one general secretary for each union, and their presence on the line would not have the intimidatory effect that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and others have so eloquently deplored. We believe the clause achieves both objectives that we had in mind. It enables the appropriate trade union official to play a full and responsible part in organising a picket line, including seeing to good order, and it guards against the possible abuse of this provision through mass picketing by officials, whether genuine or bogus.
I wonder whether I may take this opportunity to refer briefly to a quite extraordinary misrepresentation of this general provision, and indeed of others in this clause, which occurred in the Daily Express on 3rd June. In what I thought was a wild attack on the Prime Minister and this legislation, that great expert on industrial relations, Mr. George Gale, perpetrated a series of elementary howlers which leads one to doubt whether in fact he has ever looked at the Bill. I hope that George or his minions are listening, and also Victor Matthews and my old friend Nigel Broackes, whether directly or by proxy, at this moment. George Gale claimed that the provision governing picketing by officials—and I am now quoting his words:
"… could mean gangs of Trotskyist shop stewards who will be allowed to join mass pickets and that there will be nothing to stop that arch-priest of mass pickets, Arthur Scargill, triumphantly progressing from picket to picket."
I must say I should like to commission an allegorical painting of that event! It will be evident from what I have said that this is totally untrue and is outlawed by the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Gale went on, with a similar disregard for accuracy, to claim that our Bill does nothing to prevent secondary picketing and that, in his words:
"Miners will be able to picket steelworks, steel workers to picket oil terminals, dockers to picket road haulage firms, lorry drivers to picket railways and the railwaymen, as they have threatened, will then be able to picket and close the mines".

625
Now that sort of careless reporting or wilful distortion of the actual provisions of the Bill helps no one, and least of all those who have genuine doubts, which we recognise, as to whether we have gone far enough.
Finally, to return to Amendments No. 77C and 77G, if these were accepted they would remove these requirements and return to the original position in the Bill. It would be open for any trade union official to attend wherever members of the same union were picketing lawfully. I suppose this is another case in which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—as ignorant, I think, of feelings outside this Chamber as he is of the mood within it—would say that this was simply "a slight amendment". I do urge him to withdraw it or, if he presses it, that the Committee resist it.
Lord McCARTHY: Not being a Minister of the Crown I do not have to read Broackes. I am sorry the noble Earl does have to read him, but with respect I should like to get back to this amendment. I am afraid I cannot withdraw it. I quite see that he feels it may go too widely and I listened with great care to his concern. He is concerned, as I understand it, about bussing. I would suggest to him that bussing, on the whole, by and large, is an unofficial activity and that what we are concerned about here is official activity. I wonder whether he would think again or whether he could say whether he would look favourably on another amendment if we were to put one down at Report stage dealing with official activities.
The heart of my concern is that trade unions themselves, seeking for the most part very, very hard indeed to control intimidation and any violence which they may find coming from their members, have in the real world to use a very small staff—I repeat, a very small staff—of volunteers. They may indeed draft in full-time trade union officials from other areas and regions in order to police the picket line. I do beg the noble Earl not to rule that out, because unions are lawful bodies. If they are told—not their members—that they cannot draft in other union officials from other areas to police picket lines, they will not do it and none of us would like the result.
626
I would also press the point of the convenor of shop stewards, who may be the convenor of a multi-union group of shop stewards and who has in his hands the control of a whole range of voluntary effort. Under the provisions of this Bill, as I see it, this man, however modest, however moderate and influential he may be, if he only represents 35 men in the tool room, cannot go on the picket line and represent his union in another place, or, say, in the same place of work but on the other side of the road. So all I am saying is that at this stage we cannot accept to take this clause away and we will return. In the meantime, I would ask the noble Earl to think very carefully whether he really wants to restrict the official activities of trade union officials, especially full-time officials, in their necessary and unenviable job of policing picket lines.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: May I just come in on one sentence? I know that the Government want to get their business done and may not be pleased with me for butting in. The sentence that bothers me, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will not feel he need use it again, was: "They will not do it". He is not saying that, even though both Houses of Parliament have examined these things in detail and have tried to come to a conclusion which is in the best interests of the nation as a whole, it cannot be done, but that, despite this being the law of the land, the unions will not do it. He has put it on record, and I hope it is not well based, that the trade unions, or a lot of them, want to be above the law. Those are the words that he used in the process of his argument and they meant precisely that. He said, more or less: "Even if you do that, even though this has been debated in the other place and we are now debating it here, at the end of the day they will not do it ".
I believe that they will do it if it can be seen that it has been properly and fairly examined. On this particular narrow point, I would have felt that the trade union officials would want these words in. At the end of the day, this legislation gives lots of powers to the trade unions. It is proposed to give them perhaps more powers than in the interests of the nation they ought to have in the light of experience of recent years; but they are getting lots of powers and it leaves many

627
of us very unhappy. We are told they are only being given these powers at this moment because we are going along "softly, softly" and hoping to get compliance. It may not happen that way, but it sounds very reasonable. However, if I were a trade union official wanting to intervene in anybody's picket line I should like to feel that I did represent them. I should like to feel that my powers as a trade union official carried with them also the ultimate power of representing the people I was joining and standing alongside. I should have thought this gives what union representatives who are wanting to take part in pickets want—not to leave it open, so that any trade union can be brought in. If somebody is there giving guidance and a general interpretation of how a picket ought to be managed, he should be in the position of being able to say, "I am not only a trade union official with a wider knowledge of what trade unionism means, but I also represent the people I am guiding and the people I am leading".
The noble Lord is quoting chief constables, as being people who ought to be listened to. I hope that the noble Lord will, in his future speeches, accept what they say and will not quote only points which lead up to their ultimate advice, that, at the moment, the law is not good enough and needs to be strengthened. But, at this moment, I am worried about those terrifying, dangerous words, in which he said that although this will be the law, properly put into the statute book, "they will not do it".
Baroness SEEAR: I am, as will be expected, not in agreement with the main thrust of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. However, there is one point which he raised which I would ask the noble Earl to examine very carefully; that is, the point which was raised recently about the position of a convenor. As I understand it, it is highly desirable that there should be responsible people on the picket line, who will order the picket line. I am sure it is not intended that the convenor should be excluded, because the people to do this are not trade unionists or officials brought in from outside.
The desirable people to keep order on the picket line are the people who are the
628
normal leaders of the men inside the plant; that is, the shop stewards and convenors who deal with them day in and day out who have been elected by them and whose authority they respect. What I am asking the noble Earl is: is it really the case that, under the legislation as it stands, the convenor could be ruled out? If that is the case, it is surely undesirable, and cannot that clause be looked at before Report stage, to see whether it can be worded in such a way that the convenor's authority is not undermined?
Lord McCARTHY: I am thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for his intervention, because I have obviously not made myself clear. He mentioned a narrow point and a wider point. What I was saying on the narrow point, when I said "they will not do it", was that the trade unions would not defy the law. That is what they would not do. What I was saying was that, in the interests of industrial peace and of disciplining the picket line, they ought to be able to draft in the convenors. They ought to be able to draft in trade union officials from other regions.
But if they are told that under this clause they cannot do it, then they will not do it. In other words, they will observe the provisions of the law. The intention and spirit of the TUC's disputes code on this will have to be modified, because it will not be possible for the trade unions to perform what I regard as their necessary functions, as in this respect they will observe what the law says. So let us get that on the record.
On the wider point, I have been saying —and I think I shall be saying quite a lot today and, maybe, tomorrow—that there are limits to which trade unions can compel their members to observe the law; that there are many laws in this country which are not observed, and these may be some of them. We are not saying we desire that, and we are certainly not saying that we are looking forward to it. We are saying that it happened in the recent past, under the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, and it may happen again. That is the wider point. I am not predicting or encouraging it. I am saying that it might happen.
The Earl of GOWRIE: On this last point, if I may take up that part while it

629
is still fresh in the minds of the Committee, we must make a distinction between the type of law needed to control behaviour on a picket line, which, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has wisely said, is a matter of criminal law which deals with offences, and the type of law needed to protect or give a remedy to employers or workers whose contractual relations are being disrupted or interfered with.
Of course, there are problems of enforcement with any criminal law. The fact that certain motoring offences exist does not stop us from committing them. More seriously, there can be punch-ups in the streets, even though the law is explicit that such behaviour constitutes various offences. But, under this Bill, because an employer can now seek an injunction against roving, flying or stranger pickets, as the Americans call them, the familiar kinds of "agro" that we have seen—to use a term which everyone uses—are much less likely to occur, because flying or stranger pickets are, by definition, less persuasive than pickets at their own place of work, even though the objective of picketing is traditionally peacefully to persuade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, told us when we were discussing a previous amendment, flying picketing is inherently designed to frighten both the workers concerned and the general public. That is why it is so objectionable, and that is why this legislation has firmly outlawed it. That is also why, if I may go back to the Committee sitting of last Tuesday, in our reforms in connection with the closed shop, we have, we feel, taken some of the sting away from picketing and from pickets, because you may not now be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from a union without having redress in the courts.
What I have just said is the nub of what could be called—and here I am taking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls—the teeth in this Bill, and if he looks at those teeth he will find that it would be quite easy to cut oneself upon them, should one be so foolish as to wish to test them.
To return to the amendment in hand, and the follow-up remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, as I said earlier,
630
our clause allows trade union officials to picket alongside members whom they represent. I said in my earlier remarks, which I am quite happy to repeat, that we recognise the contribution to good order during picketing which union officials can make. There is absolutely no disagreement between us about that. But, obviously, we have had to see that there cannot be a kind of industrial relations equivalent of the Western movie, whereby the sheriff can pick a star out of his pocket and pin it to the bosom of whomever he fancies wishes to join in the posse, because that would—to continue with the Western metaphor—drive a coach and horses through the otherwise sensible provisions of the clause.
Taking the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, my advice is that the convenor can picket, if he is a member of the same trade union as the picket, at any factory for which he is responsible. Therefore, it seems to me that he does get in on the act—
Baroness SEEAR: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I cannot have made my point clear. The convenor himself may belong to union A, whereas, as convenor, he speaks for a whole group of unions. Therefore, if he wants to control order then, technically, under the Bill as it stands, and not as I think is intended, he would not be able to picket alongside people involved in the picket of the establishment who were in a different union from the union of the convenor. That is the point that I am trying to make.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I take the noble Baroness's point and she is, indeed, right. But I do not think that we should look upon a picket line as a form of club, and take the view that we are unreasonably excluding certain people from taking part in it. We have made very clear provision for the presence of union officials right up to, and including, the general secretary and it seems to me that we have got it about right. However, I will read the debate carefully and go back to officials and look over the points about the convenor which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, have raised.
I make no commitment whatsoever to return to them. While I am always

631
anxious to accommodate the noble Baroness, in this instance I should be more convinced that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was talking words of sweet reason as well, in agreeing with her, if he had not a few moments ago moved Amendment No. 77B which enables workers to picket at other premises where there is a dispute or where other members of the same union work—which of course would effectively restore the law to its present and deeply unsatisfactory position. However, I gave the undertaking and therefore I shall honour it.
Lord McCARTHY: On the basis of the noble Earl's undertaking on that point, I am very pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 77D:
Page 17, line 30, at end insert—
("or is an official attending at or near that place at the request either of his trade union or of such a member,")
The noble Lord said: May I explain why we shall not now be moving this amendment? I should like to impress on the noble Earl that there are further points which develop from the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The convenor may represent many types of workers from different unions. So may other shop stewards. The idea of the convenor having to accompany a particular member of his own union is, in our view, a very impractical proposition. I understand that the noble Earl has made no commitment, but we have had a suggestion from him that he will go away and think about it and discuss it. In asking for the leave of the Committee not to move Amendment No. 77D, I do so in the spirit of asking the noble Earl to look very carefully at the form of Amendment No 77D and to include it within his considerations.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Yes.
[Amendments Nos. 77D and 77E not moved.]
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77F:
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("who is not in employment and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment can be moved very swiftly. It relates to a point in subsection (2) dealing with the worker who is out of employment and who has had his employment terminated in connection with a trade dispute. We had intended to question the phrase:
"whose last employment was terminated in connection with a trade dispute".
However, to save time we decided to put down this amendment, and it was agreed that I should preface my remarks by asking the noble Earl and his advisers to consider what:
"terminated in connection with a trade dispute"
means.
The amendment goes to this very simple point. A worker is defined, under the statutory provisions, as somebody who works or normally seeks to work, under a contract of employment or a contract for services, at a particular place. This has been a very important definition in trade dispute law, not least during the period of the 1971 Act, when it was involved, as a matter of interpretation, on two or three occasions in the Midland Cold Storage litigation that led to the imprisonment of the dockers. Workers out of work and seeking to work may therefore clearly be parties to a trade dispute, and the Government's Bill will not change that.
However, when we come to the right to picket, that right for the worker whose employment has been terminated in connection with a trade dispute is defined in subsection (3) as his last place of work, so long as he is not in employment. We ask the Government to think again about this, for "not in employment" is open to more than one interpretation. However, as we understand the Government's proposals, as discussed in another place, they mean a worker whose employment is terminated and who has no other job.
Although it is not a major source, it is some source of support for the families of those engaged in a trade dispute, most of which no doubt will be industrial action by unions but some of which may be lockouts, or it may be a mixture of both, with one side calling it one thing and the other

633
side calling it another. A party to a trade dispute, as a dismissed worker may still be, who does not have employment may have the right to picket, but the worker who takes a part-time job may not. The recent book on financing strikes by Mr. Gennard, who advises the Department on various matters, showed that in recent strikes a certain percentage of workers took part-time jobs to tide them over the dispute.
It seems to us to be unreasonable that the formula should be so absolute, especially as it would cover the case of a lockout, and that the only person who can picket is the man who has not taken a part-time job to help to support his family. It is a small point, but it is important to the families of those involved. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord why he has put his amendment in this form? If he is basing his case on people who might be in part-time employment, would it not have been easier for him to have inserted "who is not in full-time employment"?
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: If it is the wish of the Committee that I should answer that question, I will happily join in discussions with the noble Lord and with the Government if they are disposed to reconsider whether some such formula would be desirable. I should perhaps have used these words—obviously this is a probing amendment—to find out whether or not the Government would take a more relaxed view of what I described as an absolute formula.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Subsection (3) of Clause 15 extends immunity to those who, having lost their job as a result of an industrial dispute, picket their former place of work. We think that that is a just and necessary provision, but the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord would make it lawful for any person whose last employment was terminated in connection with a trade dispute to picket at his or her former place of work in furtherance of that dispute, even if he or she had subsequently found alternative work.
The subsection which I mentioned does not allow somebody to picket his former place of work in the circumstance of his having subsequently found another
634
job. That is what the noble Lord seeks to correct. We believe that that would run counter to the principle underlying the clause—the philosophy, if you like—which is that only people with a real and continuing interest in a dispute should be allowed to picket at their own or their former place of work. If a person has got another job, why should he be allowed to go back to join the picket line at his former place of work?
We recognise that the clause will make it unlawful for somebody with two jobs who loses one of them to picket at his former place of work, but we do not think that this is a sufficient problem to justify amending this clause in a way which will widen the scope for picketing well beyond those who have got two jobs—widen it, indeed, to those who have taken up new employment and who can have no legitimate reason, in our view, for returning to their former place of work. In practice, it is unlikely that difficulties will be caused on the picket line because somebody who has two jobs cannot picket lawfully at the place from which he has been dismissed. Nor can this seriously be represented as a major restriction on the right to picket. There will never be so many people, surely, in a dispute who are disqualified from picketing because they have got two jobs that an effective picket, a persuasive picket, cannot be mounted and the interests of all the workers concerned adequately protected.
The noble Lord then added a rider to the amendment, in the form of a probe, to see what might be the position of somebody who was taking part-time work during a dispute or a lockout. It still seems to me that it is unreasonable for him in those circumstances to join the picket. Also, it would be unlikely, I should have thought, to happen very much, because normally one tends to picket during the hours of work, and if one had taken other work one would not have much time to join a picket elsewhere. It certainly would not be very attractive to one's employer, should one be working in one place and picketing in another. So I think that the noble Lord's instance is a little far-fetched.
Nevertheless, in the interests of good industrial relations and giving even less of an undertaking than I did on the last

635
amendment, I will have a look at this, since the noble Lord did say it is a probing amendment and since it was not, in my view, covered by the amendment to which I have just spoken. Therefore, I will look at the point which the noble Lord has made.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: We shall obviously, as the hours go on, have to learn the exact refinements of the noble Earl's undertakings which are not undertakings, but I am encouraged by what he said. I am encouraged, too, by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I merely wish to say this in order, as it were, to encourage the noble Earl to think perhaps a little more than he was suggesting he might.
I will take one of the figures. I cited none of the figures in order to dispatch the matter and encourage speed, but if one takes the ETU strike at Chryslers in 1973, 5 per cent. of the workers took part-time jobs. Such part-time jobs do not take up all the hours of work or every day during the working week. They are usually jobs of small hours and a few days, and it does not seem to me and my noble friends a fair and sensible line to draw. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to put some rather different formula in the clause or, if not, at least be able to accept some other representation before Report stage in order to change subsection (3) to the extent at least that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would perhaps encourage me to think he might come to consider favourably himself. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77G not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 77H is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 77J or 77K.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77H:
Page 18, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This is in some ways the first of a number of substantial problems concerned with this Bill in its
636
approach to trade union rights. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the rights of trade unionists and the rights of workers, because I speak of those who act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The rights of those to take industrial action and to picket in support of that industrial action have been based upon the formula of acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute since 1906 in the civil law and 1875 in the criminal law. It is, therefore, in order not to have to repeat arguments in relation to subsequent amendments—indeed, subsequent amendments on a subsequent clause —that I wish to put forward under this amendment the basic argument concerning those acts in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute that my noble friends and I wish the Committee to consider.
Before I do so, I should point out that it occurred to me in a previous discussion —I did not wish to intervene then—to say that perhaps, as the noble Earl said, the Bill has been misrepresented by certain journalists who perhaps were less than responsible in their description of it. It may be that one of the things that divide the noble Earl's side of the Committee from at least some noble Lords on this side is the fact that we believe that many of the arguments and pictures drawn by such journalists—and there are far worse than the ones he named—have misrepresented the social facts about the commonness and norm of intimidation on the picket line. The point has been made before, but I make it again because it is important here.
What does subsection (2) of Clause 15 do? We have already passed across the new formulation of the picketing clause itself—that is to say, the right to picket at any place in furtherance of a trade dispute, which (and I have to say this to Ministers) the trade union movement had to fight for for a hundred years before 1906 and which it has enjoyed since 1906. Compared with any other country in which picketing is a normal part of industrial practice, there have been remarkably peaceful picket lines in Britain. Having established that, this clause then says that one can picket only at one's own place of work. We have passed across that, so that whatever protection there was, whatever right there was to picket anywhere else, which there has been for 74 years, is now taken away.
But now the clause goes on to say something else. We will come back to the exact effect of the narrowing of Section 15. By "Section 15" I refer to the new form in which it was put into the 1974 Act by Clause 15 of the Bill. We will come back later to the new form of Section 15. But we now turn to the further step which is taken by subsection (2). That subsection takes away Section 13 of the 1974 Act. That means that Section 2 exposes anyone who attends at the wrong place to all the liabilities of the common law which it was necessary to have legislation to protect by what were called the immunities in order to have legitimate and lawful trade union action, including the action of picketing.
In 1906 the major areas in which it was necessary to establish trade union rights by way of immunity were the known areas of torts or civil wrongs based upon economic pressure; conspiracy to injure; inducing breach of employment contracts and interference with trade. Those were the wrongs known in the courts, as the Donovan Report points out. When the Government justify Clause 15(2) they tend to speak in terms similar to those used by Mr. Mayhew in the Second Reading debate in another place on 17th December 1979. His speech was matched by other speeches, but it is the shortest to quote. He said that this clause of the Bill was aimed at
"restoring to employers, and others"—
that is a very important addition—"and others"—
"who are harmfully affected by the consequences of people acting as pickets inducing breaches of contract, their common law rights, that statute has taken away". —[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/79; col. 170.]
It is, I think, a basic distinction of view between this side of the Committee and the Government that we do not regard the matter as advanced one way or another by talking in what are prejudicial terms about restoring common law rights that statute has taken away. If all the common law rights that statute has taken away were returned, trade unionism would become entirely unlawful. The noble Earl has suggested that the law is in the form of an immunity for historical reasons. From previous debates I know that he and I more or less agree about that, although I have a further communication this summer which I will send to him.
The idea that because they are immunities in form they are privileges in nature is nonsense, and historical and social rubbish. Therefore, when we come to this we must understand that subsection (2) is taking away basic trade union rights in the sense that people who venture a step beyond attendance at the right place then become liable not merely to trespass on the highway, nuisance, obstruction or the normal things thought about as the limits of picketing, all of which are in the existing law and to which this clause may make little difference, but also to injunctions and damages in respect of the economic torts or the economic civil liabilities.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Will the noble Lord give way? I am very grateful. At this juncture I would not want him to give the Committee the feeling—he is a very skilful man, and perhaps he is able to do rather better than I can—that the situation that obtained in 1906 or previous to it was really very relevant today. The trade union movement has come a long way since 1906. We are concerned overall not to put the clock back, as he has often argued we are doing, but to redress the balance where legislation which grew up in such a way as to protect weak organisations is now reinforcing the activities of very strong ones.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: If the noble Earl will allow me to say so—and he has more experience and skill in this place than I have—he must make his speech in his own way when his turn comes. I thought he was going to address a question to me. I have comments on what he has said but I will reserve them and will continue with my argument.
The relevance of 1906 is what happened between 1906 and 1980, because when one looks at the development of the law one finds that the immunities which are being taken away gradually had to cover a wider area (as it became discovered) of economic tort liabilities. For example, in 1969, in the words of Lord Denning, the principle of inducing breach of contract of employment or another had to be extended. The noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls said this in 1969 in Torquay Hotel v. Cousins—and I quote:
"The time has come when the principle should be further extended to cover deliberate and direct

