Sitting of 25 October 1982

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
Lords amendments agreed to.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
Read a Second Time and committed.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration of Lords amendments read. To be considered tomorrow.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.
Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to seek their concurrence thereto.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INDUSTRY

    Microelectronics
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Industry how many grants have been given under the microelectronics industry support programme in each year since its inception to firms in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and what were the total amounts of money involved in each year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): No support under the microelectronics industry support programme has been given to companies in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, but companies in the region have benefited from the schemes designed to encourage the development and use of new technologies.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that that type of answer demonstrates the Government's attitude to the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Is he aware that there is high unemployment in that area? Does he agree that new technology should be introduced to help young people who remain in Yorkshire and Humberside? Is he aware that although we do riot expect silicone valleys to be formed in Yorkshire, there is high unemployment in the Dearne Valley—about 23·5 per cent. in the Mexborough district area? When will the Government do something for the area?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The programme about which he asked relates specifically to microelectronics industry support. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is little industry in Yorkshire and Humberside that is associated with the manufacture of microelectronic components to which the programme is directed.
    The Government are encouraging new technologies in Yorkshire and Humberside with about 120 grants and projects and other technology schemes. The hon. Gentleman is on o good point. We should publicise the schemes more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so in his region.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall have briefer questions. There will then be briefer replies.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend tell the House why the Government are likely to be more successful in backing winners in microeletronics than the previous Government were in backing winners in the motor industry?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that the Government are strongly emphasising the encouragement of microtechnology in industry. We are likely to be more successful because industry is responding to the many measures that we are introducing.
    Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that there are 300,000 unemployed people in Yorkshire and Humberside and that his Department has withdrawn assisted area status from many parts of the region? If the Government will not

    717
    help in that way, what will they do to replace the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost in textiles and engineering?
    Mr. MacGregor: A later question relates to assisted area status. We have already debated the matter with regard to Yorkshire. With regard to new industries—especially those making use of microtechnologies—there has been a take-up in Yorkshire and Humberside of schemes that are still available. I hope that many more will be taken up.

    British Leyland
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has yet made a decision as to a successor to Sir Michael Edwardes as chairman of British Leyland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): British Leyland announced on 31 August that Sir Austin Bide would become non-executive chairman of BL on 8 November. This appointment, which was made by the BL board, was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as provided in the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the company.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an encouraging appointment? Does he have it in mind to give any assistance to the work of Sir Michael's successor in terms of the operations of at least one European non-EEC country that is imposing very high tariffs in respect of its internal car production, which is resulting in unfair competition?
    Mr. Butcher: I am sure that Sir Austin will need very little help in his executive capacity, as he already knows his way around the City and Whitehall, and he has been a member of the BL board for some time. My hon. Friend also hinted at a very controversial point. We view with great misgiving the imbalance in trading arrangements between Spain and Britain and we look forward to some sharp action, with the Commission taking into account the views expressed by my hon. Friend on previous public occasions.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Minister give an assurance that the appointment of Sir Austin will not lead to the privatisation of BL? Is he aware that morale has been built up in BL and any move towards privatisation and breaking up the company, which is now based on a heavy input of taxpayers' money, would be disastrous for the company?
    Mr. Butcher: BL consciously moved from having one executive chairman to having a part-time chairman and two group chief executives operating major separate business units. We regard that new structure as a means towards the earlier introduction of private capital and, in due course, denationalisation—or rather, the full introduction of majority shareholding from the private sector.
    Mr. Major: The appointment is most welcome, but can my hon. Friend assure us that Sir Austin will show more tact and diplomacy than the Liberal canvassers who arrived at the BL Longbridge plant in Mercedes cars, and would he care to speculate on the sort of reception that they received?
    Mr. Butcher: That is certainly a moot point. I believe that there is a clear duty upon those who advocate a "Buy British" policy and claim to represent British interests to pursue that line of thought in their own buying habits.
    Mr. Golding: In considering this matter, will the Minister take account of the many thousands of unemployed people in the Birmingham, Northfield constituency who have experience in that industry and are desperately seeking work in an area devastated by the Government's economic policies?
    Mr. Butcher: Having fought the Northfield constituency myself in 1974—[HON. MEMBERS: "What was the result?"] Unfortunately, Northfield fought back on that occasion—I, too, am aware of, and sympathise with, the feelings of Northfield workers, but if they benefit from Sir Austin's management capabilities as his Glaxo employees did, their job prospects will be enhanced.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of BL will come up again later.