639
interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach".
I make that point here because again I do not want to have to repeat this during the debates and I hope we shall not have any argument about it. There is sometimes an argument about whether judges create law in the common law or whether they do not. It does not really seem to matter how one puts it because the genius of the common law is that the common law remains the same and yet tomorrow is never quite what it was yesterday. Indeed, if it were the same tomorrow as it was yesterday it would be a very foolish system of law.
When Lord Atkin created the tort of negligence by a magnificent stroke of genius—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate reminds me with a smile that it was a Scottish case—it was based upon common law principles which were developed. I do not mind whether people call it development or whether they call it creativity, or, as Lord Devlin has put it in his book, the historic role of the judiciary as law maker which he would wish to see restricted in certain areas, we all agree that the common law develops; and in Torquay Hotel v. Cousins the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal developed it in a form which was not quite clear before. That had to be protected and it was done eventually on the recommendation of the Donovan Commission in 1976, in the Act of that year.
Similarly an actual or threatened inducement to breach of commercial contracts became clearly, in the 1950s and 1960s, actionable as torts against those who were organising strike action. This is relevant in the sense that the range of liabilities to which working people, when they took industrial action, became liable, gradually became wider and wider in the sense that they were not foreseen to be so wide, at least, in 1906.
If one reads the speech of the Lord Chancellor of the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Loreburn, on the Bill of 1906, it is very clear that he thought they were covering the economic torts of the day. Similarly Section 13(3), to which we have to come in Clause 16, protected the new areas of interference with contract or breach of contract as unlawful means.
640
I make these points not only because they recur later but also because the nature of the torts or the nature of the civil wrongs, protection from which is removed in subsection (2) of this clause, is now very extensive indeed. They are based upon the same common law principles but they have developed in a much more extensive way. I will take only one illustration from the more detailed areas of the difficulties for those taking industrial action.
It was pointed out in another place by the Attorney General, on 18th March at col. 1337, that those who picketed in the wrong place did not have too much to fear in terms of procuring or inducing breaches of contract, even of commercial contract which it was now clear they could be liable for directly or even indirectly, because, as he put it—and I quote him:
"Mere peaceful communication does not create any offence. It is communication coupled with persuasion or inducement"—
and he is speaking of pickets.
"Just to say to one's pals 'we are on strike in the next door factory' certainly would not be picketing".
I take the point that there is a legal distinction between information and advice. There has only been one case in the last 50 years in which a union official has managed to succeed in a defence based on that point. The best authority as I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will appreciate, is the Scottish case in 1968 of Square Grip Reinforcement Company v MacDonald, where Lord MacDonald made it very clear that in the modern law, at least, anyone (as he puts it) who is anxious that a person should act in a particular way would be held liable to have induced him to act even if he merely suggests that that should be so. So that the range of liabilities to which the picket who offends in terms of his place is now to be exposed by the removal of the whole of Section 13, and it is enormous. The damages could be gigantic.
I press the Government with a further point. Why is it that in Clause 15(2) the whole of Section 13 is removed whereas in Clauses 16 and 17 the Government restrain themselves and remove the defences under subsection (1) of Section 13 only; that is to say, to put it in rather less technical language, why is it that in

641
Clauses 16 and 17 the rights of the trade unionist that are removed relate to interference or threats of interference with contract alone? As opposed to that —there are three other parts of Section 13 but I will take one of them—why is it that the protection of the picket in the wrong place (the unlicensed picket, as he is now known), his protection against conspiracy to injure, is removed? As noble Lords will know, conspiracy to injure is a combination to do acts which are perfectly lawful in themselves but which are illegitimate because of the view which the court itself takes about their object. Over the years the judicial interpretation of that which is legitimate, especially in industrial action, has varied considerably from the case of Quinn v Leathem in 1901, where the House of Lords was very hard upon it, to the Crofter case in 1942, at the height of the war, where the House of Lords took a much more relaxed attitude. I do not know what the attitude of judges will be in five years' time, but of course the judicial authority on the question of legitimate object in a conspiracy to injure is absolute.
So we have the position where the type of liability which is being imposed in terms of the removal of Section 13 is very large indeed, and I suggest that because it removes the whole of Section 13 it is a piece of overkill by the Government, even in terms of their own strategy. And when one adds to that whole area the principle which was suggested and debated last Tuesday, that anyone who does any act which by any unlawful means creates damage (which can now include a breach of contract), and one loses subsection (3) of Section 13, obviously the possibilities of civil liability are very large indeed.
The Government allege that they need this new area of civil liability in order to deal with the misdeeds of secondary pickets or pickets away from their own place of work, which is rather different. First, we say that a new civil liability will not help one little bit. That area has been traversed already in discussions with my noble friend Lord McCarthy, but I repeat it particularly because there is no point whatever in adding to the law which at the moment is quite adequate (as chief constables have said, albeit in need of clarification in certain areas) to deal with misdeeds of secondary picketing. There is no point whatever in adding
642
these vast civil liabilities for injunctions and damages, some of which might in some cases possibly be defied.
Of course, some action in picketing, be it primary or secondary, as some action of employers, is unwelcome and the TUC guides—from which my noble friend quoted, and therefore I will leave aside in terms of quotation—are, we say, in the vast majority of cases, observed and provide a much better way of dealing with the matter by discussion between the TUC and the Government.
Of course, what matters most perhaps in terms of civil liability, as opposed to the other areas already dealt with by the clause, is that the employer in dispute may be the last person who wants to bring a civil action for these huge areas of civil liability. The noble Lord shakes his head; he may be an employer who would want to sue. I can think of, and indeed have discussed the matter with, employers who say: "Well, we might in the extreme case, but in most cases we would not want to bring a civil action for damages. It is the last thing we would want to do because industrial relations would be ruined for years to come". But it is, of course, third parties who can bring actions, not necessarily people in the trade, responsible customers or suppliers, but any third party who is injured in a way that can be said to be calculated injury or even foreseeable injury, a point which is obscure in case law. So this is an area not merely of vast and wide liability, but an area of vast and wide potential plaintiffs.
It also raises a problem in regard to civil liability which has been discussed before but to which the Government have given no sensible or adequate answer yet in discussions in another place. I refer to the question of identification. In order to bring an action against a defendant, you need to name him and you need to know his name and address. We need not go over the ground of whether the police will take the names and addresses for this purpose, because we know from Government statements and from the chief constables that the police will not take the names and addresses for this purpose. Therefore, we have the situation that anyone who wants to bring a civil action needs to obtain the names and addresses of people who are picketing at

643
the wrong place; they have got to get it right to the inch and they have got to get it right to the name.
This House need not concern itself with the debates which took place in another place about people arriving in beards and giving false names and so on. I do not predict that that will not happen; I do not predict it will, but I do not believe it will never happen. I should be surprised if noble Ministers predicted that it would never happen, that somebody might come along, not necessarily in a mask, but not giving his correct name in order to escape the possibility of this extensive liability in civil law, about which many workers and trade unionists are extremely concerned. Many of them who wish to see picketing run according to the TUC guidelines are very concerned about the extent of this liability.
In truth, when problems arise on the picket line the distinction between primary and secondary picketing, especially for the purposes of civil liability, is in fact an unhelpful distinction to draw. It is surprising that the Government should latch on the extensions of civil liability, or, to put it in trade unionist terms, the cutting down of trade union rights, as they have been for 75 years, in terms of the primary and secondary line. It is a surprising line to draw for that purpose. We have seen the logic advanced for it in redrafting Section 15 of the 1974 Act, but for the extra purpose of civil liability it seems the wrong line to draw. It will involve the possible plaintiff, who may be anyone injured, in an extraordinary process of finding his defendant. In 1972 we had process servers chasing dockers through the streets. That seems an absurd situation to recreate. It creates a situation of very great resentment on the part of hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of responsible trade unionists who know that they have had to fight, or their forefathers had to fight, for the right in the form that it is now in the civil law. And they are very aware of the distinction between the civil and criminal law. Noble Lords who think that they do not know the distinction should go on a trade union course or go to a branch meeting. Trade unionists are very aware of the point about civil liability, the dangers of it to them, their shop stewards and officials. Therefore, this subsection, we say, is
644
over-kill; it will not help with the problems defined and should be removed from the clause. I beg to move.
Lord ROCHESTER: I am not qualified to debate with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, some of the legal niceties to which he has referred, but a certain sense of filial piety obliges me to rise to my feet. It was in 1906 that my father was first returned to another place as Liberal Member for Rochester under the administration of Campbell-Bannerman. The noble Lord has referred to 1906, and I recall from the celebrated correspondence in The Times recently that he looked back to 1906 and the time when the golden rule in this regard, as he described it, was established. Whether the legislators of 1906— and as a Liberal I feel some remote sort of responsibility for what they then did—were wise in the action they took, I do not know. The situation was certainly different. The point I want to make now is that, whether or not they were wise in their time to do what they did, the situation has moved on and we are now in 1980. There are things which have occurred, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said—things like flying pickets and things like blacking—which the legislators of 1906 could not have foreseen, and I cannot believe that my Liberal predecessors, among whom my father was numbered, would view the situation today in quite the same way as did the legislators of 1906, whatever it is that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, may have to say on that subject.
Lord RENTON: It is not because I was once Recorder of Rochester that I intervene very briefly in this discussion. I do so because I have some genuine sympathy with the difficulties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in the understanding of what is in these clauses, 15, 16 and 17, to which he referred. The Government were wise in Clause 15, when re-enacting Section 15 of the 1974 Act, to do so in the way they have done, by means of textual amendments. But when we come to subsection (2) of Clause 15, and to other subsections in the two later clauses, where Section 13 of the 1974 Act is referred to, there is really, alas, a great problem of understanding placed before us. Instead of textual amendment taking place we have an

645
undesirable form of legislation by reference.
Confusion is worse confounded by the fact that when we turn to Section 13 of the 1974 Act we do not find it in its original form, if we have been thorough in our search of the statute book, because we find that it was amended by the amending Act of 1976, and that has to be read into our understanding of these subsections where Section 13 is referred to. I think this might well have been a case either for a Keeling schedule or for doing in relation to Section 13 what has been done in relation to Section 15 in subsection (1) of this clause we are now discussing. Whether or not one agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in the substance of the matter as to which he has spoken in a way which enlightens the Committee, I do feel bound to make the point to my noble friends on the Front Bench that it would be most helpful if, before the Bill leaves this House, the exact effect of Section 13 could be made plain in one or other of the ways I have mentioned.
The Earl of GOWRIE: The amendment, in our view, strikes at the heart of the Bill's provisions on picketing. I thought there was an element of bravura performance in the noble Lord's speech, which is why—and he was good enough to give way to me—I intervened in the middle of it in order to bring out the very point which I am glad to say the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made during his rather briefer remarks. It is that laws which were designed to protect and encourage weak and nascent bodies are rather different from laws which try to redress balances or wrongs in a totally different period of historical development. The concept of the rotating and flying picket was foreign in the industrial atmosphere previous to 1906. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, were in his place we could have another instance of that remarkable moment on Tuesday when he reminded us that the Committee of the House of Lords was considering a Bill and he had been a member of a trade union before the legislation of 1906.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, wants to take out subsection (2) of Clause 15. That is the very subsection which gives the clause its "teeth"—to use a word that I used in the last debate
646
to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls—by removing from secondary pickets the immunity from civil action for interference with contracts. That really draws us—especially as the dinner hour is near—into the region which we shall be debating under Clause 16 in the next major series of debates.
The consequences of withdrawing the Section 13 immunity will be dealt with when Clause 16 is debated. However, what we are concerned with here is giving teeth to a restriction of picketing to a worker's own place of work. That is the central issue of picketing in the Bill and, indeed, in our general policy towards it. The only way in which we can provide such teeth—given the historical development of union history and industrial relations law about which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I agree—is by withdrawing the Section 13 immunity. If Section 13 were not withdrawn entirely, employers would not have grounds on which they could seek injunctions in civil law, and that is what we are trying to achieve.
So, I go back to the issue that, behind the bravura and the interesting and historically-informed speech of the noble Lord, there was concealed the desire to go back to a situation where there is a free run for pickets to go where they like and to spread the disruptive effects of a dispute far and wide to other industries, and, indeed, to the community as a whole. That is not tolerable to us and that is why we must ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I thank the noble Earl. I must postpone my disagreement with him about history and the history of picketing which has seen many things which he says it has not seen. I do not agree with him about the justice or efficacy of the clause and my noble friends and I insist on pressing our amendment.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 77H) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Janner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Balogh, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Leonard, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Stone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wall, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Galpern, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gosford, E.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Heycock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

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

Norfolk, D.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Northchurch, B.

Amory, V.

Halsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hankey, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Auckland, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Orkney, E.

Bellwin, L.

Harvington, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Hawke, L.

Pender, L.

Berkeley, B.

Henley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hives, L.

Redmayne, L.

Boothby, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reigate, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renton, L.

Braye, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robbins, L.

Cairns, E.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Rochdale, V.

Caithness, E.

Kemsley, V.

Rochester, L.

Cathcart, E.

Killearn, L.

Romney, E.

Cockfield, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rugby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Long, V.

Savile, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Seear, B.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

de Clifford, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Spens, L.

De La Warr, E.

McFadzean, L.

Stamp, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Torphichen, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweeddale, M.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Vickers, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Fortescue, E.

Morris, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Gowrie, E.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Gridley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I think that it might be convenient to adjourn for dinner at this stage, so I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

POOL COMPETITIONS ACT 1971 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1980
7.2 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1980 be approved. It may be helpful if I refer briefly to the Act which the draft order is to renew, if your Lordships agree to this order.

649
The competitions with which the 1971 Act is concerned are competitions for prizes based on the outcome of sporting events, especially football matches, and the proceeds from these competitions go in support of charities or sports. The Spastics Society and some cricket and football clubs are examples of bodies which have derived substantial income from this source. The competitions are not the same as commercial football pools. Competitors usually hold a permanent selection of numbers which are assigned each week to football teams and winners are determined by reference to the results of the matches.
A judgment by your Lordships' House in 1970 held that a competition of this kind did not constitute lawful pool betting, as had been supposed, but was an unlawful lottery. This was because the prizes were not for making forecasts but for holding numbers which happened to be lucky in a particular week.
The difficulty which followed from this judgment was that the charitable and sporting organisations, which had been deriving quite large sums of money for worthy causes by this method, would have lost a considerable source of income if the competitions had been forced to cease. The Pool Competitions Act 1971 was, therefore, passed to enable organisations already promoting competitions to continue to do so within a system of licensing and control established under the Act and administered by the Gaming Board for Great Britain.
The Gaming Board exercises its powers under the Act to safeguard the interests of the competitors and to secure continued financial benefits for societies named in certificates granted under the Act. Although the number of bodies relying on the 1971 Act to protect their fund-raising activities has declined, several continue to place substantial reliance on these competitions for their income.
The Act was a temporary measure. It was to run for an initial period of five years, but it contained provision for its extension by an order, approved in draft by resolution of each House of Parliament, for up to a year at a time. It has been so extended on four previous occasions, and the purpose of the draft order before the House this evening is to extend the Act for a further period of one year.
650
Your Lordships may recall that the previous extensions were made while the Report of the Royal Commission on Gambling, whose terms of reference covered these pool competitions, was awaited and considered. It is true that in its final report, which was published in July 1978, the Royal Commission recommended that the Act should be allowed to expire in July 1979. But the charitable and sporting organisations which would have been affected were naturally concerned by the Royal Commission's recommendation that the Act should be allowed to expire, and in view of the difficulties which expiry of the Act would have caused these organisations, an extension of the Act for a further year was approved last year.
Therefore, the present position is that without a further renewal order the Act will expire on 26th July this year. When the Royal Commission's report was debated in another place on 29th October last year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he hoped it would be agreed that the best way to deal with the matter would be to continue the Act in force until Parliament had decided what changes should be made in the law on lotteries.
I cannot, of course, give an undertaking to the House this evening as to exactly when we may be able to bring forward legislation. But I should like to say this in concluding these opening remarks. My right honourable friend is currently preparing for presentation to the House draft regulations relating to certain of the Royal Commission's recommendation on lotteries. My right honourable friend is also considering the case for increasing the monetary limits applicable to lotteries. Some of the Royal Commission's recommendations on lotteries could not, however, be implemented without amendment of the law and, as I say, I am not able to give an undertaking as to when the law may be changed.
But it is the intention of my right honourable friend to invite representatives of the charitable and sporting bodies concerned to discuss with the Home Office the scope for a permanent and satisfactory resolution of the temporary arrangements for which the 1971 Act provides and which this extension order will, for the moment, continue. Bearing in mind the valuable

651
work funded by these competitions, I hope, as I have attempted to show, that as my right honourable friend is being active in thinking about the future of this matter, your Lordships will meanwhile agree, by approving the draft order, that the Pool Competitions Acts 1971 should be extended for a further year.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st May, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.8 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM:My Lords, I join with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in supporting this order and I should like to thank him for explaining it to your Lordships so clearly. I agree with the points that he has made about the need for this order and, indeed, I think that it would be a little inconsistent of me to do otherwise, because it is the case that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell had occasion to move similar orders from the Despatch Box of the noble Lord the Minister, while the last Government were in office.
As the noble Lord the Minister has indicated, there is concern among charitable bodies about what would happen to their income and, indeed, about their chances of survival if this order were not passed or if some similar provision was not made to replace it. This week I received a letter from the Spastics Society—and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has referred to the society in his opening remarks—which said that:
"If the Spastics Pools were no longer allowed to operate, The Spastics Society would lose about £800,000 in 1980 alone".
It is of significance that I understand that one-fifth of the Spastic Society's income from general fund-raising comes from pool competitions, and that other charities, such as Action Research for the Crippled Child, derive almost one half of their income from similar pool competitions.
The Spastic Society's letter goes on in this way:
"The uncertainty about the future of the pool competitions has already caused the income they previously provided to drop off. This, and the demands on the Society which constantly outstrip its resources, has caused the Society to give great thought and effort to the development of alter-
652
native sources of income. From this experience it is very clear to the Society that it has no prospect of ever recouping the income it will lose if the Spastics Pools can no longer legally operate.
"The effects of inflation and the frequent reference to the expanded role the Government hopes to see the voluntary sector play in filling the gap left by reduction in social services, are causing deep concern to organisations such as the Spastics Society who are under threat of losing one of the most important means of income. The Society, despite considerable efforts, is aware that it has no means of making up that income it stands in danger of losing from the loss of the pools, and no means of avoiding the inevitable consequences of a reduction in the services and support we can offer disabled people".
No doubt there are other bodies which could make similar observations. I have referred to the Spastic Society only because it was that body which happened to take the initiative in writing.
We are now fast approaching the time when we should deal with this matter on a more lasting basis, and your Lordships will have been interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had to say about the representations which have been invited and about the talks which are to take place, and I would certainly welcome that development. I quite understand that he is not able to give any firm indication about the sort of measures that might be placed before your Lordships, but it is encouraging and I welcome what he has had to say, that the Government are at any rate moving in that direction. In the meantime, I simply join in urging your Lordships to support this order.
7.12 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I merely express my gratitude to the noble Lord for the support he has been good enough to give me. I think that it was a nice touch that his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who, as the noble Lord said, had been responsible for introducing this order previously when the last Government were in office, is in your Lordships' Chamber this evening listening to this short exchange of remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, in his remarks mentioned one of the organisations which is able to continue its operations of this kind under the 1971 Act and under the provisions of these orders, namely the Spastics Society, and the concern which that particular society had expressed regarding uncertainty for

653
these sort of competitions. It might be for the convenience of your Lordships before we end this debate if I said that in the course of the debate in the House of Commons my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment, who has responsibility for sport said, in winding up the debate on the Royal Commission's Report, that the Government had no intention of allowing the 1971 Act to lapse until Parliament had had an opportunity to decide in the context of lotteries legislation what changes would be appropriate.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, for giving a welcome to the idea that my right honourable friend's department, the Home Office, should meet with the organisations which promote competitions under the Pool Competitions Act. I am sure that this is a sensible thing to do ahead of any legislation. Certainly I know that my right honourable friend's department will be doing that. With those few additional words, I beg to move that this order be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.15 p.m. to 8 p.m.]

EMPLOYMENT BILL
House again in Committee.
8 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77J:
Page 18, line 12, after ("in") insert ("subsection (1) of").
The noble Lord said: I am aware of the hour and I shall therefore move this amendment speedily with three points to which the Government have not yet given an answer. If the defences of Section 13 were removed from the pickets only to the extent of subsection (1), certain liability would not arise. The most important in trade disputes would be simple conspiracy to injure, on which I commented in dealing with the last amendment. The next most important, perhaps the most important of all, would be no liability in respect of interference with trade as such, and other open-ended liabilities of the kind Lord Scarman
654
spoke of in the recent steel case when he said:
"Open-ended expressions bring judges inevitably into the industrial arena, exercising a discretion that may well be misunderstood by many and which can damage confidence in the administration of justice".
And thirdly, the most important of all: the removal of Section 13(3) could mean that where those who are unlawful pickets join those who are lawful pickets on the same picket line, the lawful picket could themselves, by joining with those who are using unlawful means without the protection of subsection (3), lose their protection as lawful pickets.
I accept what the Government said in another place, that such liability could not arise "simply by association". But as the Government accepted, if they in any way combine with the unlawful pickets—if there were in any way a combination with the unlawful pickets—then, without the protection of subsection (3), there would be the use of unlawful means and a conspiracy to use unlawful means. On that basis, especially because of the third point—and I hope the Minister will answer all three—I urge the amendment very strongly.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: In my submission, the main disadvantage of the amendment is the uncertainty it would create. At present, the affect of subsection (2) of the clause is quite clear. It says in effect, "If someone pickets other than at his own place of work, he forfeits the immunities provided by Section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974". That is perfectly straight-forward. I accept that the main immunity is that for inducing a breach of a contract conferred by Section 13(1). It is that subsection which is nearly always at issue in these cases. But if we were to accept the amendment, we should be creating the impression that Parliament intended some immunity to remain under Section 13 for secondary picketing without specifying what that immunity was.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that Section 13(1) is unquestionably the most important part of the section; indeed, I think that was implicit in what he said. So far as the other immunities are concerned, the Government's position is that we see no reason why people who are outside the licence, as I think the noble Lord

655
called it, of the new picketing section should enjoy any immunity at all. We doubt whether Section 13(3) is left with any substance in present circumstances, but even if it does have substance, we cannot see any reason why pickets who are outside the protection of lawfulness should enjoy that. So far as discretion is concerned, this does not appear to me to be the kind of discretion that Lord Scarman was referring to in the case cited.
As for the point about conspiracy, we take the stand strongly that merely to be in company with persons who were not, what I might call, licensed or qualified pickets, would not of itself involve the licensed people in being guilty of conspiracy. It is only if lawful pickets actively invite or encourage outsiders to join them in picketing that they may run the risk of losing their own immunity, and if they do that—if they do in fact conspire—we do not see any reason why they should enjoy immunity. Accordingly, I ask the Committeee not to agree to the amendment.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I am disappointed by the noble and learned Lord's answer. There are many points of detail one could debate, but I will restrict myself to the major point, which is the reason why I must say that we will not feel able to withdraw the amendment. Let me make it clear that it is no part of our argument on this, or indeed on any other, amendment to the clause that the unlicensed picket should be covered by the immunity, although we think the ground the Government are traversing on that is unwise, but we are not arguing that on this amendment.
We are saying that the liability which can be encountered by lawful pickets, in particular in regard to conspiracy to injure and also in particular the use of unlawful means or the combination to use unlawful means, is quite unfair to those whom the Government purport to protect under this Clause. I noted with care the noble and learned Lord's words. It is true, I accept, that merely to be in company with another person is not to combine with him, but I take issue with him that combination starts only at the point—I think I have his words exactly—where someone actively invites or encourages another to come and join
656
with him. There is an area of territory in between where the law of conspiracy quite plainly begins to operate, and that is where there is a combination which is less than invitation or encouragement but which is still a combination. It is therefore possible, and might be quite common, for lawful or licensed pickets unintentionally to lose their protection by merely joining with activities of unlicensed pickets. Although we will not divide on the amendment, we press it on the Government and we cannot withdraw it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I would just tell the noble Lord that conspiracy consists in agreement.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says; there is, of course, the element of agreement. What I was answering in the Lord Advocate's argument was that agreement necessarily implied active invitation or encouragement. There are many cases, which I am sure the noble and learned Lord will accept, where combination has consisted in an agreement which did not begin with the invitation or encouragement by one of the conspirators, but the acceptance by him, as it were, of an invitation from the others.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Guilt by association is not an agreement, and with great respect I think that the noble Lord is chasing his own tail. Regardless of whether my noble and learned friend was right or wrong in describing the point at which conspiracy begins, if there is no agreement, there is no conspiracy.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says, as indeed one would have to; those words are obviously unexceptionable. But if the noble and learned Lord accepts the authority of, for example, the case of Huntley v. Thornton, he will see an instance of persons who were on one side or the other of the line. Two defendants were not parties to the conspiracy; four were. But among the four certainly not more than one or two actually encouraged or invited the combination. Agreement begins at a different point from invitation or encouragement. Therefore, I maintain my stand

657
that the lawful pickets might well be affected short of inviting the unlicensed pickets on to their picket line, and, not being lawyers, might well unintentionally do things which rendered them liable for matters for which the clause appears not to make them liable.
On Question, amendment negatived.
8.11 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77K:
Page 18, line 13, leave out ("picketing") and insert—
("attendance at or near a place in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.")
The noble Lord said: I shall try to be equally brief upon this matter, and I hope that we can join issue on the central point and perhaps not engage on too long a search for authorities. The essential case of my noble friends and myself on this point is a very simple one. The term "picketing" is not a term of art in law. It is true that the Government have used the word "picketing" as the side note of the new Section 15 as proposed in Clause 15 of the Bill, but the term of art of "picketing" is unknown to the law.
Every time that the law has spoken of picketing, from 1875 until today, it has spoken in terms of "attendance". It has spoken in fact in terms of attendance in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The point is an important one, because in subsection (2) all the civil liabilities attend upon trade unionists and their rights are deprived where in the course of picketing they do certain acts.
In the same clause the words attending "at or near" a place are used. I take it that noble and learned Lords would not dispute with me the fact that where Parliament, in the same section, indeed in the same Act, uses two different words, it is the right and proper approach for the courts to investigate and perhaps to presume that the Legislature intended slightly different things because it did not use the same words.
The issue, for example, arises whether or not those who might otherwise be picketing would leave perhaps notices or placards—sometimes known as "ghost" picketing in certain industries—or would otherwise leave communications at a place of work. It is perfectly possible
658
on the understanding that I have and on that of a number of those with whom I have discussed the matter and who are more experienced than myself in statute interpretation, that the word "picketing" in subsection (2) could, and perhaps should, be interpreted as meaning something more than attendance.
The noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend in another place said that that was not the intention of the Government. He said that it is not picketing if pickets themselves are not present. If it is not picketing when pickets themselves are not present, we ask the Government to clarify the position for workers who, in any event, will have enough trouble understanding this law, by putting in place of the word "picketing" the words of the amendment:
"attendance at or near a place in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute."
If that is what is meant by picketing, let the clause say so. If the word "picketing" remains, it will mean something different, and indeed to the courts it will surely mean something wider. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: We have used the words "in the course of picketing" in this clause because they express neatly and precisely what we want to achieve. Our aim is to remove immunity from pickets who in the course of picketing other than at their own place of work induce a breach of contract. We are not concerned in this clause with people who attend at a place of work for some other purpose; and this really is the point. We are advised that if we use some formula other than "in the course of picketing", such as the one suggested in this amendment, we might by mistake restrict activities other than picketing; for example, the right of a shop steward from a particular factory to address a meeting of workers at the gates to another workplace. In other words, we have used "in the course of picketing" in order to reduce the chances of misinterpretation.
We have not defined picketing in the clause because we think it unnecessary. We are aware of course that the word "picketing" has not previously been used in statute, other than in a marginal note, and when the noble Lord refers to the

659
law, I assume he means statute law. But it has long since passed into common parlance. I should have thought that the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary meaning of the word is fairly precise. The courts themselves have used the term on occasions. In the case of Lyons v. Wilkins, Lord Justice Smith referred to
"what is ordinarily understood by picketing".
In the case of Torquay Hotel Company v. Cousins, to which the noble Lord has referred on several occasions, the words of the order which granted the restraint included the phrase:
"picketing at or near the entrance or entrances of the Imperial Hotel for the purpose of persuading drivers of oil tankers not to deliver fuel oil there".
I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that precision is demanded to a very high standard in words in an injunction. If the phrase was good enough for an injunction, it must be good enough for us. I would ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: Perhaps it is necessary for me to say a little more than I said earlier. Perhaps in the interests of speed I did not put the case as fully as I should have done. I shall put it in terms of a reply, if I may. First, by saying that the possibilities of liability might be wider if our formula were inserted, was not in my submission justified by the example—and the only example—that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate gave. Attending to address a meeting at or near the place might or might not be lawful, whether or not the word "picketing" was used, whether or not the word "attendance" was used. We all agree that if it amounted to an obstruction, it would not be lawful in that sense, on the highway, anyway. So that seems to make no difference one way or the other.
So far as the case of Lyons v. Wilkins is concerned, I am slightly alarmed by the Government relying upon that case which went twice to the Court of Appeal and in which I well remember Lord Justice Lindley saying that you cannot make a strike effective without doing more than is lawful. I should have thought that remarks made in Lyons v. Wilkins were highly undesirable guides to the modern law on picketing, even under this Bill.
660
Finally, so far as the case of Torquay Hotel Company v. Cousins is concerned, I am not sure of the conventions of your Lordships' Chamber. I was in certain ways concerned with this action, and I wish to say merely that the order in that case is still reasonably fresh in my mind, and if one looked at the pleadings one would see perfectly clearly that the order of the court was plainly made within the terms of the facts and pleadings in that case. I accept that the word "picketing" was used, but the meaning of the word "picketing" was absolutely clear in that case because of the facts and pleadings placed before the court. That is quite different from using the word in a statute.
The noble and learned Lord did not at all answer the point as to whether leaving a placard at a place would, in the Government's view, be picketing. The noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend in another place said that it would not be picketing; but the noble and learned Lord did not say anything about it. It is a matter of great concern to the trade union movement. If our amendment does not get the words right, I press upon the Government the need to reconsider the word "picketing", because I infer from the noble and learned Lord that there are matters other than attendance which would give rise to liability. If there are matters other than attendance which could give rise to liability, the trade union movement is entitled to know what they are.
At this point I think it would be right, in view of the hour, to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but in so doing to ask the Government to reconsider the matter for the Report stage, and to say that we shall certainly return to it on Report if no proposals are made from them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.19 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77L:
Page 18, line 17, at end insert—
("(4) Nothing in subsections (1), (2) and (3) above of this section shall affect criminal liability; and accordingly, for the purpose of such liability, it is hereby declared that it shall be lawful for one or more persons in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to attend at or near—

661

(a) any place where another person works or carries on business; or

(b) any place where another person happens to be, not being a place where he resides,

for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment of very great importance, and I trust that your Lordships' Committee will accept that it needs a few moments of time. It is concerned with the argument about the extent to which the amendments of picketing law involve new criminal liabilities. In order to be speedy but accurate, I shall try to pick my words with great care.
The position of the Government, as we understand it from the debates in another place, is that this Bill will not create additional criminal liabilities. In saying that, I am conflating a number of quotations, which I have in my notes, from Mr. Mayhew and the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State—no new criminal liabilities.
Amendments were moved in another place which tried to make that more clear. They were not acceptable to the Government, and the last ones, on Report, were not acceptable largely on drafting grounds. We therefore thought very carefully about the character of the amendment which could, and should, be moved. The one we have put down may be described as re-enacting for the purposes of the criminal law the old section on picketing, leaving the Government with their new clause and their new section for the purposes of civil law.
The argument about the criminal law is to what extent the old section on picketing, which has been there since 1906—and I take it that the noble and learned Lord would accept that the courts have treated Section 2 of the 1906 Act, Section 134 of the 1971 Act and Section 15 of the 1974 Act as effectively the same—has been effective in giving any protection against criminal liability. In the view of many people it has not. There was a time at which I tended to that view myself. However, I thought that I should revise my view when I read in the leading case of Hunt v. Broome in 1974 the remarks and dicta—and they are dicta, but very authoritative dicta—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord
662
Reid, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. I feel bound to repeat their actual words very briefly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, was speaking about a case in which a building union official attended for a few minutes in front of a lorry and obstructed it, and was convicted of wilful obstruction of the highway. In the course of that hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said this at page 92 of the Industrial Cases Reports for 1974:
"Attendance by one or more persons on a highway must inevitably cause some obstruction of the free passage along the highway, and were it not for Section 134 the appellant would, by attending for the purpose of persuading Dickinson"—
that is, the driver—
"not to do what he was employed to do, undoubtedly have committed an offence against Section 121 of the Highways Act".
He then discusses whether the section is meaningless or whether it does in fact protect.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, is more positive. Lord Salmon said this about the section—the same as the 1906 and the 1974 sections, in effect. At page 96 he said:
"The section gives no protection in respect of anything the pickets may say or do whilst they are attending if what they say or do is itself unlawful.
"But for the section, the mere attendance of pickets might constitute an offence under Section 7(2) and (4) of the Act of 1875"—
I pause to note that the noble and learned Lord will of course be aware that that relates to the offences of persistent following and watching or besetting unlawfully and without authority—
"or under the Highways Act 1959"—
that is, wilful obstruction—
"or constitute a tort, for example, nuisance. The section therefore gives a narrow but nevertheless real immunity to pickets. It clearly does no more".
In that narrow and real immunity the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, has included three criminal liabilities. If, therefore, it is the Government's case that they wish to do nothing that will increase the area of criminal liability, they cannot allow the clause to constrict the places at which people will picket and encounter that criminal liability. It follows as night the day that if the clause affects the position in regard to the legality

663
of picketing, if the noble and learned Lords, Lord Salmon and Lord Reid, are right, then the criminal law is affected as well.
Indeed, among the many quotations that I would wish to read the Committee of the right honourable and learned Attorney-General in his statements to the House of Commons on 19th February and 18th March, I may perhaps take just one, where, with great respect, I accept that the Attorney-General sets out the position very fairly for all schools of thought, because there is more than one school of thought upon this matter. If I may read him at column 1348 on 18th March, I quote him as saying this:
"…if there were an obstruction under the Highways Act, where it was a lawful picket, it is open to argument that section 15 might provide immunity. Some say that section 15 is declaratory; others say that it would go further and provide an immunity in that case. But whatever the precise legal effect of section 15, its practical consequences are not in doubt. It confers no immunity from prosecution for obstruction in the sense in which that term is normally understood: that is, physically preventing a person from going where he wants to go, not only into the works, but also along the pavement to the other end of the road. If pickets go beyond peaceful persuasion and obstruct the passage of workers or vehicles, everyone knows that there is no protection for that sort of act".
Now, accepting that for the moment and not quarrelling with it (although I could in terms of very small detail), there are two schools of thought, and one is that the old sections on picketing provided a narrow and real protection against criminal liabilities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, is one of that school of thought. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, appears to think that that school of thought is at least as arguable as the opposite. Therefore, we say that if the Government are to be true to their word, if the Government are to honour their pledge that no new area of criminal liability will be created, the only way to do it, or at least a way to do it—we do not claim to have the only solution; if the Government have an equally good one, we are naturally happy to accept it—is to enact the old section for the purposes of criminal law, leaving the Government with their new clause for civil law. Our amendment is carefully drafted in one sense, in that we merely restate precisely that section which has been there since 1906 and which trade unions had to work very hard to obtain, in terms that it applies
664
only in the area (and I hope we have made this clear in our draft) of criminal law.
If the Government cannot enact something of this kind, it follows from the statements of the Attorney-General and Lord Salmon and Lord Reid, and indeed others who, in view of the hour, I am not quoting, that there is at least an arguable case—I would say there is a clear case, but there is at least an arguable case—that criminal liability is affected. If the Government are unable to stand up and say that there is no arguable case—disagreeing, thereby, with one school of thought accepted as possible by the Attorney-General, and disagreeing, thereby, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, and it seems possibly Lord Reid as well—then the Government must surely accept some amendment to set out clearly that which they say themselves they want to do. I beg to move.
8.25 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: In our submission, this is a misleading and potentially dangerous amendment. Section 15 of the 1974 Act and Clause 15 of the Bill, which would amend that section, are concerned with the civil law, not, in our submission, with the criminal law. As the Attorney-General said in another place in a Statement on 19th February which was repeated in your Lordships' House by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and with which I agreed as representing the principles of the law of Scotland:
"… the law on picketing does not, in any real way, change the criminal law and in no way diminishes the rules which govern public order. The criminal law of the land applies to pickets as it does to anybody else. Let there be no illusion that the immunity provided under the civil law enables pickets to break the criminal law".
Section 15 of the 1974 Act states that it is lawful for someone to attend at or near a place of work,
"for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working".
If a picket goes beyond such peaceful behaviour, the law affords him no protection. The law, we would submit, is quite plain on this point. Everyone has the right to go about his work free from interference by anyone else. If anyone tries to prevent someone else from exercising those rights—for example, by the use or threat of violence, intimidation or obstruction—he is breaking the law.