    Information Technology Centres
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of establishing information technology centres.
    The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): We are making good progress towards the 100 centres that I announced at the end of last year; 59 centres have been approved and 27 of these are already in operation. I have been delighted with the response from potential sponsors, who see this as one of the most successful schemes that we have introduced for the post-school training of unemployed youngsters. I am pleased to tell the House that, in co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, we have decided to extend the scheme to at least 150 centres.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a rapid increase in the number of ITeCs in the Northern region? In particular, what has happened to the representations that I have been making for a long time for the establishment of such a centre at Peterlee in my constituency? Finally, what are the Government doing to link the work of ITeCs with permanent employment?
    Mr. Baker: An application has been received from Peterlee and is proceeding favourably. There will be an ITeC there. With regard to the Northern region generally, I am glad to note that the centres approved so far have been outside the South-East of England as it is very important for ITeCs to make their contribution to the technological base referred to earlier in relation to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. I am also glad to say that for youngsters going through the training centres, most of whom left school without any 0-level or CSE qualification, the placement rate is very high. That is why I am anxious that an industrial company should sponsor each ITeC.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a general impression that the centres have been extremely successful? Can he assure us that there will be monitoring to allow the presentation of more precise information about the success of youngsters going through the centres and the benefits for their employers? Finally, is he satisfied with the extension of the centres in Scotland?
    Mr. Baker: Scotland has a proportionately fair share of the centres and it will have a fair share of the extra 50 that I have announced today. As regards publicity for the centres, I welcome the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House, as this is one of the most effective initiatives in post-school training that we have undertaken.
    Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that there are virtually no training materials available for ITeCs and that the Government's ITeC consultancy unit is overwhelmed with work and cannot produce the materials required? Does he agree that this is analogous with the micros in schools project, under which 25,000 primary schools are to have computers, but for which the Department of Education and Science will not make available a syllabus, teaching materials or teachers? What is the point of announcing these grand schemes if no support is provided when they are set up?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates, and he is wrong. Under the micros in schools scheme we provide the hardware and we shall also provide some money for software support. I assure the House that training material for the ITeCs is in place and available. There are already more than 600 students at the centres and I expect that number to increase dramatically in the next few months.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of the steel industry.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made on Friday.
    Mr. Taylor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance on Friday that he will use all his powers to ensure that other EEC nations cut their capacity, as we have, and stop cheating on prices, but will he make it absolutely clear that in the absence of progress on both those matters he will not close his mind to the possibility of controls on imports from the Continent, which now amount to more than three-fifths of all our imports?
    Mr. Jenkin: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I shall indeed press the matters to which he refers with vigour and with the intention that we should produce results. The last part of his question is in a sense hypothetical, but I take careful note of his views.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House may as well know at the beginning that I propose to call three hon. Members from each side on this question, as it is the only question about steel today.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Bearing in mind the huge closures and redundancies in past years and the horrible effects on the steel communities, will the Minister pledge that he will implement decisive measures to protect us from cheating imports? Will he also give realistic help on energy costs? Will he make it clear that the sacrifices of the steel communities in Britain, which are now languishing wretchedly with mass unemployment, will not have been in vain, in the light of the emergency now facing the industry?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am very conscious of the substantial cutbacks that have been made in both the public and the
    720
    private sector of the steel industry. I must point out, however, that they were not made in any spirit of sacrifice to the dictates of the Community. They were necessary to restore viability to our own industry. It is also important to recognise that the level of steel imports as a proportion of our market is significantly lower than that in France or Germany. The figure for Britain is 28 per cent., while for France it is 43 per cent. and for Germany 35 per cent. We must also bear that in mind as we consider these issues in the months ahead.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Notwithstanding the statistics that my right hon. Friend has given, does he accept that unless we ensure that these imports are stopped, all the sacrifices that have been made in the past two or three years, albeit very necessary ones in certain circumstances, will come to nothing? Does he realise that our steel industry will cease to exist unless, if necessary, we flout the Common Market regulations if the other EEC countries cannot agree to what my right hon. Friend will put to them?
    Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, I cannot agree that it would be right for the Government to stop imports into this country. There has been a traditional trade in steel, both imports and exports, over many years. We need to ensure that the stabilisation regime to which we have agreed with the rest of the Community is effective and operates fairly. That was the burden of my conversations in Brussels on Thursday with Vice-President Davignon and Commissioner Andriessen. We are not prepared to stand by and see our efforts to rationalise production frustrated because other countries are not prepared to do the same.
    Miss Maynard: Will the Minister guarantee that another rationalisation in the EEC steel industry will not mean that Britain takes a much bigger knock than any other country?
    When will the Government subsidise energy for the British steel industry so that it can compete with its competitors, particularly from the EEC? Will the Government not insist on balancing the books until Britain's steel industry is closed down entirely? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no further cuts in jobs or capacity?
    Mr. Jenkin: I do not intend to preside over the closure of the British steel industry, and I hope that the hon. Lady will take that assurance as well intentioned.
    I am aware that some disparities in energy costs still exist, despite the substantial Government help that has been given in two successive Budgets. There are still disparities between the costs met by the British steel industry and those overseas, to which we are giving attention.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend explain to all hon. Members that we cannot have it both ways? It is no good compaining that other EEC countries are cheating if, at the same time, we refuse to accept the rules laid down by the Davignon plan which ensure that there are fair shares. Is it not perfectly plain that whatever the short-term considerations might be—
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Whose side is my hon. Friend on?
    Sir Anthony Meyer: —the only long-term hope for preserving jobs in the steel industry is effective European

    721
    measures to ensure that the European steel industry has the maximum bargaining power in dealing with steel from outside?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will agree that the stabilisation measures which have been put into practice are essential for the health of the European steel industry. At the same time, that does not remove from the British steel industry the obligation to be as efficient as possible to compete as effectively as possible within that regime for a share of the market.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not clear from the figures given to the Government by the British steel industry's private sector that import levels in special steels are commonly greater than 50 per cent. and in some areas are as high as 80 per cent.? Is it not also clear that those special steel manufacturers cannot survive that level of penetration, and that unless the Government relax their cash limits on the corporation the five remaining major plants will not be able to survive? Do not the workers in those plants deserve a guarantee from the Government now that their jobs will be secure?
    Mr. Jenkin: At the June meeting of the Industry Ministers' Council I called for a report from the Commission on the position of special steels. I hope that we shall have that report in time for the meeting next month of the informal Council in Denmark. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I regard that as a matter of great importance.
    I cannot, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to, stand here and give a categorical, cast-iron assurance that every job in every steelworks will be safe. We must tailor steel capacity to the anticipated demand. I have called for options on that from BSC' s chairman so that the Government can decide how best to approach the matter.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the output of British manufacturing industry during the first three quarters of 1982; and how it compares with the same period in 1980 and 1981, respectively.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Figures for the third quarter of 1982 are not yet available. In the first half of 1982 the index of manufacturing output averaged 89, compared with 99 in the first half of 1980 and 88 in the first half of 1981.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that while no one can be happy about those figures, the great issue is how to deal with them? While no Conservative Member wants a general reflation of the economy, we believe that there is a strong case for selective import controls on those who cheat.
    Secondly, there is a case for advancing public sector investment in those areas where it will be made one day, such as replacing frigates for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Baker: I share my hon. Friend's views about the figures that I have announced. They show that the trough in manufacturing was reached in the first quarter of 1981, since when there has been only a modest recovery.
    I re-emphasise what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box a week ago about import controls. As
    722
    consumer sales are so buoyant, if more people can be persuaded to buy goods made in Britain, it will have a ripple effect throughout the economy.
    A group from the Machine Tools Trade Association is going to Japan this week with the Government's full support to negotiate a voluntary restriction agreement on the import of machine tools from Japan.
    Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that the director of the Manchester chamber of commerce said only this week that there can be no hope of industrial recovery in our region under present Government policy? The chamber specifically asked for a programme of infrastructure investment and a revamping of regional policy. Is there any hope of a positive Government response to those specific requests?
    Mr. Baker: Those matters were taken into account by the Government in the formulation of their policy. The essential precondition for Britain's industrial and economic recovery is the further reduction in the rate of inflation. If that can be reduced below 5 per cent. , which is the main thrust of our economic policy, we may be able to move to a period of proper and sustained growth.
    Mr. Eastham: During the Government's lifetime, manufacturing output has declined by 18 per cent. Is it not true to say that national output is now the lowest since 1931?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is not unique to Britain. The drop in American manufacturing between the second quarter of 1981 and the second quarter of 1982 was 10 per cent. compared to 0·5 per cent. in Britain.
    Mr. Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats to British manufacturing output is the increasing tendency to see in import controls a way out of our problems? Does he further agree that it is useless to support the principle of free trade while opposing each practical example of its application?
    Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that his Department will not present measures to the House that are a response to special pleading for just one more example of protection? Will he confirm that that amounts to a policy of picking losers?
    Mr. Baker: We should all be aware that arguments for across-the-board import control are a seductive but wrong answer to Britain's economic problems. A protected economy will become a museum economy. However, we must ensure that free trade is also fair trade.
    Mr. Orme: Do any of our main competitors practice free trade? Does Japan? What progress did the Prime Minister make with the Japanese with regard to their export of machine tools to the United Kingdom? What will the Government do about the number of Japanese cars that are coming into Britain at the moment? As the Secretary of State recently said at the motor show, our market is now saturated to 60 per cent.
    Mr. Baker: The car arrangement with Japan is voluntary and the Japanese have stuck to it for the past two years in agreeing to restrict their import level to about 11 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. This week a group of business men from the Machine Tools Trade Association is in Japan as a result of the initiative that the Prime Minister took when she was there.