665
The noble Lord has expressed concern that Clause 15 might increase the likelihood of criminal prosecutions of pickets, particularly, I think, for obstruction. As he has said, the view has been put forward that Section 15 of the 1974 Act provides some immunity for pickets to commit offences, notably obstruction. However, my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, who advised the Standing Committee in another place, stated quite clearly that Section 15 does not confer any substantive immunity for the offence of obstruction in the sense in which it is generally understood; namely, physically preventing a person from going where he wants to go. Nor does a picket need any criminal immunity, since if he merely stands on the pavement or on the side of the road without interfering with the rights of others to pass and repass, and peacefully communicates information, perhaps by holding a placard or by speaking, or tries to persuade others not to enter their place of work, he is not committing an obstruction even in the technical sense.
This amendment, however, would force the courts, we would submit, to look for some substantial criminal immunity enjoyed by pickets, which in reality does not exist and was not intended by Parliament to exist when Section 15 and its predecessors were enacted. We would think the law reasonably clear on this aspect at present, and this amendment, we would say, would throw it into confusion. Therefore, we would invite the Committee to reject it.
It is fair to say, in view of the observations quoted from Hunt v. Broome, that one must take the remarks of the learned judges in the context of the case with which they were dealing. That was a case where obstruction was committed by the pickets stepping out in front of a lorry, preventing it from passing into the works.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I have tried to follow this. It has been a brilliant debate. For those of us who are laymen, it is difficult to follow every phrase. But I cannot agree completely because the current law on picketing (up to now, before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament) is, in my estimation, and in that of the trade union movement and other movements, defined in Section 15 of the Trade Union (Labour Relations) Act 1974,
666
amended by the 1976 Act and the additional Section 13 of the 1974 Act, as amended. I find that various items have been questioned in the courts and that the High Court itself was not sure of the conclusions. It is agreed in the trade union movement that is knowledgeable, by academics and scholars and by the rank and file of the movement who understand it in practice, that there is obscurity here and that it needs clarifying.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: We cannot accept the noble and learned Lord's interpretation. In the interests of time, I am being pressed hard not to take issue with him. I do not accept his explanation that Lord Justice Salmon in Hunt v. Broome makes it clear. With respect, it is wrong in law. We shall not divide on this amendment but will divide on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 77M not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.32 p.m.
Lord McCARTHY: The Government would not expect us to allow this clause to go through without opposition. The clause is designed to limit picketing to the place of work and to limit the role of trade union officials. We have tried to argue in the series of debates on our amendments that there is no case for this and we have sought to suggest, in particular in respect to limiting the role and scope of the trade union officials, that this is not in the Government's interest even given the general purposes of their Bill. Nothing has been given us on these points. All these amendments have been moved. Nothing has been promised. Therefore, at this stage, despite the time of night, we must force this matter to a Division.
I should like to say in conclusion that nobody should get the idea—and I have said this repeatedly, as has my noble friend Lord Wedderburn—that in voting in this way and in forcing a Division we are condoning or doing anything other than deploring violence on picket lines or intimidation, or watching or besetting, or any aspect of picket behaviour which is unlawful and has always been so. We

667
are arguing that the Government proposals will not help but will give rise to all kinds of new liabilities, including criminal liabilities; and therefore it falls to us to divide the Committee on this clause.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say, having had some responsibility at some time in respect of advising Her Majesty's Government of that time on these matters, that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this clause is a very useful addition and an important one. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are going to insist upon Clause 15 standing part of the Bill.
The Earl of GOWRIE: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that the Committee would not expect him to let this clause go through without a Division. Having heard the whole debate, and having heard especially the substantive contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, speaking from the side of noble Lords opposite, I should have thought that the wisest thing they could do would be to let the clause—not particular amendments—go through without Division. They are out of touch with the mood of the Committee, let alone with the mood of the country, on this issue. Flying pickets, secondary pickets, whatever you call them, are inherently intended to frighten. In substance, those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. They are inherently intended to frighten both the workers concerned and the general public—which is why they are so objectionable and why we have outlawed them.
While employment legislation is concerned essentially with contracts and attempts to induce breaches of contracts and therefore with civil relationships, the cordon sanitaire and the like cited by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy—and I accept that they are in no way encouraging or condoning violence—are essentially to do with criminal law.
Our contention is that what we are doing is providing redress for a deep civil wrong and a civil wrong which is liable to, and usually does, lead to wrongs in other areas and to offences. The other
668
thing I would say is this. With my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, I think that one of the most pernicious aspects of picketing is what the previous Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, described in a memorable phrase as "lawful intimidation"; in other words, the threat to take away someone's union card and hence his job if he crosses a picket line. This is where the Bill's provisions on the closed shop, which we have already debated, will interact with this clause. When my noble friends look at what we are doing on secondary picketing they must take it in the context of our reforms on the closed shop.
As regards any other form of intimidation, the law is already absolutely clear. Mr. Callaghan, the previous Prime Minister, when he was Prime Minister, said:
"Everyone in this country is entitled to cross a picket line if he disagrees with the arguments that are put to him. There is nothing to stop any citizen. I would not hesitate to do it myself. I would not hesitate to cross a picket line if I believed it right to do so".
I think that the remarks of the right honourable gentlemen the Prime Minister of that time are much more congruent and nearer to the mood of the Committee this evening than anything which has been said by noble Lords opposite. That, I think, is the feeling of the public and of the country, and that is why we are determined to see that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord UNDERHILL: I must say something on this, in view of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Time and time again we have had quoted to us in various debates the remarks of my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lady Burton of Coventry. Frankly, I will give second place to no one in my opposition to certain things that have happened in recent years. As my noble friends have said, we oppose violence and intimidation. To attempt to divide the Committee as if some of us do believe in violence and others do not—
The Earl of GOWRIE: That is not what I said.
Lord UNDERHILL: It may not have been what the noble Earl said but that was the implication. Otherwise there would be no need to refer continually to the remarks of my noble friends. I am

669
with them, and I think that all my noble friends are with them, in the remarks that they made. What we are concerned about—and I think that my noble friends on the Front Bench have made this clear—is that in our opposition to and detestation of some of the violence that has occurred, we must not create new legal impediments to proper trade union activities. My noble friends in moving their various amendments have outlined sufficient anomalies to show that there are grave dangers of this. I am not going to repeat their arguments, but there are a number of points which have arisen as to where it may or may not be lawful to carry out picketing—points of doubt
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 15 agreed to accordingly.
have been created by the wording of this clause. We on this side are united in our condemnation of victimisation and of any kind of intimidation; but what we must not do is to use that as an emotional excuse for doing things which might damage proper trade union activities. That is what may happen unless the position is made absolutely clear.
8.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Amory, V.

Greenway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

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

Nunburnholme, L.

Bellwin, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Hankey, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Boothby, L.

Harvington, L.

Ridley, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Robbins, L.

Cairns, E.

Hives, L.

Rochdale, V.

Caithness, E.

Hood, V.

Rochester, L.

Camoys, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cockfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Kemsley, V.

Seear, B.

Crathorne, L.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Spens, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stamp, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Torphichen, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Dundee, E.

McFadzean, L.

Trenchard, V.

Eccles, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaizey, L.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Gainford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Collison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stone, L.

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Heycock, L.

Phillips, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Janner, L.

Whaddon, L.

Clause 16 [Secondary action]:
8.48 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77N:
Page 18, line 18, after ("in") insert ("subsections (1) or (3) of").
The noble Lord said: There has been a certain amount of difficulty among my noble friends and myself about how to deal with a central issue in the Bill. There are four amendments which relate to a proposition which we feel we have to put to the Government: namely, that Clause 16 infringes the primary right to strike and is not restricted as the Government spokesman in another place has continually insisted to what the Government call secondary action.
The amendments are Nos. 77N, 80J, 80H and 80K. If I may explain very briefly, the subsection of the clause which is dealt with in one way or the other by these four amendments is subsection (8). Subsection (8) repeals subsection (3) of Section 13 of the 1974 Act which provides rights to workers acting in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute. It is our contention that if subsection (8) remains in its present form that will, over a very wide area, imperil the right to strike. Time after time the Government have insisted that that is not their intention. There are therefore two things that could be done with the clause if our argument is based upon even reasonable grounds. First, the subsection—
The EARL of GOWRIE: Will the noble Lord be so kind as to give way? I am not clear. My understanding was that we would have a debate on this very important and substantive issue on Amendments Nos. 80H, 80J and 80K. Is the noble Lord now moving the debate on Amendment No. 77N? I had the clear understanding that we would take this debate on Amendments Nos. 80H, 80J and 80K. It seems to me far more appropriate for the Committee to take it at that time.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I apologise for causing the noble Earl to wait a moment before I responded; I was trying to take advice from my noble friends, who are more experienced in these matters than I. I am advised that
672
the preferable course in moving our amendments would be to press Amendment No. 77N as the substantive one, for a reason to which I was about to come when the noble Earl intervened.
I appreciate that there are certain conversations and events to which reference is not normally made in the Chamber, and the matter has not remained in the hands of the noble Earl and myself. The advice which I have received is that the most expeditious way of dealing with our case—and I trust the Members of the Committee will accept that that is what we wish—is to press this amendment for a reason which I will now explain. We believe that subsection (8), by repealing subsection (3) of Section 13, imperils the primary right to strike. There are two ways in which the matter can be dealt with. If I may put them in broad terms and then relate them to the amendments, either the repeal of subsection (8) could be related only to this section—or perhaps I should say the repeal of subsection (8) could be made to apply only to subsidiary action or the subsection could be deleted from the clause.
We understand fully the Government's objection to deleting subsection (8) entirely. I accept that if one did that there would be certain ways in which secondary action might escape civil liability, which the Government, in their own logic, do not wish to see. Therefore the following course is that which I am advised is the right one in dealing with the rather complex matter of a number of different amendments. We shall press upon the Government this amendment which we say is its own logic. If the Government do not accept it, and I expect that they will not, we shall press the matter to a Division as a matter of principle, subsuming therein the further Amendment No. 80J, which it will then be necessary only to move formally because, of course, if the Government accept this amendment they would have to accept Amendment No. 80J as well.
I begin by repeating, but without quoting every occasion, that on occasion after occasion the Government have said, and we accept them at their word in this, that it is not their intention to affect the primary right to strike. The noble Earl said it twice on Second Reading, the right honourable gentleman the Secretary

673
of State said it twice in the other place and Mr. Mayhew, the Under-Secretary of State, has said it three or four times. They have, however, never given a reasoned answer to our case that the repeal of subsection (3) imperils over a wide area—I do not say in every case—the legality of ordinary wage dispute strikes between an employer and his own workforce, be they organised in a union or not, or in contemplation of the furtherance of an ordinary trade dispute.
As I mentioned in connection with an earlier amendment, in order to save time, the three areas of tort liability which were protected by the 1906 Act—and the matter is only explicable by a brief reference to the development of the law—were simple conspiracy, interference with trade and inducing breach of contract of employment. When the Donovan Commission came to inspect the defences or rights which were given to trade unionists and workers in furtherance of trade disputes, they expressed surprise in paragraph 887 of their report in 1968 that the protection was afforded in trade disputes only to inducing breach of contracts of employment. They said:
"It is not possible at this distance of time to say why the protection afforded by Section 3"—
that is the relevant section of the 1906 Act—
"was confined to breaches of contract of employment".
The first limb of the section has its origin, as we said, in a Private Member's amendment by Sir Charles Dilke. It was an occasion which led to the first parliamentary "demo", when the Unionist Members walked out at 11 o'clock on Friday night, and all your Lordships no doubt trust that that event will not recur, and that indeed such an hour will not recur.
The report goes on:
"The contracts of which trade union officers were most likely to induce a breach were contracts of employment and the cases decided in the courts against trade unions seemed to be cases of that kind".
It may therefore have seemed to Sir Charles Dilke at that time that this was a situation that called for immediate action and there was no need to go further.
The reading of debates in volumes 162 to 167 of the 1906 Bill make it clear
674
beyond peradventure that no single speaker envisaged that there was a further economic liability in terms of civil liability of that sort. But subsequently, as the Donovan Report recounts and as all the books of labour law recount, areas of the common law were discovered or developed—the new jurisprudence would say "created", but the word does not matter. New areas of liability were found in the case law which were not protected by the 1906 Act and which no one in 1906 dreamt needed protection.
The first was the liability which began in the 1950s for indirect inducement of breach of commercial contracts, beginning with the case of Thomson v. Deakin in 1952, and developing in England through the case of Stratford v. Lindley, and in Scotland through the case of Square Grip v. MacDonald, to which I have already made reference. That was the first area of liability in regard to which attention was required, and the Donovan Report recommended that the extension of protection or immunity for trade union rights should be extended from inducing breach of contracts of employment to inducing breaches of all contracts, although—and I want to be quite clear about this and not be unfair—a majority of seven to five said that although that extension should take place it should be given only to official union action and not to unofficial. I make that point deliberately because the Government's clause makes no distinction between official and unofficial action and is therefore not related to that aspect of the Donovan Report and recommendations. The Donovan Commission was clear that inducing breach of commercial contract albeit indirectly had to be protected to maintain the right to strike.
The second development was in 1969 and cases thereabouts, encapsulated so well in the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the case of Torquay Hotel v. Cousins, that the time has come when the principle of inducing breach of contract:
"…should be further extended to cover deliberate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without causing a breach".
The memorandum by the Department of Employment to the Select Committee of the House of Commons in March last spoke of the important new tort liabilities facing officials because of these developments.

675
Thirdly, in 1964 the debate which had gone on for many years, about whether there was a tort of civil intimidation beyond the threat of violence, was resolved by the Court of Appeal with the answer "No", but was overruled by the House of Lords and finally decided with the answer "Yes". The importance of that to this debate is that it was held by the House of Lords as a breach of contract for the purposes of the law of tort and not merely the law of contract—a breach of contract is unlawful between the parties of the contract. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, at page 1209, in Rookes v. Barnard:
I find nothing to differentiate the threat of a breach of contract from a threat of physical violence or any other legal threat".
That put breach of contract into the camp of unlawful means.
So far as the threat of breach of contract of employment was concerned, that was protected in the Trades Disputes Act in 1965, but it led on to the fourth discussion in the area; that is, the general development of the tort of doing harm by unlawful means, to which I referred last week in our debates, and to which I referred earlier this evening.
Indeed, the Donovan Report itself, which was accepted as authoritative on this point, took it, in paragraph 854, that the consequence of Rookes v. Barnard was not only that the tort of intimidation needed attention in trade disputes, but also,
"It has been suggested that liability for civil conspiracy might arise where a number of persons agreed together in contemplating or furtherance of a trade dispute to break their contracts of employment in combination, since they would be parties to an agreement to an unlawful act. If done by one person alone, the act, the breach of contract, would be actionable and accordingly the protection of the 1906 Act would not be available, nor would the combination be protected by the 1965 Act. This possibility is one which we think should be removed by legislation".
There were, therefore, two areas of liability based upon unlawful means. One was that, in taking action, workers broke their contracts of employment, or, indeed, interfered with commercial contracts, and that was a form of unlawful means not covered by the legislation. The second was a rather curious one, which I must put on the record. It was this. The areas that were protected in
676
the 1906 Act were rendered, in lawyer's terms, not actionable; that is to say, if someone induced a breach of contract of employment, it was not to be actionable on that ground alone.
That gave rise to a curious division of minds among two lines of judicial thinking. The first line of thought—with respect, to my mind the more logical—said that not being actionable the act of organising the strike was therefore not unlawful, and there are many dicta to that effect. The other line—before the 1970s more numerous in dicta in fact, as Mr. Justice Templeman pointed out in a judgment of 1976 in the case of Camellia Tanker v. International Transport Workers' Federation—was that, although it was not actionable, it remained an unlawful act inherently and therefore could be unlawful means for the purposes of the law of tort.
It was those two matters, the breach of contract as unlawful means in tort, Rookes v. Barnard in 1964, and the possibility and, apparently, the numerically superior view of the judiciary, that even an act that was not made actionable in trade disputes remained inherently unlawful, that caused the Legislature in 1974 to enact subsection (3) of Section 13, because subsection (3) resolved the doubts on the matter in Parliament, by declaring that neither of these should be unlawful means in the law of tort, when they were committed in furtherance of a trade dispute or contemplation of a trade dispute.
The reason for doing that was very simple, because if that had not been enacted, then a trade union official organising a strike could have his acts looked at in two completely different ways. On the one hand, he could be said to be inducing breaches of employment contracts in furtherance of a dispute, and not liable in tort because he was protected. On the other hand, on precisely the same facts, it was not only arguable, but judicially supported, that the same official could be described as interfering by the use of unlawful means; or, if you wish, conspiracy to use unlawful means, as the Donovan Report preferred, although I myself do not prefer the conspiracy argument—but it is equally arguable—and, therefore, he was liable, albeit that he acted in furtherance of a trade dispute.

677
The intention of subsection (3) of the 1974 Act was, therefore, to restore the position as it was thought to be in the 1906 Act. I hope that noble and learned Lords and noble Lords will not say that history is irrelevant to this matter, because the whole point was that the primary right to strike was established in 1906, and the primary right to strike is what the Government say they want to maintain. So that if it was necessary in 1974 to extend the language of the so-called immunities in order to maintain their substance—and in four respects, as the Donovan Report and other works have made clear, it was necessary to extend the language in order to maintain the substance—then, surely, this matter must be cleared up under this clause.
Indeed, if I may cite, finally, one judicial piece of interpretation which surely supports the view to which I am now claiming correct analysis, in the case of NWL v. Woods in 1979, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said, speaking of the 1974 Act as amended in 1976—and I quote him from page 886 of the Industrial Court Cases Reports:
"The legislative purpose of the Act is clear, to sweep away not only the structure of industrial relations created by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 which it was passed to repeal, but also the restraints and judicial review which the courts have been fashioning, one way or another, since the enactment of the Trade Disputes Act 1906".
A little later on he said this—and this is the nub of my case:
"Briefly put, the law now is back to what Parliament had intended when it enacted the Act of 1906, but stronger and clearer than it was then".
It is our contention that if Clause 16(8) remains in its present form and, at least, is not modified in the very modest way we ask for in Amendment No. 77N, then the Government will have taken away something which is judicially recognised, recognised by the Donovan Commission, recognised by the learned works on the matter, to be necessary to maintain the primary right to strike. It will lead the Government to be in breach of the European Social Charter, which in Article 6(4) establishes the right to strike, and to which the United Kingdom Government have adhered. We therefore beg to move Amendment No. 77N, knowing that if it is accepted or carried Amendment No. 80J must go with it, because if subsection (3) is included as a limitation of the secondary action clause, then of course its total
678
repeal in Clause 16(8) must fall away as well. This is, therefore, perhaps the most expeditious way of making our case. It is our case that the clause as it stands makes the ordinary, common or garden right to strike unlawful in a large number of situations, and it is on that ground that we ask the Government to honour their own statements that they do not wish to do so. Even if this is an arguable case, some amendment of this kind must surely be accepted. I beg to move.
9.7 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise to a crowded and excited Committee to answer what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has assured us is a question of principle. Until 10 minutes or so before he rose to move Amendment No. 77N, I was assured that my humble task was to reply to Amendments Nos. 80H, J and K. I tried extremely hard to follow the rapid development of his argument and I do understand that the same point is involved as was involved in Amendments Nos. 80H, J and K. I believe that to be correct.
The insertion of the words "subsection (1) or (3)" into line 18 on page 18 of the Bill is relate d solely to our proposal to repeal altogether subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has somehow—I am not at all sure how—persuaded himself that in repealing subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 he has uncovered an unholy plot by the Tory Party to prevent primary strikes of some kind, or perhaps of any kind. My first task is to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wedderburn—no, he is not learned in this House although he would have been learned in the other one, I think—
Lord PEART: With respect, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord should use those words.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I really do not know what the noble Lord is speaking about. I was corrected from behind me—and correctly corrected, and withdrew. I do beg the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to believe that in the first place we are not so wicked as to try, by devious means, to do the opposite

679
of what we say we are trying to do; secondly, that we are not nearly so clever as to do it by this particular means, which nobody has thought of, so far as I know, but the noble Lord himself; thirdly, that if we were either so clever as to try to do the opposite of what we say we are trying to do and to do it by this particular means we should have done it rather more effectively than could be cured by the particular series of amendments which the noble Lord has chosen to put down.
I say, and say it again in unequivocal terms, that we are not intending to interfere with any form of primary action by the repeal in particular of Section 13(3) of the 1974 Act. We are not intending to do so, and we are advised, and believe, that we have by no means succeeded in doing so by mistake. That is the first and by far the most important and perhaps the only important thing that I have to say in this contribution to the debate.
I am trying very hard to work myself into a state of mind when I can even understand how it is that the noble Lord thinks that we have achieved this extraordinary result. So far as I can see it, the answer is dependent not upon the law of 1906 but upon the law of 1974, as amended by the Act of 1976. The Act of 1974 dealt solely with contracts of employment. I am, of course, talking about the relevant section. The Act of 1976 altered that position, for reasons which one remembers, to add to the contract of employment, in effect, commercial contacts.
So long as the Act of 1974 was valid in its original form—I am speaking about subsection (1) of Section 13—and related solely to contracts of employment, subsection (3) served a kind of useful purpose because it provided that unlawful means were not to be considered. But in our view, the advice which we have received—it is conceivable that we are wrongly advised but I do not see how we can possibly be wrongly advised, nor has the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, persuaded me in any way that we are—is that once the Act of 1976 was introduced to amend Section 13(1) of the Act of 1974, subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act of 1974 was simply a floating kidney. It meant nothing and served no useful purpose.
680
It was, in fact, to use the language employed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, simply a hidden minefield. Being there and serving no useful purpose, we have been advised that if it is left floating about there, it would be to the courts of law in this country, which do their best to understand what Parliament is about, at best puzzling and at worst defeating to the purposes of Clauses 15, 16 and 17 of the present Bill. If it is left on the statute book the courts might find constructions for it which were never intended when it was first included in the 1974 Act and which deterred them from finding in favour of the plaintiffs in cases of unlawful secondary action.
It is, I think—and I really rather press this on the Committee—an important principle in legislation that redundant and superfluous provisions should be repealed at the earliest opportunity when they continue to serve no useful purpose and, in fact, mean nothing.
Lord RENTON: Hear, hear!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Renton applaud my sentiment because, as a matter of fact, what I am trying to say now, although it is not, I think, a matter of principle at all, exactly illustrates a point which he has already made about these three or four sections in an earlier connection this evening.
I agree with him that it is inconvenient not to have a Keeling Schedule unless one also has a consolidation Act. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has really been caught in the trap which my noble friend Lord Renton explained at an earlier stage. I absolutely acquit him of any desire whatever to alarm the trade union movement into thinking that there is some kind of "blue" conspiracy to defeat primary action. I am sure he does not intend to do so. He is genuinely caught in the web of his own learning and industry, hut the fact of the matter is that the thing is a great deal simpler, so we believe; and we genuinely believe it, whether we are right or wrong.
The fact is that Section 13(3), which we are repealing by Subsection (8) of the present clause, serves no useful purpose at all and is only a source of confusion