    British Leyland
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Industry how many staff in his Department are engaged in monitoring the activities of British Leyland.
    Mr. Butcher: Some eight officials in my Department, including accountants on secondment to the Department, are regularly involved for some of their time in monitoring the activities of BL.
    Mr. Dalyell: What lessons has the Department of Industry learnt from the sale and subsequent cannibalisation of the tractor line at Bathgate, on which the Public Accounts Committee has reported?
    Mr. Butcher: One of the major lessons that we have learnt concerns the vigour with which the hon. Gentleman pursues his constituents' interests. I thank him for having had the courtesy to see the permanent secretary at the Department and my hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. In due course we intend to respond to the Public Accounts Committee on several of the issues, including some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised. However, I am sure that he will understand that it would be a discourtesy to the PAC if I were to trail or anticipate that response.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to appoint an outstanding leader for the whole of British Leyland, in the way that General Montgomery was appointed to the Eighth Army 40 years ago, than to have officials in the Department spending many hours monitoring its activities?
    Mr. Butcher: I know that my hon. Friend is an advocate of leading from the front. I have already assured the House that I believe that we have the right man and men for that job.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Minister deny press reports that parts of British Leyland, such as Jaguar and Unipart, are to be sold?
    Mr. Butcher: We have yet to see BL's corporate plan, but at the current state of the art there are no formal proposals to sell parts of BL.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Commercial judgments must be paramount, but will my hon. Friend do everything possible to encourage the new management to buy British car components?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. We all recall the days when British Leyland asked for large sums of taxpayers' money, partly on the basis that BL had an important role to play in succouring British component manufacturers. We do not say that BL should buy British merely for the sake of it, but, when making decisions on sourcing, it should remember much of its previous argument, which strengthened the Government's resolve to give it financial support.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Cowansasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has had any recent discussions within the European Economic Community about policies for shipbuilding; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): No. There are no Commission
    724
    proposals before the Council regarding Community policy on shipbuilding aids. Intra-Community discussions on the successor to the fifth directive are currently taking place at official level.
    Mr. Cowans: I thank the Minister for that illuminating answer. I am sure that the shipyard workers will be duly impressed. However, is it not abundantly clear that no policies will be forthcoming from the EEC to save the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry as we know it from virtual destruction? Is it not time that the Government took action and increased not only demand but the intervention fund amount? Is it not also time that they increased the levels at which the intervention fund can be used? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the terrible situation facing the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear? Does he intend to wait until the industry is destroyed before taking any action?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's constituents may be more impressed by the fact that the Government have put more than £600 million into British Shipbuilders. Putting more money—via the Common Market—into an industry with gross over-capacity is not the right answer.
    Mr. Colvin: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the repair in British yards of Royal Fleet auxiliaries damaged in the Falklands campaign?
    Mr. Lamont: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend. For some time the policy has been for a considerable proportion of ship repair to be done in such yards, but I know that my hon. Friends are anxious that the private sector should also receive its share of such work.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is it true that British Shipbuilders on Wearside are being denied the opportunity offered by two overseas orders simply because the credit terms and financial arrangements are not forthcoming and the ECGD will not give support to British Shipbuilders for those orders? Should not the Government at least get such things right? The corporation has won the opportunity to build the ships but the Government will not allow British Shipbuilders the financial arrangements to enable it to get on with the job.
    Mr. Lamont: It is all very well to say that, but the Government have made available a combination of favourable credit terms and production subsidies. The two together compare very favourably with the aid given to shipbuilding in many other countries.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of British Shipbuilders has provided both me and the Department with information that shows that we subsidise our shipbuilders and owners to a lesser extent than any other EEC country? Why do we play according to the EEC rules when every other EEC country plays according to its own rules?
    Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with my hon. Friend or with his conclusions. One must consider the credit and production aids together. Taken together, they show that we compare well with other countries. Indeed, that is before the £600 million of unremunerated public dividend capital that has been gut into British Shipbuilders is taken into account. Our aid compares well with that given by other countries. What we lack is productivity.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's special measures for small businesses.
    Mr. MacGregor: We have introduced now nearly 100 measures in order to improve the working environment for small businesses, covering, among other things, taxation, finance, planning, premises, employment legislation, reduction in administrative burdens and advisory services. There continues to be a substantial take-up of many schemes.
    Mr. Durant: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the many measures that the Government have introduced to help small businesses, but is he aware of the importance of small businesses to the Reading and Thames Valley area? Is he further aware of the importance of the help that should be forthcoming—although it is not always—from the major banks? Does he agree that local government should keep rates low in order to help small businesses?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the importance of small businesses in my hon. Friend's area and in most local economies. However, substantial improvements have been made in recent years in the way in which the banks respond. The loan guarantee scheme has also helped small businesses. It is important that the range of advisory services for small businesses should be expanded so that business men can get the right advice. The small firms information service has expanded greatly recently and my hon. Friend may be interested to know that I am considering the opening of a small firms information service office in his area.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minster aware that two firms in St. Helens have recently closed, adding many men and women to the already high number of unemployed? Will he examine the situation in St. Helens and Merseyside carefully and see what he can do about granting special development area status to St. Helens?
    Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have considered the grant of assisted area status, but there need to be exceptional reasons for changing the decisions announced in July. I am conscious of the role that small firms can play in the St. Helens area, in view of the reduction in the number of those employed in the larger firms. The St. Helens' Enterprise Trust's achievement in finding new jobs is one of the big success stories, and I shall visit it shortly to see for myself.
    Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. Friend discuss with his colleagues the possibility of greater discrimination in favour of small firms in the procurement policies of nationalised industries and of central and local goverment? I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that that would greatly help them.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the importance of that area of the economy to small firms, but it is a difficult area in which to proceed. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. I have recently been to the United States of America to see what the Americans are doing. I shall continue to take a close interest in the matter. Indeed, the Department is reviewing it.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that the current unprecedented wave of collapse of small
    726
    businesses shows that the Government's cosmetic measures cannot make up for the basic lack of demand caused by the Government's economic policies? That is the crucial factor about small businesses. All these little measures to aid the setting up of small businesses are as nothing when compared with the lack of demand on which small businesses depend.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman forgets that we are living in an acute world-wide recession, as I discovered when I went to the United States. He will know that there is a tremendous amount of constructive buoyancy in small firms at present. Last year, 15,000 more firms started up in business than went out of existence. That is an indication of that buoyancy. If the hon. Gentleman examines the article today in the Financial Times, he will see a further very good example of how it is happening.

    Small Industrial Units
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the availability of small industrial units.
    Mr. MacGregor: A recent study carried out by my Department indicated that the annual rate of supply of small workshops has probably tripled since the introduction of the 100 per cent. industrial building allowance for small industrial premises in 1980. There remains a shortage generally of the very small units, under 1,250 sq. ft. and this allowance has been extended for another two years for those units. In assisted areas of England where this tax allowance has failed to stimulate the supply of small premises by private developers, the English Industrial Estates Coporation has been very active with a substantial building programme of small units.
    Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the large amount of work that he has done to ensure that we produce some small industrial units. Is he convinced that there is enough incentive for large companies which have large premises which they no longer wish to use to convert those premises to small units? Furthermore, is he satisfied that local authorities are giving enough priority to ensuring that small units are created when they are producing their development plans for planning purposes?
    Mr. MacGregor: First, it is open to large firms to sell redundant premises and for developers to take advantage of the industrial building allowance to make the conversions. That is happening in a number of cases. Secondly, many local authorities are doing a considerable amount in this area, but they can help small firms by being constructive in the way in which they approach applications for planning permission.
    Mr. Foster: Will the Minister take account of the fact that, for example, in South-West Durham, which does not attract special development status or even development area status now, the English Industrial Estates Corporation is not doing very much by way of providing small workshop space? Will he examine a scheme, which the local authorities may put to him, for granting them money to adapt existing redundant premises to create small workshop space?
    Mr. MacGregor: The English Industrial Estates Corporation is doing a good deal. There is a heavy

    727
    emphasis now on small units in its programme. It has built a substantial number and has a substantial number planned for the future. It is interesting to note that a great deal of that is now being provided through private sector finance.
    I have not yet seen the details of the individual scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I cannot comment until he lets me have them.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the cost of small advance factory units? For example, is he aware that such units provided under the auspices of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas in my constituency could be built for substantially less if they were built to lower but equally acceptable specifications than are currently demanded by his Department?
    Mr. MacGregor: COSIRA operates within another Department, but I am in constant touch with the chairman of COSIRA and the Development Commission. If my hon. Friend will let me have details, I should be prepared to look into them with the chairman.
    Mr. Park: Does the Minister acknowledge that Coventry, with its crumbling industrial situation, is worried, not about the availability, but about the cost of premises? The Minister is responsible for the small business area. When businesses are to be relocated and they are offered new units, generally speaking such premises are beyond the prices that small businesses can afford. The Minister should pay some attention to this matter. When small businesses are to be relocated, they should be given some assistance to go into the properties that are available.
    Mr. MacGregor: That is certainly not the case with the many developments that I have seen. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking in particular about people who are starting up in business—often uncertain about their future and how business will go—licences are an appropriate way of providing help at that stage. I have seen developments in the West Midlands along those lines.

    British Telecom
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he proposes to meet the leaders of the Post Office Engineers Union to discuss the privatisation of British Telecom.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I met the general secretary and other Post Office Engineering Union officials last Monday 18 October, and I offered further meetings as progress with the Telecommunications Bill develops.
    Mr. Renton: I fully understand the concern of union leaders about redundancies, but has my right hon. Friend made the point to them that, after privatisation, there are likely to be more engineering jobs in the telecommunications industry? Is not the whole business of telecommunications, with its association with cable television, set on a path of expansion which will lead to more, not fewer, skilled jobs in competitive companies?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is borne out by the experience of the private sector companies in America. The other point, which I made as forcefully as I could to the union leaders, is that they are seeking partnerships in the development of cable with the
    728
    cable operating companies, but it does not generate confidence in BT and its work force when they engage in political strikes, such as the one we saw on Wednesday.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Secretary of State agree that trade union members within the industry are attempting to defend their industry not only for their jobs but for the community as a whole? Has the right hon. Gentleman met the other trade unions involved—there are six major unions involved, three of which are not affiliated to the TUC—which are as strongly opposed to this proposed denationalisation as is the POEU? Does he agree that breaking up this company is not in the interests of the British taxpayer or the workers in the company?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have always thought that the opposition to the Government's proposals is based on a misunderstanding. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has clearly misunderstood what we are going to do. There is no question of breaking up BT. It is proposed that BT, as an integral organisation, should offer shares to the public, so that the public can finance more of the investment in BT, rather than that such financing should fall on telephone subscribers as it does at the moment. That is not breaking up 3T. It is a single integral network, and it will be retained as such.
    Mr. McQuarrie: In any further discussions that my right hon. Friend may have with the trade unions, will he give them an assurance that there will be a built-in safeguard regarding the services in rural areas, such as my own, in any privatisation of British Telecom?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will know that I have already given a categoric undertaking to the House, and I repeated it to the unions, that the licence that we shall issue to BT when the Bill becomes law will place upon that organisation an obligation to maintain telecommunications in rural areas. Anyone who is entitled to a telephone now will not be refused access to the telephone network in future. If my hon. Friend would use his very considerable influence in his area to persuade the public that the unions' scares are lies, he will do great service to the Government.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Secretary of State prepared to guarantee that all uneconomic kiosks that are now provided will remain after privatisation? Is he further prepared to guarantee that increases in charges in rural areas and small tow ns will be no greater after privatisation than those for business consumers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a row going on in the United States Congress at present because of the fear of excessive increases in telephone charges for residential subscribers?
    Mr. Jenkin: Like his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand what the Government plan to do. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters. He knows that in the United States, as a result of the consent decree, the Bell Telephone Corporation was forced to hive of F its local networks into separate companies. As a result, the separate companies, which were subsidised by the main network, will have to increase their charges. I am not proposing any comparable hiving off here.—[Interruption.] The new office of telecommunications will have to ensure that pricing is fair between different categories of users.
    Mr. Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? Is it in order for a right hon. or hon.