681
and will bring the law into confusion and worse.
As far as I was able to understand it, the reason underlying the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is something rather like this. If I have got it wrong, I ask noble Lords to believe that it is not because I want to get it wrong. It is because I have done my best to understand it, and if I have got it wrong I can only apologise humbly. First of all, the crucial question is whether the repeal of Section 13(3) will affect any immunity for primary action of any kind. As I have tried to explain, Section 13(1), as amended in 1976, provides, in our view, the substantive immunity for both the direct and indirect form of the torts which those taking primary action are likely to commit.
The repeal of Section 13(3) for the reasons that I have indicated does not detract from that in any way. In consequence, I feel I am safe in assuring the Committee, because I have been advised by those who are better qualified to judge these questions than I—and, so far as I can believe and ascertain, they are right—that in relation to all known torts covered in Section 13, the removal of subsection (3) will not affect the immunity for primary action. But the trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is that, like some astronomers, he thinks he has discovered a new tort not previously known to science, and he seeks to discover it by a number of erudite references to various dicta and statements in various cases.
Of course, as my noble and learned friend was saying a moment or two ago, these cases have to be read in their context. Their context is extremely elaborate, and therefore one has to ask the Committee to suffer slightly in talking about them. But the truth is that the real source of this new planet—the new tort, the hitherto undiscovered tort—is a passage in Clerk and Lindsell on torts. Like Mr. Waygood and Miss Otis (who made lifts) Mr. Clerk and Mr. Lindsell have long since been gathered to their fathers and new authors have taken their place. The author of this particular passage is a certain Professor Wedderburn, who is well known and universally respected as a great authority on this subject. He states that there exists a
682
tort of uncertain ambit which consists in one person using unlawful means with the object and effect of causing damage to another.
I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—the discoverer of this heavenly object—that, so far as the legal advisers of the Government are concerned, we do not believe that the new planet exists at all. If by any chance we are wrong about the existence of the new planet, and if it is really there, so small that it cannot be discerned by the human eye but only by the most elaborate telescope of learned professors, the fact is that the various amendments which he proposed would not solve his problem, so far as I can see, at all. It would not go far enough.
We certainly think it necessary to repeal Section 13(3) for the purpose of Clause 16, and in trying to table the, four or five amendments which they have put down I gather that noble Lords opposite have actually recognised that fact. But we think it desirable to abolish Section 13(3) altogether and that is because, for the reasons I have explained, we regard it as now wholly superfluous because the extension of the immunity in 1976, to cover interference with all contracts and not just contracts of employment, made Section 13(3) unnecessary in relation to the torts dealt with in Section 13. It is now clear that Section 13(1) covers both the direct and indirect forms of the torts for which it gives immunity. Once that is established the question of whether inducing a breach of contract of employment or an actual breach of such employment are lawful means does not arise in connection with those torts because Section 13(1) itself provides the substantial immunity.
If he wanted to protect himself against the possibility of some hitherto undiscovered tort, I think he would have to travel a very different road from that which he has done in the present amendment. He would then have to find a new clause on the lines of Section 13(1) not related to unlawful means, as he sought to do by reinstating subsection (3) of Section 13; he would have to provide a substantive immunity in relation to the new tort, which he would then have to define. As we do not think that the new

683
tort exists, we are rather at a loss to find such a substantive new clause, but I think there is no limit to the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, or to his industry. I only seek to assure him that no question of principle that I can discern with the naked eye possibly arises on any of these amendments.
9.23 p.m.
Lord SPENS: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, replies, I just want to say that I have been quite mystified as to how far this particular debate has taken us, but I believe from what the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that we have been debating not only Amendment No. 77N but also the possible effect of taking out subsection (3) of Section 13 of the 1974 Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described it, I believe, as now being a floating kidney. May I claim that our little group had thought of it in very similar terms and we have been considering whether there may not be a better way of making use of subsection (3) than merely removing it from the statute book. Therefore, all I want to say is that we may come forward on Report stage with an amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only say to the noble Lord that when he does we shall give it the same careful attention as we have been trying to give to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. Perhaps they will find themselves in the same Lobby.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I can only hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give Lord Spens' amendment when it comes even closer attention that he has given ours. I wish to reply, with the greatest respect and in all clue deference, to the arguments which he has advanced to me. I am sure he did not intend them ad hominem. I would not have dared to cite my own chapter in Clerk and Lindsell, and it is the last thing I will do tonight.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: A very good chapter.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I am glad the noble and learned
684
Lord thinks it is a good chapter. It will be improved in the next edition. I do not think the Government are on to a plot. Noble Lords look astonished, but I do not think they are on to a plot. I think the Government are wrong. It is possible to have disagreement, especially among lawyers. The noble and learned Lord said that they are not nearly so clever as to abolish the right to strike in this way. The noble and learned Lord underestimates himself, but I take it that he does not intend to do so. It has been said again and again, and of course we all know that what is said three times is right. I take it it is the Government's intention not to abolish or imperil the legality of the right to strike. But that is what they are doing.
I must repeat the reason, because the noble and learned Lord said that he did not understand my argument. I will reply to the points where he said he did not understand, and keep the time short. First, he put it to me that the Government were advised that they were not doing anything of this sort by mistake. The noble and learned Lord does not need advice on these matters; he knows the authorities; at least, with respect, I thought he did, but I am coming to some which I think prove at any rate that he is arguably wrong.
The need for subsection (3) of Section 13 arises from two matters: first, that many judgments which have not been overruled, and which in some cases have been approved by the House of Lords, state that that which is actionable still remains unlawful means; secondly, that breach of contract including breach of contract of employment is unlawful means. The noble and learned Lord said that the Act of 1974 as amended by the Opposition, which carried its will against the minority Government of the day in this House—I am not making a party point, but that is how it came about—did in fact restrict subsection (1) of Section 13 to inducing breach of contract of employment. I point out to the noble and learned Lord that it is not true when he says that the 1974 Act as enacted was totally restricted to contracts of employment. I have the Queen's Printers copy in my hand, and if he will look at subsection (3)(b)—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I quoted specifically Section 13(1); at least I thought

685
I did. I think if the noble Lord studies Hansard tomorrow he will see that I was very careful to say that.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I retract, of course, if I have misquoted the noble and learned Lord. However, I have to point out that subsection (3) was not restricted to contracts of employment and included the phrase:
"a breach of contract in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute"
shall not be regarded as an unlawful act or unlawful means for the purpose of establishing liability in tort. It refers to a "contract", not "contract of employment". What is more I, too, have recently re-read all the debates of 1974 and 1976. The Opposition put down no amendment at all to that particular subsection and paragraph. By 1979 they had suddenly discovered that subsection (3) of Section 13—and I refer to the working paper on the new clause in 1980—was a monstrous enlargement of the immunities, but they did not challenge it in 1974, and they did not challenge it in 1976. It remained on the statute book for that very reason—they did not challenge it. Why did they leave it there?
Now the noble and learned Lord says that they appear to have left it there because it was meaningless. That is not what the working paper said. That said that it was a monstrous extension of the whole of the Act of 1976. Now the noble and learned Lord says that it does not mean anything. Perhaps I may interpose that if it is meaningless—and I beseech him in Cromwellian terms to be thinking that he may be wrong—then at least leave it on the statute book, if it is arguable that it protects the right to strike and the right to strike would disappear without it.
However, the noble and learned Lord makes a much more important point, and on that central issue I shall join with him. He says that he and his advisers have been unable to discover this curious tortious planet in the heavens of the common law to which I have made reference. There is no such tort, he says, as doing damage by unlawful means or conspiracy to use unlawful means, if that is the other way to put it, as the Donovan Report did.
686
I do not merely rely on the Donovan Report—it is not a judicial authority. I wondered which references I should bring of the many which support the argument. I can only refer the noble and learned Lord to the statement in Torquay Hotel Limited v. Cousins in 1969, which I quoted previously and which said that if you deliberately interfere with the trade or business of another, and do so by unlawful means, you act unlawfully and are liable to damages or an injunction. That was expressed in the Court of Appeal in 1969 2 Chancery at page 106, and supported by the Court of Appeal in the case of Acrow Automation Ltd. v. Rex Chainbelt Inc. in 1971 1 Weekly Law Reports at page 1676. It was supported last year in the Court of Appeal in the case of Carling Music Corporation v. Collins 1979 Fleet Street Reports, page 542, and stated with abundant clarity in the Court of Appeal in the case of ex parte Island Records 1978 3 Weekly Law Reports 23 at page 30.
I shall, if the noble and learned wishes me to do so, read such passages as I have brought from two of those authorities. However, I ask him to accept from me that there are many other authorities that establish the existence of this tort. He rather criticised me for daring to suggest it, and were I a belligerent character—which I am not—if I were speaking of someone else other than the noble and learned Lord, I would say that a student of law today must be affected by legal myopia if he did not understand the existence of this tort. He does not need a telescope, he does not even need a spyglass. It is abundant from the pages of the law reports.
The extent to which breach of contract amounts to unlawful means is, it is true, arguable in terms of the precise margins, but that is always true of legal doctrines. But that it applies as unlawful means, that that combination to use it as an instrument to do damage to another is a species of tortious liability which is unprotected by any statutory provision other than Section 13(3), is a matter of common knowledge to everybody that I have seen write upon the subject.
It is not only established by the case law to which I have referred. I do not wish to refer to my own writings in any way because they are derivative from other

687
people's. If you look at Windfield on Tort, one of the greatest books superbly edited by Professor Jolowicz, you will find that this is referred to. If I may dare to refer to the late Professor Sir Otto Kahn-Freund, whom I am sure the noble and learned Lord will accept was the greatest labour law scholar of his era, he makes it quite clear in a number of publications that he understood the reason for the enactment of subsection (3). Indeed, it was in discussion with Professor Kahn-Freund that I, in the late 1960s, understood better the report of the Donovan Commission of which he himself was a member.
Therefore, I do not put this forward as some curious idiosyncratic and bizarre concept of mine; I put it forward on legal authority and on the basis of the Donovan Commission itself. I put it forward on the greatest authorities in the area of the law of tort and labour law. I rely upon them and accept them. If in the face of them the Government will not relent—not even to the extent of accepting Amendment No. 80J, which would strike at the repeal of Section 13(3) altogether (that is not what we have asked for now although that is what we really want)—if they will not relent even to the extent of constricting the repeal of Section 13(3), which is essential to primary strikes, to the ambit of what we regard as their grotesque Clause 16, then on the basis of that authority the Government, on the arguments that we have exchanged across the Chamber, are not honouring their own words, but are mistakenly (I make no attack on motive or intention) not living up to their own words of not attacking the legality of the right to strike. I propose to press this matter to a Division and invite Members from all sides of the Committee to vote for this amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord carries his threat to dire action, I must say one or two things by way of answer to what he has said. Of course, it is possible that either of us may be wrong. I thought that I said as much in my original speech and, of course, I shall refer what the noble Lord has said to those who are better qualified than I to consider it, and then I shall consider
688
their advice. But what I said and what I say now is that no question of principle is involved. He takes one view of the law; the Government's advisers take another. It is possible that either of us may be wrong. I happen to agree with those who advise me, otherwise I would not have put it forward.
Of course, conspiracy also is a tort and that includes the use of unlawful means. That is part of the classical definition of "conspiracy". But when Section 13(1) of the 1974 Act, as it is amended by the 1976 Act, carefully explains that there is a substantive immunity in respect of something which induces another to break a contract, or interferes or induces any other person to interfere with its performance; or: that it consists in his threatening that a contract of employment (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken; or its performance interfered with; or that he will induce another person to break a contract or to interfere with its performance, when those are the substantive words of the law, it appears to me—and would have appeared to me apart from the learning and industry of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—that complete immunity is given in respect of the things in which it purports to give immunity and, therefore, the means are not unlawful, without any of the elaborate amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, claims to be matters of principle.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: As the mover of the amendment, perhaps I may say a few words in reply. The noble and learned Lord is right in what he says so far as he goes. The section that he quoted does not render the breach of contract itself other than unlawful means. Therefore, we have to register our disagreement with the noble and learned Lord, and in discussion with me my noble and learned friends and my noble friends have said that they regard the argument as such that we must press this matter to a Division.
9.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 77N) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Birk, B.

Kaldor, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Collison, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Galpern, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Hacking, L.

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hale, L.

Oram, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Whaddon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Ferrers, E.

Monson, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bellwin, L.

Greenway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancell r.)

Reigate, L.

Bessborough, E.

Renton, L.

Boothby, L.

Hankey, L.

Ridley, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, L.

Cairns, E.

Harvington, L.

Romney, E.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Camoys, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seear, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Spens, L.

Croft, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Torphichen, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trenchard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Tweeddale, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaizey, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Young, B.

Faithfull, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.47 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77P:
Page 18, line 20, at end insert ("an employer is a party to a trade dispute and where").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also goes to the issue of primary industrial action, but in view of the hour I shall be brief. I believe this is a new point; from reading the Official Report of the debates I do not think it has been put to the Government before. I hasten to assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is a point which has been put to me. I have not, as it were, concocted it myself in that it arose in discussion, as ideas do, so it is not my brain-child. I put it to the Government with a request that they consider the matter and return to it on Report.
The definition of a trade dispute in Section 29 of the 1974 Act does, as did the Act of 1906, include within its ambit disputes between employers and workmen—"workers" in the new phraseology—or between workers and workers. In law, although not in reality, in the eyes of some of the actors in industrial disputes, disputes come to be analysed by lawyers often as between workers and workers when, in the eyes of those engaged in them, they are multi-party disputes, perhaps involving more than one employer and more than one union. The case, for example, on which the Government have been wont to rely in other matters; namely, Cory Lighterage v. TGWU in 1973, which the Lord Advocate has put to me a number of times, was such a case. It was a case where a non-unionist insisted on maintaining his non-union status in a 100 per cent. union practice situation in the docks. Under the Dock Labour Scheme the employer could not dismiss him but suspended him, and there was a trade dispute.
The Court of Appeal ultimately found, after lengthy argument, that this was a dispute between workman and workman. To the workers involved that seemed bizarre; that is to say, they thought that it was a dispute between workman and workman and the employer, in the sense that the trade unionists were not happy, and indeed Mr. Shute, the non-unionist,
692
was not very happy, with all the things that the employer had done. I am not in any way criticising the legal correctness of that decision; but in the court room the disputes can frequently become worker against worker disputes.
This applies not only to demarcation disputes. As the Cory Lighterage case shows, the matter may involve a non-unionist with a unionist. It may involve two unions competing for recognition—a point which I press on the Government, because they are now about to take away the legal machinery whereby such disputes might be resolved via ACAS with a binding recommendation. It is arguable that there will be more recognition disputes. Therefore, if there were two unions competing with an employer in regard either to recognition or other matters, it is good legal advice to the employer to say: "Stand back and say that you are neutral, not in any dishonest way because there is a legal sense in which you are neutral, although of course you are not neutral in terms of wanting one thing or another from the dispute". So it is the case that many disputes, by the time they reach the court room, are arguably at least worker and worker disputes. It appears again and again in the law reports, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord Advocate will agree.
The importance of that point to this clause is as follows. The definition of secondary action is all-important in Clause 16. It is all important because if what you are doing is secondary action under the definition—not in layman's language; not, as was once said in this Chamber, in English, but in law—then you are within the clause, and you can escape only through one of the gateways to freedom: subsection (3), (4) or (5).
I am not criticising the clause in its construction. I am merely trying to analyse it. What I say, however, is that it has now become apparent—and one feels very foolish at not having seen this before; I am sure that the Government must have thought about this, and must be reconsidering it—because of the definition of secondary action, that industrial action taken in furtherance of a dispute between workers and workers in legal analysis must be secondary action. I say

693
this because the definition, if I may read the relevant parts and not unfairly conflate the middle, says:
"For the purposes of this section there is secondary action in relation to a trade dispute when, and only when, a person—
(a) induces another to break a contract of employment or interferes"
with it or threatens to interfere with it. The subsection later adds:
"if the employer under the contract of employment is not a party to the trade dispute".
So whenever the interference with the contract of employment is in a situation where the employer is not a party to the trade dispute then, within the new law, it is secondary action. Therefore, it follows again, as the night follows day, that if there is a trade dispute between worker and worker where there is no employer party to the trade dispute, all action which is industrial action must in law be secondary action.
Of course, the workers involved would be astonished at that situation, because what they are doing is taking primary action against their own employer. Let us take two groups of workers, each of which is on strike and is in some way in competition, each claiming different things from the employer, as in the Cory Lighterage case. The employer is held by the court to be a neutral, which he may or may not establish. So what we reach is a redefinition of trade disputes in effect through the secondary action definition.
Therefore, I ask the Government, first, whether they will accept the amendment, because the amendment is a way of dealing with the matter. It may not be perfect, but it is a way of dealing with the matter in that from the definition of secondary action there is taken this element by adding the words that it applies where:
"an employer is a party to a trade dispute".
Obviously, the rock upon which Clause 16 is built is that there is an employer party to the trade dispute. You cannot get through the gateways to freedom of subsections (3) or (4) unless there is an employer party to the trade dispute. Therefore, if you have a trade dispute with no employer a party, primary action in furtherance of that is necessarily unlawful. I cannot believe that that is the
694
Government's intention. I very much hope for an assurance that they will come back to us on this matter on Report, even if they cannot meet this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of GOWRIE: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is immunity for industrial action in a worker versus worker or, normally, an inter-union dispute where no employer is involved. Such action has no immunity under the clause as drafted. The noble Lord has pointed out that Clause 16 might possibly remove immunity from those who organise primary as well as secondary action in an inter-union dispute. It is of course very rare for there to be a worker versus worker dispute where the employers of the workers involved are not also parties to the dispute. These were the grounds on which an amendment to remove disputes between worker and worker from the definition of trade dispute was resisted by the previous Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Albert Booth, in the debates in another place on what became the 1974 Act. Much more usual are disputes such as the current dispute at the Isle of Grain site, where the essence of the dispute is an argument between different trade unions hut where, inevitably, a number of employers are closely involved.
In practice, therefore, Clause 16 will not remove immunity from industrial action in the normal run of inter-union disputes. Wherever there is an employer who is a party to the dispute it will continue to be lawful for a union to induce that employer's employees to take industrial action against him. But if they try to spread the effects of the dispute through secondary action, they will be subject to the provisions of Clause 16, just as they would with any other type of secondary action—and that is essential to our purpose.
If, however, there were to be a strictly worker against worker dispute with no employer involved, there would still be immunity if there were breaches of contracts of employment alone, but not if there was damage to the business of the employers who were innocent bystanders in the dispute. Secondary action in such disputes—that is, action by employees who have nothing to do with the dispute—

695
seems to us to be every bit as unacceptable as other forms of secondary action which the clause makes unlawful. Furthermore, the action of the workers who are party to the dispute is itself difficult to distinguish from secondary action as defined in the clause, because it is taken against employers who have no involvement in the dispute and no means of affecting its outcome—just the kind of thing we are here to try to correct.
If an employer has taken active steps to become involved in a dispute by giving support to one side or another, that is a different matter; it is legitimate, then, for unions to take industrial action against him. But if the employer has stood on the touchline, so to speak, throughout the dispute, powerless to affect its outcome, while his business grinds to a halt, then in our view he should have a remedy against the organisers of the action, just as other innocent employers have in cases of unlawful secondary action. That is why I would ask the Committee to resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My noble friends and myself are very unhappy at the brief which the noble Earl has just given to us. I accept it in every way as far as it goes, but it does not meet the point that in worker against worker disputes primary action is rendered secondary and unlawful by this clause. We shall not divide, but we shall not withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 77Q not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): Before I call the next amendment, I should warn your Lordships that if it is approved I shall not be able to call No. 77R or No. 77S.
9.58 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING Lord ORR-EWING moved Amendment No. 77QA:
Page 18, line 25, leave out ("which is not action satisfying the requirements of subsections (3), (4) or (5)") and insert ("as defined").
The noble Lord said: I would seek to move Amendment No. 77QA, and with it, for convenience and speed of the Com-
696
mittee's proceedings, I would refer to Amendments Nos. 77SA, 77T, 77TA, 77ZA, 80AB and 80CA. They all go together. I do not include 80CA, the last of the amendments, because that will be moved by my noble friend Lord Renton and is a separate subject on its own. I speak as someone who has spent the whole of his life in Parliament and also in industry. Therefore, I do not speak with a great legal knowledge, like the legal luminaries who have been addressing your Lordships' Committee on the previous amendments—with great entertainment, but to some of us it is not absolutely as clear as crystal. I shall look forward to reading the next book by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, which will no doubt be entitled Employment Bill 1980 and, I am sure, will be compulsory reading at some of our universities if one wants a law degree.
I speak not only as an industrialist but as honorary secretary of an all-party group of which Lord Spens is chairman, and I shall leave it to Lord Spens and Lord Renton, who are experienced in the law, to put the legal points on these amendments.
We tabled these amendments—and I speak as the honorary secretary of that group—for four reasons. First, to make the Bill clearer and easier to understand: and after the recent exchanges, I am sure that that will be very welcome to the Committee and the country in general and to those who have to interpret it. Secondly, to make the Bill more effective in countering secondary action. I refer particularly to blacking, blockading and variations on those themes. Thirdly, we seek to amend the Bill so as to reduce, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the McShane case:
"the need for the courts to act as some sort of back-seat driver in trade disputes".
Fourthly, we move the amendments to bring the Bill more in line with the Government manifesto which, I would remind the Committee, said:
"We shall ensure that the protection of the law is available to those not concerned in the dispute".
Your Lordship's House, as we all know, has the task of debating (as we did yesterday), of delaying and sending back (as