    729
    Gentleman to categorise people as liars, even if they are not Members of the House and cannot answer back? Is that a correct procedure?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Only when such people are not Members of the House is it in order.
    Mr. Golding: Let me make it clear that I am not—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going into the argument; we are discussing a point of order. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be pursuing an argument. If he has a point of order on which I can rule, I shall.
    Mr. Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not rise to the taunt of "liar" because I thought it to be false. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that such a taunt was not out of order if it did not apply to a Member of the House. I am included in the category described because I am assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union. If such a description should not be applied to a Member of the House, I ask that the remark be withdrawn.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When a general category is named, no hon. Member in particular is supposed to be in the mind of the right hon. or hon. Member who makes the remark.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Official Secrets Act (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Rentonasked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions he has authorised under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act since May 1979.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Since May 1979 I have authorised proceedings in two cases under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, against one defendant in each case. I have also authorised proceedings in one case, against two defendants, under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1920.
    Mr. Renton: Have any of the prosecutions related to matters currently being debated in the media, particularly in regard to security leaks from the Cheltenham communications centre?
    The Attorney-General:The story to which my hon. Friend refers is based on an article in an American newspaper, which names the person against whom I have authorised proceedings under section 1 of the 1911 Act. That case is sub judice. The House will understand that it would not be right to have further public discussion until the trial is completed.
    Mr. Archer: Having persuaded the High Court that there would be a serious danger to national security if the book "A Matter of Trust" by Mr. Nigel West were published by Weidenfeld's, is it true, as reported in The Sunday Times yesterday, that, nevertheless, it is likely to be published in America? If so, does it mean that controls in Britain are too draconian, or should we conclude that the security secrets of America's allies are insufficiently protected in the United States?
    The Attorney-General: That does not arise out of the question. I know only what I have read in the newspapers about the apparent intentions of the American publisher.
    Mr. Beith: On 20 July the Prime Minister said that if any evidence emerged against other persons relating to the
    730
    Government's communications headquarters it would be referred to the DPP and that it would be for the Attorney-General to decide whether any charges under section 1 should be pursued. Is there any further evidence, and has the Attorney-General had to consider further charges relating to other persons?
    The Attorney-General: I have had nothing in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman asks. The matter is totally unrelated to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The Attorney-General has rightly said that one case under section 1 is sub judice in relation to the communications and intelligence centre at Cheltenham. However, arising from the reports, from history and from the assurances by the Prime Minister on 20 July, is the Attorney-General's Department motivated to carry out any investigations at all in connection with the centre beyond that of the sub judice matter?
    The Attorney-General: Any question of investigations into the measures for security in any Government premises is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Adleyasked the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the last three months he has referred matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions directly as a result of specific information passed to him by hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to those matters that I have brought to the Director's attention into which he was not already making inquiries or of which he was not already aware. In three instances during the last three months have I referred such matters to the Director. I do not propose to make a statement.
    Mr. Adley: Recalling the campaign of denigration against the Metropolitan Police launched by the Liberal Party last July, which is referred to by Sir David McNee in The Guardian today as
    "the unsubstantiated allegations of anonymous criminals against police officers Mr. Steel refused to name"
    were any of the three cases which he has named referred to him by members of the Liberal Party? If so, will my right hon. and learned Friend say something further? If not, does he agree that the campaign was deplorable and should be condemned?
    The Attorney-General: No cases or evidence have been referred to me for some months by any Member of of the Liberal Party in respect of the Countryman investigation. Indeed, the second paragraph of the letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Leader of the Liberal Party, which is in the Library, states:
    "You agreed at our meeting that no new information requiring investigation was in your possession."

    Operation Countryman
    Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General how many matters, arising from the Operation Countryman investigation, are still before the Director of Public Prosecutions for decision.
    The Attorney-General: None.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is much public disquiet about the failure—I use that word advisedly—of Operation Countryman? Is he aware that that public concern will not be stilled by denials from retired police officers, no matter how eminent? Does he further agree that he and the Home Secretary have a responsibility to carry out a full investigation into the whole sorry business?
    The Attorney-General: The problem was that the original Countryman investigation was carried away on a wave of optimism. Figures as high as 80 potential cases were given at one time, but when the evidence in respect of those cases was looked at with care, many times it was found to be hearsay upon hearsay. Often the evidence was from people with serious convictions who may have had a score to settle against particular police officers or against the police force in general.
    When the complaints of obstruction came to light, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, the then chief constable in charge of the investigation issued a statement denying that there had been any obstruction. Shortly after that, I had a long meeting with him and Sir Peter Matthews, who was to take over from him. We went through everything that was there, and in the end the sort of obstruction that I could identify in the complaints was, for example, that the Director had not agreed to a general immunity against anybody that we wanted to call as a witness, even though that might be in a serious armed robbery case, such as the Williams and Glyn's bank case. For years the Director has refused to give such blanket immunities. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that is proper.
    There were one or two complaints about the Director's representative working in Surrey with the Countryman force. When one looked into them, they were found not to be cases of obstruction of any kind. The meeting ended with a resolve on all sides that the inquiry should go forward with renewed vigour.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: In view of the criticisms made by Sir David McNee in his memoirs of the way in which the Operation Countryman team worked and his allegations that the inquiry went much wider than was necessary, will the Attorney-General tell the House how closely the DPP kept in touch with and advised those carrying out the investigations?
    The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions did everything that he could to keep closely in touch, but, unfortunately, from time to time Countryman officers did things that could not be justified. Without telling the Director that they had done so they arrested a senior officer on a charge that had nothing to do with Countryman. He did not learn about it for some weeks. There was found to be no evidence when the facts were analysed, and the officer had to be discharged.
    In another case the Countryman officers sought to support a bail application in a Surrey case involving, a villain in Surrey when the Surrey police were opposing bail. Mr. Hambleton admitted to me at the meeting that both of those actions were wrong. Those were the sorts of problems that were occurring. Tight control can be exercised by the Director only if somebody reacts to that tight control when it is sought to be imposed.
    Later—
    Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that we lost two minutes of Question Time because points of order were raised. While it was entirely appropriate for you to take them if you wished, on many occasions you have reminded the House that we should wait until the end of Question Time. Would it be desirable to stress that again?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If hon. Members raise points of order during Question Time, I must show the House that it suffers, and therefore bring Questions to an end at exactly 3.30.