697
with the ship repair section of the Bill to nationalise British shipbuilding) and of revising, which we are undertaking today. I think we have a special constitutional responsiblity for examining closely those Bills which, when they reach us, have not been thoroughly debated in the other place either because the guillotine has had to be used by successive Governments or because an important section has been introduced at a very late stage. This last point applies particularly to Clause 16, which was tabled at Report stage as a result of the Daily Express v. McShane ruling. This clause never went through Standing Committee and did not receive the detailed examination I think it deserves. It was never fully understood by many people and has been much criticised in many quarters.
Clause 16 sets up a legal framework with a complicated series of subsections by which the unions can prove that they are within the law. Surely it is better to amend and create a simpler pattern. These amendments seek to do that. No law could successfully prevent—and I concede that—a genuine sympathy strike. But these amendments will restore to employers not involved in a trade dispute, employers who are first suppliers or first customers, their common law rights if they decide to proceed. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that the "if" is a big one. There will not be many employers who can afford the time or the money to take legal action; but at least we restore to them the right to do so if they so wish. Of course, these amendments may not be perfect in their wording, although we have sought to make them so. We well understand that the Government may wish to change them when it comes to Report stage; but the all-party group feel strongly on this issue.
I turn for illustration to two areas of life in this country. The first is the motor industry which in the United Kingdom has been disastrously disrupted (with a tremendous fall in output and to the great advantage of our competitors) as a result of bad industrial relations in the last decade. The four car manufacturers, British Leyland, Ford, Vauxhall and Talbot, really assemble cars. One vehicle may contain as many as 60,000 parts. These come from more than 100 major suppliers and several hundred minor
698
suppliers. The major suppliers include firms like Lucas, Smith's, Automotive Products, Rubery Owen and GKN and, in the case of brake systems, Clayton Dewandre, of which I have been chairman for many years. It is now customary for motor manufacturers, world-wide, to get their supplies of components (tyres, wheels, brakes, speedometers and the like) from at least two sources so that, if one is disrupted, the other source will survive and will not stop the production lines. European manufacturers often use one source in Europe and one in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom manufacturers use one source in Britain and one in Europe.
The repercussions of a strike—say at British Leyland—can have a tremendous effect on the whole engineering industry of our country and a side effect on the Continent as well. Within days, production may have to be cut back at several hundred major firms, and within a week repercussions are felt next layer down: suppliers of steel, castings and the like. Therefore, we retain our component exports to Europe. This has been a most healthy aspect of the British motor industry. We must legislate to minimise the degree of disruption, otherwise confidence will go and with it will go the jobs and the orders.
Perhaps the public are most sensitive in the service industries—I turn to those now—particularly in hospitals where blacking and blocking may and did affect in the "winter of discontent" the sick, the dying and even the dead. Here again, the Bill does nothing for the hospitals, as the admirable Daily Telegraph leader of 2nd June stated under the heading "Lords to the Rescue". It said this:
"If the Bill reaches the statute book, a trade union engaged, for example, in attempting to disrupt the work of hospitals will continue to enjoy the protection of the law, if it seeks to induce suppliers and lorry drivers to block essential medical supplies".
I am sure the public would not wish to see that continue henceforward. If they do see it, then they will blame this Government for not having set matters right. Surely, we have an obligation to discourage such immunity as encourages this practice. That is why I commend these amendments. Discussion is going on in academic, legal, industrial and Parliamentary circles on this clause. I hope that this Committee of our House will live up

699
to its responsibilities and then we can truly earn the headline which was prominent last week and we can say: "Lords to the Rescue". I beg to move.
10.8 p.m.
Lord SPENS: I want to support this amendment. I hope to claim some credit for its construction. When our group were thinking about what we should do about Clause 16, it was rather opportune that a letter appeared in The Times signed by Mr. Alan Campbell Q.C. which, if I may quote from his introduction, said:
"An examination of the complex provisions of Clause 16 of the Employment Bill reveals an intention to reflect the 'first supplier first customer' concept; to entrench the legality of all industrial action within this ambit; also to legalise the 'repercussive' effect of such action against third parties".
That is a letter of 27th May. That letter confirmed the views that I had taken about this clause, that it is much too complicated as it has been drafted and, much more than that, I dislike the way that it appears to entrench positively in statute law immunities for the trade unions. I do not believe that they have been so far entrenched positively before. If one looks at subsection (3) it says:
"Secondary action satisfies the requirements of this subsection if …"
and subsection (4) is similar. Subsection (5) is similar. These entrenchments are being made by a Conservative Government, and that to my mind means that—
The Earl of GOWRIE: If I may, I should like to make the point that the kind of immunities the noble Lord referred to have been entrenched in law ever since the Liberal Government of 1906.
Lord SPENS: Yes, I realise there have been entrenchments, but what worries me is that these entrenchments are about to be made by a Conservative Government, because once a Conservative Government has made these positive entrenchments it is going to be extraordinarily difficult ever to get them altered. No future Labour Government will want to alter them, and it is going to be very difficult to find a future Conservative Government who will want to alter them. Therefore it seemed to me that this entrenchment of immunities was a dangerous thing and so
700
I set about trying to draft a much simpler clause and I gave it to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. At the same time he was having similar thoughts on the subject, and together we produced the amendments that are now before your Lordships.
If I may just indicate the effect, Clause 16 will now read:
"Nothing in Section 13 of the 1974 Act shall prevent an act from being actionable in tort on a ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of that section in any case where—

(a) the contract concerned is not a contract of employment, and

(b) one of the facts relied upon for the purpose of establishing liability is that there has been secondary action as defined, and

(c) the person claiming the benefit of this section is not a party to the dispute".

Subsection (2) we leave as it is; and we take out, or hope to take out, subsection (3), (4), (5) and (6).
Having tabled these amendments I was delighted to read a letter on Tuesday of this week in the Daily Telegraph from Edward Grayson, saying:
"These amendments to Clause 16 provide with the most admirable simplicity and clarity that Section 13 of the Trade Union Relations Act 1974 will not apply, and a person will therefore be able to pursue his common law rights when he is

(a) suing for interference with a contract other than a contract of employment (e.g. a commercial contract);

(b) relying upon secondary action as defined in subsection (2) of the existing Clause 16, and

(c) himself not a party to the dispute".

So we have got a positive acclaim from Mr. Grayson that we have done what we had hoped in the form of making Clause 16 simple and also, I think, more effective than the present Clause 16 will be. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord HANKEY: I should like to support my noble friends in putting forward these amendments. I see great difficulty in the present text of Clause 16. I have had to spend years of my life arguing with foreigners about the meaning of various texts of treaties and so on. My experience is that people are confused whenever anything is very complicated. In particular, the French always make rings round everybody else, and so do the Russians. It is true that we do not deal with the French and the Russians, but

701
when you mislead a lot of people by the complication of texts it leads to endless disputes and makes it much harder to get clarity in relations between the various bodies concerned. I will not go in for crossing a lot of legal swords with people such as we have seen, but I think really we have to get down to the rock bottom sense of what we are trying to correct.
We have seen in the shipyards a dispute between unions—the shopfitters and the boilermakers, I think—which for months and months prevented contracts from being concluded. At the power station in the East of Kent months have gone by because two unions disagree and nobody is able to settle the matter. We have had a case where the coalminers, being on strike, were able to prevent the Electricity Board from using its own coal stocks on its own premises to feed its own power stations. The people of England insist on this being stopped.
I am not sure that the texts in Clause 16 would have that effect. Some people may say that they will, but they are so obscure that you cannot be sure about it; and I do not think that the trade unions would be sure about it either. So the clause, as amended, would be more satisfactory to everybody. It would serve to correct some of the abuses of which our countrymen rightly complain, and which they really would have expected the Government to correct before now.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Just for one minute, one ought to draw attention to the general council's thinking in this direction. In simple English, all that this does is to increase the strength of the clause and to make it more punitive. The general council's experience—and I beg the Government not to take a partisan view—from their first-hand knowledge, begged the Government at the Croydon Conference to think carefully about industrial relations. It emphasised at that conference that the punitive measures would embitter, not alleviate, industrial difficulties. If you get massive unemployment, you can pass all the punitive Acts you like but you will have a terrible industrial situation to face. Those of us who saw what happened in the 1926 strike, or in 1921, must realise that. So I beg the Government to look carefully before increasing the punitive measures.
10.18 p.m.
Earl DE LA WARR: I want to start by congratulating my noble friend on the simple and persuasive way in which he put his arguments, which are very strong. However, I have to say that I thoroughly disagree with him. I shall not be arguing the case, because it is more properly argued, and will be much better argued, from the Front Bench. I want to confine myself to saying a few positive things about Clause 16 as it stands.
We should remember that there is in this country a long-held and deeply ingrained tradition of sympathetic industrial action. This fact was specifically put on record in the Donovan Commission's Report 12 years ago. That brings us back, very briefly, to the basic philosophy behind this whole Bill. First, do not charge in like a bull at a gate, when the gate consists of deeply-held, time-honoured trade union traditions. Go step by step and, finally, deal with specific abuses. If that be so, then Clause 16 fulfils these criteria admirably.
Certainly—and I want to draw your Lordships' attention to this—it grasps very firmly the issue of remoteness, which was drawn to our attention so strongly by the House of Lords judgment in the Daily Express v. McShane case. More generally, I want to put it to your Lordships that this clause will make it extremely difficult for any secondary blacking to take place.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl DE LA WARR: I am encouraged! I should like to call in aid something that was written by a body which is known for its somewhat hawkish attitudes; namely, the Institute of Directors, who said:
"It is a matter for regret that the clause does not remove the immunities for all forms of secondary action. In practice, it will have the effect of so reducing the possibility for taking secondary action that it could be argued that the Government might just as well have sought to stop it altogether."
After what I have said, I have no hesitation in turning that argument into proof to your Lordships, coming from the quarter that it does, that this clause as it stands is very tough indeed. It is for that reason that I fully support Clause 16 as it stands and very much hope that my noble friend the Minister of State will have

703
nothing to do with the amendments which have just been moved.
Baroness SEEAR: We on these Benches cannot support these amendments. Indeed, my noble friend and I are somewhat surprised at hearing the group referred to as an all-party group. Certainly neither my noble friend nor I are in any way associated with it.
Whatever other changes one may aim to make in industrial relations, it is absoutely clear that the effective right to strike must be maintained. Of course, everybody hopes that it will not often be used, but there must be not only a right to strike but an effective right to strike. If we on these Benches had believed with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that there was any hidden intention to threaten the right to strike in any way, whatever they did in the Commons my noble friend and I most certainly would have voted against the Government. Whatever may have happened on that occasion in legal terms, we believe that it is the intention of the Government to maintain the right to strike.
If these amendments were accepted by the Government, then, in my view rightly, nobody would believe that it was the Government's intention to maintain the right to strike. Therefore we on these Benches very much support the line that the Government are taking on secondary action—as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, remarked, on the recognition of the long established record of sympathetic strikes in this country and the need that such secondary action should, in appropriate cases, be used: not extending secondary action way down the line but maintaining it at first instance. We very much hope that the Committee will reject these amendments.
Lord RENTON: If I may say so with deep respect, I think there is some misunderstanding about the purpose and effect of these amendments. They raise a very important issue. The fact that they have come up at such a late hour will not, I hope, lead your Lordships to consider that this discussion ought to be curtailed. I shall not address your Lordships for long, but I wonder whether I may first stress three matters.
704
The first is that if the amendments are accepted the trade unions will continue to have immunity from claims in tort from employers involved in trade disputes. They will have immunity in respect not only of primary action but in respect of secondary action.
My second point is that if there should be further immunities for the trade unions in the event of the amendments being accepted, then they can be dealt with in the light of any recommendations made in the Government's Green Paper which at some time is to follow.
The third point I wish to stress is that, though we fully accept the main purpose which is expressed in subsection (2) of Clause 16, we consider that that main purpose is obscured and confused by what appears in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6), which purport to give various definitions of secondary action. In any event, under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 16 the plaintiff in an action will have to prove three things, and I would ask my noble friend and the noble Baroness to bear this in mind.
First, he will have to prove that he was not a party to the trade dispute; secondly, he will have to prove that a contract which he had was adversely affected by the secondary action and that it was not a contract of employment; and thirdly, he will have to prove that the secondary action conies within subsection (2) of Clause 16, which I need not read; it has already been described by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. That is the essence of the matter—that the burden of proof is going to be upon the plaintiff to prove those three fundamental things before he can get damages in tort in respect of any secondary action.
The question which your Lordships have to decide in relation to these amendments is where the burden of proof is to lie. We are not told in the Bill, and I hope we will be told by the Government spokesman with regard to these various matters described in the other subsections, subsections (3) to (6) inclusive. Whoever has to prove it, and it could be an unconscionable burden on the plaintiff to prove it, under both subsections (3A) and (4A) the defendant would have to disprove the purpose of the secondary action on the defendant's part as set out in the sub-sections.

705
In our actions in the courts for civil damages the courts are normally not concerned with the motives which prompt people to do things which cause damage. They are concerned with what they do. Damages are normally awarded for damage done and not for the defendant's purpose, motive or intention in doing it. There are some rare exceptions but the court does not like to enlarge upon them. There are in rare circumstances punitive damages, for example, in actions for libel. Surely when we are legislating in this sense we should be absolutely clear that it should not lie upon the plaintiff to have to prove what the defendant's motive was for the damage that he caused. That is my first point on these three subsections.
My second point is this. Either the plaintiff will have to prove, or the defendant will have to disprove, whether the secondary action of the kind set out was likely to achieve its purpose, whatever that was. That is a matter for speculation. That is not the kind of matter which would normally be considered under Clause 16(2) if it were left as it is. That, I say, is a matter for speculation, which confuses the issue. I would have thought that noble Lords opposite, with the interests of trade unions at heart, would not want to be involved in these disputes which will make the cases more lengthy, which will, as I say, obscure the true issues. If the onus is not to be on the plaintiff, however, but to be on the defendant in relation to these matters, then we should be told so; and perhaps the Bill should say so. Sometimes it is left to the courts to decide when the onus should shift from the plaintiff to the defendant, but it is sometimes done by statute, and I think that for reasons of natural justice this is a case in which perhaps the matter should be clarified by statute.
So I say that we should really stick to the essence of Clause 16, which is an admirable clause in essence. I agree with my noble friend Lord De La Warr that we do not want to interfere with traditional rights within the trade unions. We want to stick to the Government's main purpose, and those of us who are Conservatives also want to stick to what was said, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, in the Government's election manifesto. If I may say so with deep respect to all your
706
Lordships, let nobody over-simplify this matter or simply say, "This is a lawyer's point; let the lawyers sort it out". We are legislating here; we are revising as we in our judgment may think necessary. I support my noble friend.
10.31 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I have strong feelings on this and I have a practical example which I want to give. My noble friends have given very interesting explanations as to what the amendments mean and how they will affect the clause; but if I had had to rely only upon the explanations l have heard, although I know that they are effective and coming from authoritative sources, I honestly would not have known what the matter was all about.
Two years ago in one of my companies I had an experience which may help to elucidate. It concerned a little hotel where a temporary chef had been set on and he proved to be inadequate for the job after four or five months. He accepted this himself—there was nothing wrong with the man—and eventually he was given a fortnight's notice, paid in advance and he left. To our surprise the next morning a regional trade union official telephoned the manager of the hotel and said that he was to reinstate that man, that he had been wrongfully dismissed; and he added, "In anticipation of that we have already arranged for the supplies of beer to your hotel to be stopped", by an arrangement with the drayman's union that served that area. Our manager said: "You must have the wrong end of this stick. There is nothing wrong with this; it is the normal thing. He was not up to the job; he realises it, and there should be no question of reinstating him". The official said: "You will reinstate him or your beer supplies will be stopped". Now for the hotel to have had its beer supplies stopped—and the words used by the official made it sound as though the other hotels in the group would be included, too—could be disastrous. The manager said: "Come and look into it and have an inquiry here. Let us get the thing out of the way. I am certain you cannot understand what it is all about".
The union did come to the hotel, they did have the inquiry and the other employees said: "No, the chef was not any

707
good; he was wasteful and no good for the job". The result was that the union did not have a case. So our manager said: "Well, there you are; you are going to withdraw your claim for reinstatement, we hope". The next day the union rang up and said: "You will pay £700 for wrongful dismissal". At that stage the matter was brought to my attention and I said: "Tell them that you are going to reinstate him". So he was reinstated for three days. After three days the chap walked out and that was the end of the matter.
The point is that, as I understand the law as it stands now, and as I understand the effect that these amendments are going to have on it, the position is this: When the union said that they would stop the delivery of beer, that was a secondary action, but we could have done nothing about it because it was directly concerned with the dispute between the chef and the company. So we have lost our common law rights under the Bill as it stands; they would have immunity and there would be nothing we could do against the beer supplies being stopped.
But it goes even further than that, and this is what I want my noble friend to bear in mind, and I hope that he will convey to his friends in the Government that they really ought to look at this again. If it had concerned the laundry supplies or the oil supplies to that hotel, which were nothing to do with the hotel company and the laundry who work on very narrow margins nowadays, they might well have found the difference between remaining in existence and employing their men and going out of business quite marginal. If it had been that the drivers of the laundry van had had the same advice given to them that was given to the draymen and had adhered to it—the laundry was nothing to do with the dispute between the hotel and the chef—the laundry would, under this clause as it now stands, have lost their rights in common law. The immunity would have extended to the laundryman possibly having to go out of business, giving up employment, and all the trouble that would have caused. I cannot believe that my noble friend and the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Employment, and indeed the Cabinet, would want to reinforce a law that would harm a
708
man so remote from the cause of action as that laundryman happened to be.
The reason why I am supporting these amendments, and ask my noble friends to look again at the real effects of this clause, is that I cannot believe they would wish that immunity to be given in that kind of situation. We are always talking about the motor car industry and the big oil industry, but this will affect little companies like the one I have described; and they are the ones most likely to go under as a consequence of the barrier that robs a man of his rights under common law. I am not arguing the point now about the right to strike, and industrial disputes and all that flows from that. I believe that any British citizen who is as remote from the dispute as that laundryman would be does not deserve to have his rights under common law taken away. I believe he ought to be allowed to take it to court. He would have to prove his case; not just that he disliked the procedure. He would have to show that he had been damaged, to show that the immunity, if given, could possibly affect his continuing his business. I cannot believe that my noble friend wants that to continue.
I was rather interested to hear my noble friend Lord De La Warr; he is not accustomed as I thought he would have been, to the shape of a Chamber in British Parliaments. When you get cheers from the people you can see, you are not likely to be right in adhering to the principles established by the people behind who you cannot see. Perhaps the greatest indictment of the support my noble friend gave to this clause was the fact that he got cheers. What I believe we have a duty to do in political terms is this. After 1974 the Socialist Government—I understand it; I am not criticising them for it, they are the trade union party at almost any cost; they are acting according to the image we know—erected barriers to common law rights of many people, and I do not like common law rights to have to overcome barriers of that sort. What we want to do is to remove, not all the barriers, but I believe that as a party we have a duty to remove those most blatant and most unfair.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure my noble friend does not want to make a false point. These particular rights have been entrenched since 1906. It was not, iniquitous as they were, the

709
Labour Government which did it; it was the Liberal Government in 1906.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It is not for me to cross memories with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but I think that the immunities that I am describing now were in fact strengthened by the Socialist Government when they removed part of the Industrial Relations Act. I am sorry my noble and learned friend diverted me, because I would let you win all the arguments so long as you retain for that laundryman his rights under common law to be able to go to court to preserve the interests of his business and the people that he employs. I understand that all these amendments will do that.
What is it that we want? I do not suppose for one minute that my noble friends will vote for these amendments tonight. They are using the Committee stage in order to try to impress upon my noble friend and upon the Government that they really have overlooked a point here which is important and vital so far as the freedom of the individual is concerned and his rights under common law. We happen to believe that, and if my noble friend can say that that is not so, I shall accept it.
As regards this particular clause, only a matter of four or five days' notice was given to the other place before they examined it. Only one amendment was put down which even touched upon the issues that have been raised by my noble friends and myself. I believe that the issues involved, and the depth to which they go in affecting ordinary people, are such that the Government ought to make certain that both they and the other place have a chance to have another look at this in order to be certain whether the kind of matters to which I am referring and to which my noble friends have referred, have any basis or not. I hope that we shall not be put in the position of having to put down amendments in your Lordships' House at Report stage which would try to bring that about by a vote. It would be counter-productive if we had to do so, because this is intricate and difficult to explain, and it would be presented again as though it were a question of Lords versus the People and the real point of protecting the freedoms would have gone. It must come from the Government.
710
I believe that the Prime Minister and the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Employment, and the whole of the Government, owe it to the Party to look at this in the light of the knowledge that has come to their attention during this debate. I say that the reason why they have a duty to the Party is contained in the manifesto, and I shall repeat the words that have been quoted by my noble friend. I shall repeat them because we are committed to them. The manifesto says:
"We shall ensure that the protection of the law"—
that is all that I ask for—
"is available to those not concerned in the dispute, but who at present can suffer severely from secondary action".
That is what we promised. That is what we ought to try to achieve.
If, having had another look at it, if having taken into account all the evidence that has come to their notice since the Easter week when they rushed it through, and if in the light of the arguments put forward by my noble friends the Government still think that Clause 16, as it now stands—which delights my noble friend Lord De La Warr so much—is perfect, then we shall have to accept it. But I truly believe from my personal experience, quite apart from the arguments of lawyers and all the details and intricacies, that if this clause goes through as it is at present, it may well delight the Benches opposite and give the trade unions a feeling that they have won a particular battle. We are not interfering with their right to strike but we do want to interfere with anybody's right to take away the common law rights of the citizens of this country. I know that my noble friend is eager to speak. I know that it is awful to be on your feet at this hour of night and know that you are losing the sympathy of your listeners, but this matter goes deeper than that. If by keeping my noble friend in his seat for two more seconds I can urge upon him to see to it that his noble friend beside him, and other members of the Cabinet, look at this matter again, then that is all that I ask. A second look will make them come to another decision and it will be my noble friend who will put the amendments down for the Report stage and not those on the Back-Benches.
Lord ROBBINS: I rise in a state of very great perplexity. I trust that your

711
Lordships will not blow cold on candour. In respect of this Bill, which we have been considering for some days, I approach matters in a mood of moderation and gradualism. When I have been present at Divisions, which is most of the time, I have consistently supported the Government line. I abstained from dividing on our last decision because, quite frankly, in the interchange between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, I was extremely perplexed and puzzled and unable to make up my mind. Sitting on the Cross-Benches I have always made it a principle never to vote on an issue which I do not thoroughly understand.
In spite of this general approach to the Bill, from the outset—and I mentioned this in my speech on Second Reading—I have felt extremely perplexed at the clause relating to secondary picketing. My reservations have been increased by what has been said in the course of debate this evening. I am all against undue encroachment on traditional attitudes. But it has been said—and it has been said by powerful figures on the Opposition Benches—that if the Government were to go to the country not having dealt with secondary picketing, the country would be disappointed. I await with interest the elucidations of the Government spokesman to the effect that if Clause 16 is passed in its present form, the nearly universal desire to deal with the evils which manifested themselves in the winter of discontent will not be repeated.
10.47 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I hope that the Committee will extend to me the indulgence that they extended to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, when he was introducing his principal areas of interest earlier this evening. I tore up a 20-minute speech on secondary picketing because I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, had done more good work in five minutes than I would be able to do in 20 minutes or even an hour or so.
However, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls put it, these matters are intricate and difficult to explain, and I shall have to be a very little longer than
712
I was on the issue of picketing. On the subject of picketing—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Robens, who is just the sort of man I am very anxious to take with me—
Lord PEART: Lord Robbins!
The Earl of GOWRIE: I beg your Lordships' pardon; I know that well; it was a slip of the tongue. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Robens, were he here, are both men whom I should very much like to take with me. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that we are not primarily concerned here with secondary picketing. We are concerned with blacking and what are called "sympathetic" strikes. Secondary picketing is dealt with in Clause 15, which effectively makes it unlawful and does so virtually without qualification or exception. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that the country would think very ill of us if that were not the case.
In the issues of blacking and sympathetic strikes, it may help if I give a simple but realistic example of the kind of industrial action which Clause 16 is intended to tackle. For the purposes of illustration—and illustration only—I am going to mention real firms, and I hasten to say to them, if any of them are awake at this time of night, that of course it is no reflection on them and nothing like that could ever happen in their purlieus.
Supposing you have a motor assembly plant, let us say British Leyland, where there is a dispute between management and workers. Supposing that the workers of another company which manufactures lamps for cars—let us call it Lucas—are persuaded to refuse to make or supply lamps to British Leyland in sympathetic support of the workers in that initial or primary dispute. Suppose then that the employees of the company which manufactures the filaments for the lamps—and let us call them fictionally Filaments Limited—are persuaded not to make, or supply, the filaments to the lamp manufacturer.
At the moment, the law which we are seeking in this Bill to amend gives immunity for strikes or blacking not only to the lamp manufacturer but also at

713
Filaments Limited. In other words, it is possible for a trade union to exploit the interdependence of manufacturing companies to a virtually unlimited extent by taking industrial action at two, three, or even more removes from the original dispute. The phrase that the noble Baroness used was, "way down the line". That is what we are seeking to correct.
Under the law as it now stands, the test of whether an action is in furtherance to a trade dispute is also fundamentally a subjective one. If the person who calls the industrial action establishes that he honestly believes that it will in some way further a trade dispute that is about to come into existence, or an existing trade dispute, that is quite enough to give him this contentious legal immunity. So long as the person calling the strike is found by the court to be sincere in his belief, it does not matter how remote the industrial action is from the original dispute, or whether it involves people, both employees and the employers, who have no means whatsoever of influencing the outcome of this dispute.
This virtually unlimited immunity for organising industrial action, whether by strikes or by blacking, was made clear by your Lordships' Judicial Committee in the famous case of Express Newspapers v. McShane. That judgment confirmed what we and others, including the Liberals who opposed the legislation of 1974 and 1976, had always said was the case; that the immunity for calling industrial action had become unnecessarily and dangerously wide.
It is unnecessarily wide for trade union officials seeking to do their proper job of representing their members and defending their interests, and it is dangerously wide for the rest of the community: for us, but chiefly for the rest of the working population whose jobs and livelihoods may be put at risk by being dragged into disputes which do not concern them, do not concern us in any way, and over whose outcome they, or we, have no con rol. That is why we said that the present law was a licence to spread industrial disruption, and that is not a situation which we could allow to continue, or that the electorate would forgive us did we allow it to continue.
This clause represents, therefore, our response to that situation. It is a response
714
we have reached only after a great deal of thought and a great deal of consultation also. I hope that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who put his amendment in a very clear way—and it is a brilliantly simple and clear amendment—will not think it any derogation of him if I say that one of the options we considered was in fact the option embodied in the amendments put down by him and his noble friends. The effect of these amendments would be to cut the immunity back to the primary action alone. In other words, to go back to the example I gave at the beginning, the immunity would be restricted to the organisation of a strike or other action at Leyland; there would be no immunity for supportive action elsewhere.
I acknowledge to noble Lords who tabled the amendment that that would be a beautifully clear and simple solution, easy to understand, straightforward in statutory expression and one would not need to be a pupil of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, to take it in. Why did we not, therefore, go down that road; why did we not choose that action?
Lord RENTON: Before my noble friend moves on, may I ask him to explain why he says the amendment would limit it to primary action? The words in subsection (1)(b) are perfectly clear:
"one of the facts relied upon for the purpose of establishing liability is that there has been secondary action";
and according to our amendment we would add the words, "as defined below", and then in subsection (2) the secondary action is defined.
The Earl of GOWRIE: In the later amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing—and he said at the beginning that he was taking them together, so I am taking the debate as a whole—there is an attempt to modify this cutback to primary action. But nevertheless, I know from our own consultations, from the usual channels and behind the scenes as well as overt discussion, that the principal object of this series of amendments is to limit the immunity to primary action. We considered doing that and we rejected it, and if your Lordships will be tolerant, I will try to explain why we rejected it.

715
The answer can be found in the Donovan Report and in the judgments of the Court of Appeal which are widely associated with the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and those are based, in our view, on judgments about industrial reality and about what the ordinary person, including most trade union members, instinctively feel to be fair and reasonable. The Donovan Commission's report pointed out that in this country there is a long-standing tradition of industrial action which seeks to put additional pressure on the employer in dispute by sealing off his sources of supply or his outlet for sales, or both. That is the tradition which my noble friend Lord De La Warr mentioned and that is the tradition which is entrenched, maybe regrettably, not by this Government but going back to the Liberal Government of 1906.
We feel that if our reforms are to be effective, they have to take account of industrial reality, and I made that point in the debate on the closed shop. I do not accept that that is a confession of weakness or failure; it is simply common sense. We have a large parliamentary majority, and four years before we need seek re-election. It would be perfectly easy for us to accept these amendments and go down the road that my noble friends are suggesting. But we have a responsibility for ensuring that the legislation we put before Parliament is fair and workable. We must have regard to the practical effects. I believe that only the opponents of the Bill would thank us if any points of it become a dead letter because employers—not the unions, but employers—become unwilling to use the remedies we make available to them because they are frustrated or circumvented on the shopfloor.
It may help particularly those such as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who are very anxious about whether we have gone far enough, if I give some examples of secondary action which under this clause, if your Lordships pass it and if the other place passes it and the Bill becomes an Act, will become unlawful. Let me go back to the car example I quoted at the beginning of my remarks. There would be no immunity for a strike or blacking at the filament
716
manufacturers. There would be no immunity for a strike or blacking of goods at the lamp manufacturers—at Lucas, if you like—if the lamps were not being supplied during the dispute because, for example, the car assembly plant had been closed down by the original dispute. There would be no immunity if the employees of Lucas blacked lamps going to other companies where there was no dispute. There would be no immunity if the employees of Lucas blacked goods going to, or coming from, another company which did business with the car assembly company so as indirectly to put pressure on the latter.
It is clear from these four examples that this clause represents a severe restriction of the present immunity for secondary action. Indeed, the complexity of the drafting of Clause 16 may have masked the extent to which the clause has in fact cut back the immunity for secondary action, and this point was not lost on our opponents on the other side of the Committee, because they verbally showed their disquiet on this matter a little earlier.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, who raised the shipyards' dispute, that that inter-union dispute was primary action. The Isle of Grain power station dispute, too, was a primary dispute, though secondary picketing, which we have dealt with, was involved. Many of the issues in industrial actions about which people are anxious are in fact primary disputes, and, as the debate between my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, showed, very few people are suggesting that the Government are interested in cutting back primary action.
I am skipping over some of my notes, but the question of where the limit of immunity is drawn must in our view, and in the last analysis, be a matter of political judgment. That is why we have reached a view on the course that we should take in this Bill only after consulting very widely. In the course of those consultations some urged us to go further and others urged us to do a lot less. Some wanted us to move more quickly than we have, and others wanted us to move more slowly.
But we believe that the line that we are taking in this clause will be accepted by the vast majority of employers and

717
trade unionists alike as fair and reasonable. It will give protection in a wide range of circumstances where damaging secondary action can be, and now often is, taken with absolute immunity; but at the same time we have not cut back the immunity so far as to give militants in the trade union movement a rallying cry with which to stir up a campaign to frustrate and undermine the Bill as a whole. The fiasco of the day of action on 14th May demonstrated that the Bill has denied them that rallying cry so far.
Getting rid of two or three more pages of my notes, may I turn to the issue of hospitals, which my noble friend dwelt upon. Let us be clear what we are talking about here. There is a primary dispute at a hospital between the hospital management and its staff. A trade union, it is suggested, might then organise action by workers who are quite unconnected with the hospital—let us say, employees of British Oxygen or the local electricity board—in order to withhold deliberately supplies for the hospital, even if the lives of patients might be at risk.
I doubt whether there were many examples of that kind of action in the past, but of course there are primary disputes at hospitals, and there are indeed primary disputes—and very damaging ones—at firms elsewhere. I have in mind, for instance, firms that supply hospitals with vital materials. No one is pretending that patients do not suffer as a result, and we all condemn such disputes when they occur; but my point here is that these are primary disputes and they would be unaffected by the noble Lord's amendments. Does he believe that if the Government had any grounds for believing that secondary action, whether blacking or a strike, might be taken against hospitals, we would not have done something about it in this Bill? Of course we would.
We have framed Clause 16 to deal with real situations and actual cases of damaging secondary action, of which the last two winters have afforded many examples. If we were to legislate to provide for patients in hospitals to be beyond the reach of industrial action, we would have to make strikes unlawful in the context of hospitals. That might be a sensible thing to do; but there is no other way that it could be done. It certainly could not be done under Clause 16 here.
718
Finally, it is worth dwelling just for a moment on the difference between blacking and a sympathetic strike. The terrifying thing about blacking is that one can carry it out without incurring any real penalty in the form of lost wages. It often pays an employer to put up with, or, one might say, connive at, selective blacking of goods entering or leaving his factory rather than precipitate an all-out strike by taking disciplinary action. That is why blacking is so easy to organise and why it has become so terrifyingly insidious in its effect. It is a painless way, if you like, for workers who are not in dispute to show support with other workers who are. That is why Clause 16 comes down like a ton on blacking and insists that it be precisely targetted on the employer in dispute and carried out only during the dispute.
The sympathetic strike, on the other hand, is much harder to organise, as we saw during the recent steel dispute. You are asking workers who are not in dispute with their own employer, and who stand to gain nothing whatsoever from the dispute, to give up their good wages and risk disciplinary action in support of a dispute elsewhere. Of course, the clause restricts sympathetic strikes, as I have already explained, but it is unnecessary to outlaw them completely. The effects of outlawing them completely would be that trade unions would take care to turn them into primary disputes by picking a quarrel with the employer. They need only demand that it be part of the conditions of employment that goods are not sent to the employer in dispute, and that would be enough, by itself, to create a primary dispute. That is the kind of example—and I do not think it is too complex—of the danger of pressing these restrictions too far and too quickly; and we have said that we will return to the philosophy of immunity in the Green Paper. Where there is sufficient anger and determination behind a sympathetic strike, the trade unions concerned would somehow find a way of evading the law and of creating a primary dispute. That is the kind of tightrope that we have to walk here.
I have tried to illustrate why we thought it was right not to go further in this Bill, but to expose the sensitive and contentious issues in a Green Paper; and I hope I have

719
also demonstrated that we have gone a very long way. To go further at present would, we believe, jeopardise the real gains that we have a chance to make and the real and extensive protections which this clause will afford to employers, including first suppliers and customers who are faced with this damaging vice of secondary action. That is why I so very much hope that my noble friends will agree to withdraw the amendment standing in their name.
Lord RENTON: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would be so good as to answer the point I made as to where the burden of proof will lie with regard to the matters in subsections (3) to (6) inclusive.
The EARL of GOWRIE: I apologise to my noble friend; I should have done that earlier. The burden of proof in subsection (3) of Clause 16 is on the trade union officials organising the action; that is to say, they have to show that they have satisfied the test of purpose and likely effect.
Lord HAR MAR-NICHOLLS: Is my noble friend aware that he substituted the filament and the manufacture of lamps, and Leylands, in place of my laundry worker and the beer suppliers? He has said that, as the clause now stands, the laundry driver would not lose his rights under common law; that in fact the immunity did not stretch so far. The advice that I have had from other sources (which is sound in terms of legal knowledge) is that that is not how the clause itself would work. All that I ask my noble friend now is this. He has given a very persuasive explanation of the clause, but will he take this back to his colleagues in the Government and use any influence he has for them to have a look at it, and not say that his persuasive speech of a minute ago shall he the last word upon it? There is a different interpretation as to how this would in fact operate, and until that is cleared away I believe that, on an issue which was so clearly set out in our manifesto, we ought to feel that even a Government with a majority as big as this one's are prepared to have another look at it in the light of extra evidence and extra knowledge.
The EARL of GOWRIE: One of the passages of my speech that I hastened over in the interests of getting through in fact argued how we were exactly in line with our manifesto commitment. We certainly had no manifesto commitment to outlaw the kind of action which I dealt with, though we did think of limiting the immunity in the way I said earlier.
In the case of the examples given by my noble friend, which I agree with him are not very far from mine, we do not see how you can limit the immunity without hitting at all forms of sympathetic action. In the cases of the small employers and organisations that he mentioned, the party in the dispute—the hotelier in his example—would have the benefit of having alternative sources of supply. But he is right that secondary action would have been lawful under Clause 16 as we have it.
No one who stands at this Box, particularly when sandwiched between lawyers, would be so arrogant as to say that he wanted to have the last word in any situation. But I cannot give my noble friends much hope that we think there would be anything other than an attack on all secondary action by going down the road he suggests. We have spent months on this and have been criticised for not bringing in legislation rapidly after May 4th, 1979. One of the reasons why we did not is that we have had to go into this with a toothcomb. We are convinced that we have got it right; but we have left the door open for those who believe that we have not. We may return to debate on this subject, on the whole issue on the Green Paper on immunities and whether it would not be wiser to substitute legal rights and obligations for this difficult doctrine of immunity which we do not like but which is part of the industrial relations history of this country and which we cannot avoid.
Lord ORR-EWING: I am grateful to my noble friend for the great trouble he has taken in replying to the points that we have made. I do not think that we, as a group, are completely convinced. We believe that we have preserved subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 6 exactly as the Government framed them and have only sought to delete (3) and (4). Therefore, we believe that secondary action would be possible under Clause 6(2) as drafted. We have moved the amendments

721
just to seek to strengthen the hand of those who are not connected with the dispute and to restore to them their common law rights to act if they wish. That is what the amendments are about.
I moved them as spokesman for a group which contains many Tories, many Cross-Benchers—some of whom have spoken and some of whom have listened; and, after all, we had a Cross-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Spens, leading us. We had the moral support of several powerful Social Democrats. I am sorry if I excluded the Liberals. I felt that on this great issue of the closed shop, to which we will come back on Report, in view of the powerful action in the other place taken by Mr. David Steele, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and by Mr. Jo Grimond, the past Liberal Leader and the weight of Mr. Cyril Smith, at least some small, still Liberal voice might be heard at Report stage to make it an all-party group rather than lack the Liberals. We as a group (and I am proud to call it a dissident group, a group of people who do not agree with the majority in the Committee at the moment) feel strongly that the two clauses which need strengthening are that dealing with the closed shop, Clause 6, and the secondary action one, Clause 16.
We will not seek to divide the Committee on Clause 16. There are some two or three weeks before the Report stage on this Bill and we would still hope that the Government would find the time and opportunity to think about this again and to put something down. If not, I feel that we ought to vote on these two issues at Report (but, of course, we will consult with all the members of the group) in order to give another place a chance to think again. We are a delaying House. The Commons did not have a chance to think about the closed shop after the report of the European Commission on Human Rights. We might give them that opportunity in the light of that Report and the condemnation made. They did not consider in detail Clause 16 because it was introduced only at the Report stage and there was no Committee stage available. I hope that the Government will think again. If not, we will seek the opportunity to give the other place a chance of thinking again after our Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77R to 77W not moved.]
11.18 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 77X:
Page 18, line 46, after ("relates") insert—
("whether or not that prevention or disruption is likely to or does continue after the dispute").
The noble Lord said: The Committee should not think that we have not moved some of these amendments because we do not believe in them. But the hour is late and we take this amendment as indicative of the problems which are apparent in a number of our amendments. These gateways in Clause 16 to the so-called secondary lawful action are to a very large extent gateways closed by barriers that the very gateways themselves include. One of the best examples is this particular phrase.
The gateways require that the prevention or disruption of supplies should take place during the dispute. When that gets into court, I suspect that the Daily Telegraph account on 5th June last will indeed be the kind of argument that one is met with. The Daily Telegraph wrote as follows, quoting discussions with the CBI:
"As the clause is drafted, secondary industrial action will he protected only where the principal purpose is directly to prevent or disrupt the supply during the dispute of goods and services between an employer or party to the dispute and an employer under the contract of employment to which the secondary industrial action relates. A key phrase is considered to be the requirement that the purpose of the action is to prevent or disrupt the supply only during the dispute. One widely accepted view is that this could remove the protection from all forms of attempted secondary industrial action where the firm at the centre of the dispute has been completely shut down. The main argument of the Institute of Directors"
in seeking to remove protection was to strengthen even that.
This is illustrative of the way in which, when one searches subsections (3) and (4), one finds that the trade union, in order to be able to engage in any form of sympathetic action whatsoever, has to pick its way through a maze of problems which would defeat the most astonishingly acute lawyer who is advising it before it begins an action. How on earth can the trade union know whether or not the prevention or disruption is likely to continue only during the dispute? The words "only during the dispute" are not in the clause,

723
but the common interpretation appears to be—as indeed did those of the CBI and the Daily Telegraph—that that is what it means. We therefore take the opportunity of moving Amendment No. 77X—and I am speaking also to Amendment No. 77B which is a parallel—whether or not the prevention or disruption is likely to continue after the dispute, as illustrative of our view that the gateways at the moment are phoney and that the secondary action which is allowed is so beset with hedges and ditches that no trade union is ever likely to get through it. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The position of action described in the amendment is quite clear under the clause as drafted. Whether it is lawful or not depends on what is its principal purpose and whether it is likely to achieve that purpose. If the principal purpose of the secondary action is to prevent or disrupt the supply of goods or services during the dispute and it is likely to achieve that purpose, then it will be protected, even if there are consequential effects after the dispute is over. It will, of course, often be the case that there are some temporary spillover effects after the dispute is over while the position is getting back to normal. That is true of primary action and, of course, we accept that such effects may be the consequence of lawful secondary action. So long as they are consequential effects of secondary action which met the requirements of subsections (3) or
(4), then the immunity will continue to apply. We do not see that any amendment to subsections (3) or (4) is needed to achieve this.
If, however, the secondary action is taken deliberately for the purpose of disrupting business after the dispute is over, then it cannot by definition have as its principal purpose the disrupting of supplies during the dispute. In consequence, it loses any immunity it might have had under Clause 16. In our view, this situation is perfectly reasonable and justifiable and I would ask the Committee not to agree with this amendment.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: The amendment we are pressing is No. 77X. In a sense the noble and learned Lord has given me my case, because the realities of industrial life are that a trade union which is engaging upon action envisaged in Clause 16(3) will necessarily have as its envisaged purpose to disrupt supplies during the dispute, which will naturally spill over after the dispute. It is illustrative of dozens of problems of this sort. We divide on this amendment as illustrative of our view that the gateways to secondary industrial action which is lawful are not real in any respect under the clause.
11.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 77X) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L. [Teller.]