De Lorean Motor Company
3.30 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (By Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the affairs of the De Lorean Motor Company.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): As I announced on 19 October, as no investor had come forward to take over De Lorean Motor Company Ltd., the receivers were proceeding to a final rundown of the company's Dunmurry plant. I greatly regret the loss of many jobs to Northern Ireland. I understand that in the last few days a number of interests in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America have been in touch with the joint receivers, to explore the possibilities either of purchasing the stock of cars held in Belfast or of acquiring the entire business as a going concern. No detailed proposals have yet been referred by the receivers to the Government. Any such proposals would be considered on their merits.
Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has already done so much damage in the Province by his obdurate refusal to take any notice of sound advice and accurate information, give an assurance that, in addition to any inquiries which may be set on foot by Committees of the House, the Government as such will inquire into the eventual destination of the sums of public money which have come into the hands of the company and into any relationship, financial or otherwise, between that company and its chairman and the IRA?
Mr. Prior: As soon as the receivers were appointed they were asked to carry out such an investigation into the affairs of the company. I am awaiting their report. They have been trying to resurrect the company in the meanwhile. I have no evidence about the accusations of a connection between the chairman of the company and the IRA. If anyone has evidence of a correct kind—I emphasise the word "correct"—perhaps he will come forward with it.
Mr. Clive Soley: While dealing with a difficult matter, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the work force on its significant achievements over the years at the De Lorean plant? Let no one underestimate its achievements because of one man's problems. In 18 months, in an area of mass unemployment, the work force turned a green field site into a factory producing modern cars. No one should lose sight of that fact. Nor should the House lose sight of the importance of supporting the work force in Northern Ireland in an area where the unemployment rate is 35 per cent.
Mr. Prior>: Yes, Sir. It was a remarkable feat to have an untrained work force and turn it into a trained work force producing cars within three years of the factory being started. It reflects enormous credit upon the work force, and it is with deep regret that I have to say that we have not been able to find anyone to keep the plant going.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two hon. Members from either side, and then to move on to the guillotine business.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Much wrong advice has been given, many wrong decisions have been taken and much public money has been wasted. Surely we should have a full public inquiry.
Mr. Prior: The Public Accounts Committee is in any case to investigate what has happened. It is an extremely sorry story. The receiver's report will shortly be made available to the Government. The Cooper Lybrand report has been available, and at times there have been police investigations. There is a great deal of information available, and no doubt there is more to come.
Mr. Tom McNally: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statement by the spokesman for the official Opposition is almost identical to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry after it visited Northern Ireland this year? There is a lot of support in the House for the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to get Japanese, American, West German, European and British investment into Northern Ireland, and this one unhappy episode should not be allowed to deflect him from the effort of getting jobs to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I agree that nothing should deflect us from trying to get jobs for the people of Northern Ireland. Nor should some exaggerated reports of the state of Northern Ireland be allowed to stop jobs from going there.
Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the heartbreaking number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland, will the Government, despite their experience with De Lorean over the past few years, do all in their power to get a buyer to take over this company, to provide some hope for the people?
Mr. Prior: It is important for the people in Northern Ireland, let alone the House, to make certain that projects are proceeded with only when they are seen to be properly viable and there is a chance of success, otherwise Northern Ireland and the House and everything else that we try to do come into disrepute, as in this case.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Should the Government not learn the simple lesson that when public money is spent on industry the best way to ensure public accountability is through public ownership? In view of the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that the Government have spent in trying to bail out the De Lorean company, what guarantee have we that the Government will not spend another £3 million of taxpayers' money to bail De Lorean out of gaol?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I do not believe that many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will agree with his remarks. He should be a little careful, because it was his Government who started the project.

Employment Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [20 April] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 20 April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not prevously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Lords Amendments

Time for Conclusion

1

7.00 pm

2 to 14

8.00 pm

15 to 22

9.15 pm

23 to 41

10.00 pm

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, that this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Questions already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message;

736

(ii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.— [Interruption.]
Hon. Members should not chime in there. I should be perfectly content if the matter were to go through on the nod. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Opposition Chief Whip, and his colleagues, like many of us on the Conservative Benches, did not realise that Mr. Speaker was putting the Question. I know that the Official Opposition wish to debate the motion, and I am happy to do so. I hope that that will be for the convenience of the House.
We have already spent more than 150 hours discussing the Bill, and the motion provides a further five and a half hours in which to consider the amendments that have been made to the Bill in another place. It may help, therefore, if I remind the House that the version of the Bill before us is the one which was ordered to be printed on 21 May this year. I hope that it wall avoid any other procedural muddles if we all use the same version in our discussions.
The purpose of the motion is twofold—first, to ensure that there is no further delay in the Bill's reaching the statute book, and secondly, to ensure that in the time still. available we give proper consideration to the main issues—employee involvement, the closed shop, requirements about trade union recognition and trade union immunities—which are covered by the amendments made in another place.
I say at once that the Government would have preferred not to have a timetable motion at this stage. It is necessary for one reason only—the clear determination of the Opposition to frustrate the passage of the Bill with every means at their disposal and thereby to withhold for as long as possible from employees and employers the important new protection that the Bill contains. At no stage during the Bill's progress through this House has the Official Opposition shown any inclination to subject its provisions to serious scrutiny. That was not true of the minority parties. I direct that remark to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) who represents the SDP today, as he did in Committee. I should add that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was always robust in his comments and was seldom absent from the Committee. I know that he is absent today only because of pressing business which prevents him from being here.