Kaldor, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Northfield, L.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Caithness, E.

Denham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Camoys, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cathcart, E.

Dundee, E.

Belstead, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Elton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Crathorne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Cairns, E.

De La Warr, E.

Fortescue, E.

Gainford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rochester, L.

Glendevon, L.

Long, V.

Salisbury, M.

Gowrie, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

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

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Seear, B.

Mansfield, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Hankey, L.

Margadale, L.

Spens, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Monson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Morris, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hood, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Renton, L.

Westbury, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ridley, V.

Wigoder, L.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 77Y to 77CC not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 19, line 8, leave out from ("services") to first ("an") in line 9 and insert ("between any person and").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B not moved.]
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 19, line 13, leave out ("the recipient") and insert ("or").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 79A and 79B not moved.]
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 19, line 17, leave out ("recipient") and insert ("other party to the supply referred to in paragraph (a) above ").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 80A, 80AB, 80B, 80C, 80CA not moved.]
11.32 p.m.
Lord McCARTHY Lord McCARTHY moved Amendment No. 80D:
Page 19, line 32, after ("other") insert ("whether or not").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. Its object is to allow the protection of the gateway from subsection (6)(a) so as to protect, in the context of the clause, whether or not there is a contract between the primary employer and the secondary employer aimed at under the provisions of the Bill. In other words, the Government are saying in the Bill that there is only to be protection in secondary action, under the terms of Clause 16, if there is a subsisting contract. If there is no contract between the primary employer and the secondary employer aimed at, then there is no protection.
We argue that there is no particular reason why protection should depend upon the, to some extent, accident of a subsisting contract and that this is one of the ways—indeed, one of the most notable ways, as we have pointed out—that the Bill puts secondary action, from a trade union point of view, at risk, because in broad terms it is extremely difficult for unions to know whether such a contract is in existence. So one of the coincidental consequences of the Bill in its present form would be a kind of reign of terror, from the trade union point of view, when, as they would have to, they approached their lawyer in a future situation and said they were thinking of taking secondary action—or, just as likely, that some of their members were facing pressure on them and had already begun to take secondary action—and asked whether this was lawful. The lawyer would say,

727
"I will take you through Section 16 of the new Employment Act", and when they got to this part the lawyer would ask: "Is there any way in which you can say whether there is a subsisting contract?"
It would be difficult for unions to know this, because there are a number of circumstances in which there could be no contract between the primary employer and the employer aimed at. There could be circumstances in which the contract was under negotiation. In periods when a contract is under negotiation with suppliers, the normal convention is that suppliers, as and when required, supply on an "as and when" basis. Or it could be the case—I do no suggest this would be the case in many instances—that after a period of time there was collusion between the primary and secondary employer to have no contracts at all. They could be paying on delivery of fuel to avoid secondary liability.
But most important of all from our point of view, there could be a subcontract system, as there very often is, or what is sometimes called a dual contract system. In other words, the goods concerned, which were upholding the dispute—it might be oil or some other form of supplies—could be supplied on a factor basis. The contract would be between the firm and their normal supplier, but the normal supplier would not in fact supply the goods; the goods would be supplied on a sub-contract basis and the contract would be between the secondary employer and a sub-contractor.
Therefore, we would argue that there would be no contract between the company delivering and the company aimed at in the case of the secondary action. We are saying that it would be only reasonable, even at this late stage, for the Government to think again about this, and, if they do not think again about it, to tell us why it should be that liability should lie when there is no contract and that protection should lie when there is a contract.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As the noble Lord has pointed out, this amendment would have the effect of both widening the scope for secondary action and also, we would suggest, introducing a substantial element of uncertainty into what is, as drafted, a precise definition in subsection (6)(a) of the clause. The
728
clause provides that secondary action will retain immunity only if it satisfies certain conditions, one of which is the existence of a contract between the employer or supplier whose employees are taking the action and the employer in dispute. In effect, this amendment removes that condition. The clause quite deliberately defines the supplier or customer of the employer in the dispute in terms of contractual relationships existing during the dispute.
There are several reasons for this approach. First, it is precise. The existence of a commercial contract is a question of fact which can be capable of ready proof. Any alternative—including what is proposed in this amendment—would pose serious problems of interpretation for the courts in applying the legislation to particular circumstances. Secondly, it is most unusual for employers to contrive to do business without a contract. Firms simply do not arrange to buy or supply goods or services without agreeing the details of payment, delivery and so on. Such an agreement, whether written or not, constitutes a contract at law. If an employer had a contract which was concluded before the dispute began or there is a possibility that he might enter into a contract during or after it, that is no reason why he should be damaged by secondary action. Without such a contract he cannot supply goods to the employer in dispute or take them from him. And without such an active business relationship during the dispute, there is, in our judgement, no legitimate reason for taking secondary action against him.
A third reason for the reference to contracts is that, in common law, it is when contracts are interfered with that a cause of action arises. This clause itself opens by referring to the contract in question. If an employer does not have a contract for the supply of goods and services, then he has no cause of action in the event of any disruption to the supply of those goods or services, unless of course the industrial action which causes that disruption leads to the breach of other contracts to which he is a party. But I emphasise that it is very difficult actively to carry on business without a contract.
It was suggested that the unions would be unlikely to know the contractual

729
position. I really think that employees and their trade unions are not as ignorant of the business relationships of their employers as the noble Lord's remarks would suggest. Few employers can keep their order books or the source or destination of goods secret from their employees, even if they wished to do so. If a firm is providing goods or services directly to another employer, or receiving them from him, then there will be a contract. If an employer does not have a contract with an employer in dispute, he will be well advised to bring that fact to his employees' attention before secondary action by his employees gets very far, so that the organisers are aware of the risk of legal action if they go ahead.
If the situation is one which does not justify secondary action under the clause, one would expect the employer to bring that to the attention of his employees pretty quickly. As I said, the question of whether or not there is a contract is a matter which is capable of reasonably precise proof. I would invite the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord McCARTHY: I am afraid that we cannot accept the answers of the noble and learned Lord. As I have said, it is a fortuitous fact whether there is a contract. We have given many examples of when there need not be a contract, and from what he said the noble and learned Lord has actually suggested to employers that they should not have contracts and should tell their workers that they have not got contracts, and that therefore they cannot use secondary action. I am afraid we cannot withdraw this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
11.40 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 80E:
Page 19, line 33, after ("them") insert ("or between one of them and another person")
The noble Lord said: In a sense this is the mirror of the argument which has just been put, and I should have thought that it would now put the Government in some difficulty. The argument here is that as you can get through the gateway only by interfering with and disrupting supplies (and I quote from subsection (6)(a)) in pursuance of a contract between
730
them subsisting at the time—that is, between the employer in dispute and the secondary employer, if I may call him that and as he will become known—then it is really rather difficult to ask us to believe that this is a gateway to legality. The model set up by subsection (6)(a) is a child's guide to economic and industrial reality. In commercial life there is not just a contract between the supplier, the secondary employer and the employer in dispute: one may arrange with someone else to carry the goods; one may arrange with someone else to warehouse the goods, to process the goods, to deal with the goods in some other way.
Accepting that the Government now insist that it is interference with contract, direct disruption of supplies, and that the gateway to freedom is by contract, nevertheless, in that situation, by putting in the words "in pursuance of a contract between them" they allow the gateway to freedom only where the commercial contract which is relied upon in relation to Clause 16(1)(b) is that contract between the employer in dispute and the employer in the secondary action. That means that any other commercial contract, adding 16(1)(b) and (a) to subsection (2) in the light of the definition in subsection (6)(a) would amount to an illegal secondary action, because there would be secondary action within subsection (2) and an interference with a commercial contract within (1)(a) which was not a contract between them.
So the elementary justice, surely to be a gateway to legality at all it must include a case where there is a contract, for example, of carriage between one of the employers in order to fulfil the contract of supply. If that is not covered, the gateway to legality of secondary action disappears altogether, and the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, need not have been carried on at all, because (3) and (4) do not really exist. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: So far as I understand the argument to which we have just listened, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, seems to assume that the existence of some agent, middle man or carrier will mean that there is no direct contract between the two employers.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: No.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: In that case I have not understood what the noble Lord has been saying. It may well be my fault, but that is certainly how I understood him. In any case it seems to me that the essence of this matter is that the contractual relationship is required before one comes into Clause 16(1) at all and before one comes into the underlying tort which gives rise to this question. Therefore, I hold to the view—and I am sorry if I have misunderstood the noble Lord's argument on this matter—that the only reasonable basis on which the secondary action can be defined is by reference to existing contracts between them, defining the first supplier or first customer in that way.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: In order to encourage the noble and learned Lord to come back to the matter on Report, I put it in a sentence to explain where I think there is a misunderstanding. What I am saying is that the commercial contract in respect of which the action would be brought in court under Clause 16(1)(a), which is the ultimate point of the disruption, will be the contract of carriage, which will not qualify under Clause 16 subsections (3) and (4) because of the definition in Clause (6)(a). So the whole thing disappears in a whiff of smoke. We shall not divide, but we press the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 80F and 80G not moved.]
11.46 p.m.
Lord RENTON Lord RENTON moved Amendment No. 80GA:
Page 19, line 40, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 43
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 80GA. It would have the effect of leaving out of subsection (7) of Clause 16 these words:
"and for the purposes of this section employers shall be taken to be parties to any trade dispute in which they are represented by an employers' association"
This, in effect, definition of "employers" could have an important bearing upon whether or not an employer had a right to sue under subsection (2), the last two lines of which read:
732
"if the employer under the contract of employment is not a party to the trade dispute"
One well understands the position where there is an employers' organisation negotiating with a trade union and reaching certain agreements and falling into dispute collectively. But there could be occasions when an employer expressly disagreed with the action of the employers' association, or one could perhaps have a very small employer in an out-of-the-way part of the country who was not aware of what was happening but would nevertheless suffer, and who, apart from this provision, would be hampered by the expression used here. Of course, it all turns on what is meant by the expression "represented".
May I say that this is only a probing amendment in order to get from the Government some indication of what they really have in mind with these words? I should like an indication from the Government, if they are prepared to give it at this very short notice—and I have given no notice of what I was about to say —on the points I have mentioned, namely, the case of the employer who is a member of the association but not in agreement with their policy or not in agreement with the position they have taken up in the dispute, and that of the smaller man who is out on a limb. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: We are concerned in this amendment with the meaning of the words,
"and for the purposes of this section employers shall be taken to be parties to any trade dispute in which they are represented by an employers' association."
It seems right to extend the trade dispute parties in something of this direction. May I say what we have been trying to achieve? These words achieve two things: first, they ensure that an employer who is in dispute is regarded as being in dispute even where he passes the responsibility for negotiating a solution to that dispute to his employers' association. But in addition these words ensure that an employer is not regarded as a party to a dispute simply because he happens to be a member of an employers' association which is representing other employers who are in dispute. Therefore, to take the example which my noble friend gave, of a small employer who happens to be a member of a large organisation but has no interest in or desire to participate in a dispute the association is

733
carrying on on behalf of others, he would not be covered. We consider that the draftsmen have been very capable in picking a very concise phrase which achieves these two things at once.
The second purpose is the more important. The words "they are represented" are significant. An employer cannot be represented, in our view, in a dispute if he is not himself involved and has no interests to be protected or represented. It is important, as my noble friend has pointed out—and we are obliged to him for doing so—that employers should not be subjected to secondary action simply because they are members of the same employers' association as an employer in dispute. That is the point to which we have given careful consideration and the use of the phrase "represented by" is intended to cover precisely that point.
Lord RENTON: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I am convinced by his assurance and accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.50 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON moved Amendment No. 80J:
Page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 80J. We move this amendment formally to put it on the record.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 80K to 80P not moved.]
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 80Q:
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
(" (9) Where an applicant relies upon the provisions of subsection (1) above in an application falling within section 17(2) of the 1974 Act, the court shall not grant an injunction unless—

(a) a reasonable opportunity has been given to the party against whom the injunction is sought to cross examine any person who gives evidence; and

(b) that party fails to show the likelihood of establishing the matter or matters which would afford a defence within the meaning of that subsection under the provisions of the 1974 Act as amended by this Act.

(10) Where an application for interdict relies upon the provisions of subsection (1) above, subsection (3) of section 17 of the 1974 Act shall not apply; and, accordingly, subsection (2) of that section shall in such case apply to interdict as it applies to an injunction.").
The noble Lord said: As noble Lords opposite will have noted, a number of the amendments that we have put down we shall obviously come back to on Report. The Government have notice of them. As regards Amendment No. 80Q, in my view the issue of labour injunctions in regard to industrial action is a matter of great importance which should be dealt with in some manner in this Bill. In view, however, of the hour, and also of the fact that Amendment No. 80Q is a new clause dealing with this matter generally, in which I hope also to have the assistance of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones when the matter comes to be debated, it seems to us more appropriate to debate the matter once then rather than now and again later. Accordingly, with that explanation I shall not move the amendment.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
11.52 p.m.
Lord McCARTHY: Despite the lateness of the hour, the Committee would not expect us to let this clause go by without saying something. We must recite very quickly how we see this clause very much as it was when it began. The clause removes the overall protection of Section 13 of TULRA where strikes involve breach of commercial contract and involve workers not party to the original dispute. We see no case for the removal of that general protection. This clause promises to establish an extremely limited area of secondary action protection on the most stringent conditions. Indeed, many members of the Government party opposite have said tonight that they believe that the conditions are so stringent that in fact there is no cover at all.
A whole series of tests are put up for trade unionists to get through: the principal purpose test; the likelihood test; the substitution test; the contract test and the home base on site picketing test. They all have to be got through in order for workers to have lawful secondary action. We say that that makes a mockery of the very notion of secondary action.

735
We say that this will mean endless legal wrangling over whether the secondary action is directly or indirectly achieved; whether it is likely or unlikely; whether it is in substitution or not in substitution; whether there was a contract, or whether there was no contract at all.
More important than all these things, we have argued tonight, I think with great force and great clarity, and with no argument from the other side, that this clause reaches into the very heart of primary action. The Prime Minister in a speech which she made, I think, yesterday, when she was talking about the nation speaking to the people—or maybe it was the people speaking to the nation; I cannot remember which—said that we can strike ourselves down. But we can only work ourselves up. We are against this clause because we believe that there are many honest, hardworking trade union officials who in this field, as in the field of picketing, are struggling to get themselves upright, and this clause kicks them in the teeth.
11.55 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to say just a few words because the Prime Minister's manifesto was quoted: but at the end it was admitted what the Prime Minister meant when she said:
"We shall also make any further changes that are necessary so that a citizen's right to work and go about his lawful business free from intimidation or obstruction is guaranteed".
Every intelligent human being would want to agree with that. But we should like to know what the further action may be.
I shall take up just one further minute of time. Rather sadly, the marvellous work of ACAS and statutory bodies like that has been nullified by this clause. However at this late hour, much as I should like to expand on it for five or 10 minutes, I must not trespass longer on the time of the Committee. But it is a sad fact that ultimately, whatever the Government may think, that great organisation, the trade unions, will have to come face to face with the Prime Minister and with the other echelons of the Conservative Party to talk intelligently manto-man—well, she does act like a man! You cannot leave a mighty organisation such as this outside the orbit of intelligent discussion in the days of the micro-chip and new and modern technology.
The Earl of GOWRIE: We have had two major debates of great interest on Clause 16: first, an astonishing and riveting debate largely between my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, about whether there is a time-bomb ticking in this clause to prevent all forms of primary action—a measure which I do not think would receive any support even on this side of the Committee. It interested me very much that while both the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and my noble and learned friend agreed with each other that this was not the intention, the argument was as to whether it was the effect.
We then came to our debate with the amendments of—perhaps I should not say all-party or even Conservatives and CrossBenchers—some party, a dissident body: the barons' revolt. One of my difficulties is that I am not entirely ever on the side of the angels. I have considerable sympathy with the revolting barons in their intention, if not always in the effects. But I think that the strongest claim that the Government can make for their approach to trade union legislation is to try to move along the lines of broad acceptability of members of trade unions themselves. Whatever the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, tell us, with all their knowledge and experience, we still instinct that that is what we are doing and we instinct that that is what we are doing even when we are doing other things with which the union movement disagrees and which it does not like.
Finally, Clause 16 will require anyone contemplating sympathetic action at least to exercise the greatest care before doing so, to consider carefully the effects the action may have, what it is designed to achieve and against whom it is directed. If he does not pause and weigh all these matters carefully, he may well find that he is acting outside the immunity conferred by this clause and that the law does not protect him.
Noble Lords opposite see that as an extension, and they see it as a reason for criticising the clause. The Government are not in business to encourage secondary action or to make it easy to organise. On the contrary, we see no reason why someone who is contemplating sympathetic action should not be made to

737
pause and consider the consequences when these consequences can include putting businesses and jobs at risk and inflicting unnecessary hardship on the community.
We think we have made the first significant dent for a very long time on these kinds of practice, and that we have made it in a way which will endure in our industrial relations system. If we have done that, I think we shall have done a service to this country and to its economy which will certainly outlast us. That is why I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord McCARTHY: The noble Earl has been kind and stated clearly the intention of the Government that primary action should not be affected. If it turns out that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is right and the Government are wrong, and that primary action is affected, may I therefore ask him: Will the Government then introduce legislation, along some lines or other, immediately to protect primary action?
The Earl of GOWRIE: I should have thought it unlikely that the Government would look with any favour at a law passed in their name through Parliament which made striking illegal at any time, in any place, and under any circumstances. It really is no good noble Lords trying to whip us into a discussion about primary action. That is not what this clause is about. I have made it clear what the clause is about. I suspect that there is an element of guilty conscience in this objection, and I think this clause should at least be given a chance to pass into the industrial relations practice of this country where we feel it will work very well.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la and referred to the Examiners.
STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
BANGOR MARKET BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (CASTLE-FIELD) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  BRITISH RAIL: SUBSIDY AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
  BRITISH RAIL: SUBSIDY AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
  HERDED HORSE POPULATION
  HERDED HORSE POPULATION
  EL SALVADOR: USA MILITARY ASSISTANCE
  EL SALVADOR: USA MILITARY ASSISTANCE
  CAMBODIA: AID
  CAMBODIA: AID
  SHEEPMEAT: EUROPEAN AGREEMENT AND NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS
  SHEEPMEAT: EUROPEAN AGREEMENT AND NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE: BLOOMSBURY PROPERTY
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE: BLOOMSBURY PROPERTY
  PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS: INDEX-LINKING
  PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS: INDEX-LINKING