737
The Opposition's attitude was clear from the moment when the Bill started its Committee stage last February, when they spent 37 hours trying to remove clause 1. There was further evidence of that attitude in April when, after the Government had been forced to introduce a timetable motion, the Opposition failed to use all the time that was available under that motion to discuss the Bill's remaining provisions. They merely wished to extend the period to delay the whole process, not to discuss the Bill. That is abundantly clear again today from the Opposition's decision, which I fully understand, to spend an hour in ritual denunciation of the timetable motion, instead of using the time to debate the amendments.
Of course, it suits the Opposition's purpose to stick to generalities. If they can avoid discussing the detail of the Bill it is easier for them to exaggerate and distort its purpose and effects and to perpetuate the myth that it is an attack on ordinary working people. In truth, the Bill is nothing of this sort. It does not undermine responsible trade unionism. It does not prevent those who wish to do so from joining a trade union. It does not prevent trade union officials from organising industrial action by their members in pursuit of improvements in their terms and conditions of work or in job security.
As I have said before, the Bill is essentially a modest and moderate one. Its aim is to protect both employers and employees—and, indeed, the public at large—against the abuses and excesses of trade union power, the tyranny of the closed shop, industrial action that hits at those who cannot defend themselves, and bullying and coercion which seem, from recent events, to play an increasing part in trade union activities.
When we brought the Bill before the House in January, the need was clear. The sacking of non-union employees by Walsall and Sandwell councils in open defiance of the law, the insiduous spread of the closed shop through the back door of union labour only clauses in contracts—
Mr. Dennis Canavan: What? Did the right hon. Gentleman say "insiduous"?
Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps when the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) gets time he will make a speech in his own inimitable accent.
The events that I have mentioned and the continuing reluctance of trade unions to put their own house in order, as they shelter behind their wall of immunities, were evidence enough, but if anyone doubted the need for the Bill then, they surely no longer do so today. In recent months, some trade unions have plumbed new depths in the treatment of their members. A month ago, the TUC called on all member unions to support the so-called day of action. What form did the support take in some trade unions? How did they demonstrate sympathy and solidarity? It was certainly not by consulting their members or by asking for support, but by giving them the choice of going on strike or losing their union cards and thus, in a closed shop, their jobs.
Since that so-called day of action, I have received more than 50 letters from trade unionists—some on behalf of substantial groups of their fellow workers. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be familiar with the orange folders which denote letters from Members of Parliament, but in addition, here are wads of letters, one after another, from trade unionists, protesting about the fact that they were
738
being threatened with the loss of their jobs unless they went on strike. I should be happy to spend the whole day reading out the letters, because they would substantiate the need for us to proceed swiftly with the Bill.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Cumbria one such trade unionist wrote a letter like that to a newspaper, and it was found to be utterly fraudulent and inaccurate?
Mr. Tebbit: I cannot imagine that the hon. Gentleman would expect that to undermine the Bill. I have some letters, for example, written on the notepaper of the National Graphical Association, and I doubt whether they are fraudulent. I have received plenty from Members of Parliament, some from my own constituents, and some from people whom I know personally. I have one from the deputy mayor of my own borough, for example, who is being threatened.
Sir Frederick Burden: Surely, my right hon. Friend will remember receiving a letter from me, when all the members of a firm in my constituency were threatened with the withdrawal of the union card if they did not come out. I sent the letter to the papers, and they questioned the trade union secretary involved, who admitted that it had been done.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) does not defend those actions. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) will say that no pressure was put on any trade unionists to come out on strike, and that under no circumstances will any union cards be withdrawn or anyone lose their job over it, unless he does, it makes what the hon. Member for Workington says look cheap, unsubstantiated and difficult to believe.
In some cases union branches and chapels actually voted not to strike, but that meant nothing to the bosses. One letter from a trade union says it all. The letter is dated 20 September—two days before the "day of action"—and was sent by the Oxford and Berkshire branch of the NGA to chapels which had voted not to strike on 22 September. It begins disarmingly "Dear colleague", but goes on:
"We understand that you may have decided not to stay away from work on Wednesday September 22nd in support of the National Health Service Workers' Day of Action".
Then it says:
"We must inform you that it is not open to chapels or members to 'vote' to ignore National Council instructions".
How does that fit the hon. Gentleman's theories? But that was not all. The letter continues:
"To ignore a binding decision of the National Council is to lay yourself open to disciplinary action under Association rule 41".
The NGA members—and there were a lot of them among my 50 correspondents so far—told me that that rule says that anyone disobeying union instructions will be fined up to £500 or expelled. That is the penalty for going to work. That is the penalty for those who voted in their meetings to go to work, and were then told that they could not go to work. Where is the pretence of democracy? That is not even a parody of the car park meeting that we have witnessed on other occasions; it is simply the crushing of dissent by the crudest of threats. The case has been well put by one who knows more about the corruption and viciousness of the trade union bullies than any of us here today. He said:

739
"For more years than I care to remember the extreme left have been intriguing, lying and manipulating the votes of trade unions …
They have prolonged meetings until they have a majority that can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand. They scandalise and intimidate the ordinary decent people who once made up the bulk of the union and Labour party activists.
At secret meetings, they hand out lists of people to be supported in elections and are able to ensure that they get that support by taking advantage of the poor attendance at the official local branch meetings where they have little difficulty in securing the acceptance of both their nominees and their policies.
After all, three or four people are often the majority in branches with a membership of 500 or a thousand who prefer to watch television rather than engage in bitter and often personalised debates about politics.
They then hail these accomplishments as a decision of the members—not the three or four who attended the meeting, but the hundreds who did not.
They conceal their real aims behind slogans such as 'the members have been sold down the river', or 'for greater rank and file control' or 'broad left candidate'.
Their real aim is to swing the movement behind revolutionary policies which, if they were out in the open, would get little support.
Even where they fail, they leave a trail of recrimination and resentment that reflects on the union and its leaders: portraying them as incompetent bunglers, in the pockets of the employers."
That is not my description, nor are they the words of someone who is hostile to the trade unions. They are the words of the present chairman of the general council of the TUC, writing in a Sunday newspaper on 10 October this year. I agree with every word that he says. How many Opposition Members would stand up and have the courage to say the same thing? How many of them even believe that, and how many of them are mere puppies running yapping at the heels of the militants?
Mr. Ron Leighton rose—
Mr. Tebbit: One hon. Gentleman is going to support the chairman of the general council of the TUC.
Mr. Leighton: Does the Secretary of State know what the fine in the NGA rule book is at the moment? He quoted a figure of £500. I understand that that is the proposed figure for next year. Is he aware that the current fine is £75, that there is no chance of anyone being fined more than £75 and that no one has been fined? In view of those facts, will the Secretary of State withdraw his statement about people being threatened with a fine of £500?
Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. I will not withdraw my statement. I know that the maximum fine is only £75. I know that the £500 fine will not come into effect until next year. I know that the NGA needs it to dragoon its members into line. What I quoted was what the branch was telling its members. It was not telling the truth about the fines in its own union. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has made the position worse and not better for the scurrilous people whom he seeks to defend.
Therefore, there is still not one Opposition Member who will come to the rescue of the chairman of the general council of the TUC with a word of support. However, I will give him support. I back him in everything that he said in the extract that I read to the House.
The Bill will bring greater protection for workers who want simply to work rather than to strike. Some people do not understand the extent of protection that they have. That will come out in matters that we shall deal with in the Bill. It is true that British Telecommunications staff who did not take part in the events of 20 October were told clearly and
740
firmly by their management that the job security agreement for Post Office Engineering Union represented grades does not differentiate between union and non-union members and is not relevant in that context. The Post Office makes it clear that it will not dismiss, even under union pressure, those who did not take part in the strike. I am grateful for the chance to put that right.
Conservative Members will never accept the vision of society in which every person is dragooned into unions, whether he likes it or not, and in which everyone has to march in the same direction and at the beck and call of what Sid Weighell described as squawking Left-wing mobs.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Tebbit: On cue, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that he is part of a Government who believe in collective security and that if any Ministers step out of line on this Bill, the Transport Bill or any other Bill of major importance, they will, as a result of the collective security in the Cabinet, lose not £75, or £500, but their jobs?
Mr. Tebbit: As no Bill is brought forward without the unanimous agreement of the Cabinet and Ministers, the hon. Gentleman's point is sillier than usual.
We believe that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they wish to join a trade union or take part in a strike. We believe that the community must be protected against the excesses of trade union power, so brilliantly described by Frank Chapple. That is what the Bill is all about. That is why it should be passed without further delay so that in the words of Lord Denning:
"The new Employment Bill will be passed this session. It will be the greatest reform in trades union law over the last 80 years."
3.57 pm
Mr. Eric G. Varley: The Opposition oppose the supplementary guillotine motion and will vote against it. We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for showing flexibility in allowing the debate to take place.
It is difficult to know what to say about the Secretary of State's speech, because he did not address his remarks to why it was necessary to guillotine the discussion on the Lords amendments. He spent most of his time castigating trade unionists for supporting National Health Service workers. If he were fulfilling his role as Secretary of State for Employment, with all the other responsibilies that he is supposed to have, such as conciliation, he would urge his right hon. and hon. Friends, if they were so confident about their case, to let the dispute go to arbitration or at least ask the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to mediate meaningfully. However, he has not done that. He knows that the Government do not have much of a case. That is why he wants to divert people's attention.
I am sure that one of these days Mr. Sid Weighell, Mr. Frank Chapple and others will be able to speak to the Secretary of State direct. The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid Mr. Frank Chapple. I recall that during that great demonstration on 22 September Mr. Frank Chapple was on the platform in Hyde Park supporting the NHS workers and saying some rough things about the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Government. Therefore, it is no good the Secretary of State trying to divert people's attention by saying the things that he has said.
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman always says that I am not sufficiently conciliatory. Has he not noticed that I have said nice things about the chairman of the general council of the TUC?
Mr. Varley: The chairman of the general council of the TUC knows that this is the worst Government that trade unions have experienced. He is prepared to say that on any occasion when he is asked to do so.
Unlike the Secretary of State I want to talk about the Bill and its amendments. At every stage of the Bill the Secretary of State and his colleagues have had so little confidence in their case that they have wanted to restrict the time for debate. There is no urgent need for this measure. On the contrary, when it reaches the statute book—as no doubt it will—it will bring about not an improvement but a deterioration in industrial relations. Even this Government and this Secretary of State will rue the day when the legislation is enacted. We know that the Secretary of State has doubts about the legislation, because some provisions will not be activated until some months ahead. The only provision that will be activated quickly is clause 1, which the Secretary of State wishes to use to compensate free riders.
Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. There will be no undue delay in activating the provisions of the Bill. The provision for balloting on the closed shop will be delayed to allow proper time to prepare the ballots. The remainder of the Bill will be brought into effect as soon as it is reasonably expedient and possible.
Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State wish to activate the ballots on closed shops before the next general election, assuming that it will not take place until the last humiliating moment in May 1984?
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It will be humiliating for the Labour Party.
Mr. Tebbit: I do not know when the general election will be. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall give either one or two years' grace to allow trade unions to prepare for the ballot. I shall announce my decision on that when Royal Assent is given to the Bill. The provisions that give greater protection to trade unionists will be brought into effect as soon as it is reasonably expedient to do so.
Mr. Varley: I take it from his reply that the Secretary of State will not activate that part of the Bill for two years.
The Labour Party believed that the purpose of today's debate was to enable the House to discuss the Lords amendments in the five hours devoted to the Bill. However, the time is inadequate. It is sometimes claimed that the House of Lords is a revising chamber. Some members of the other place suggest that it improves legislation that is sent to it. With the exception of amendment No. 1, the Bill returns to the House more hostile to the trade union movement than when it left us in June. It carries the Government's hostility and prejudice to the trade union movement even further.
In the House of Lords, if it seemed as though the trade unions were not being restricted enough, the screw was tightened further. Let there be no doubt that the Government are determined, at every opportunity, to weaken the trade union movement. The Bill increases the power to sack trade unionists selectively if they strike. As
742
a result of some Lords amendments, the Bill now protects the employer who does not consult the trade unions to which his workers belong. The Government seem ready to set aside the legislative requirements on consultation that are contained in almost all of the major statutes that have brought industries into public ownership. Elected councils and local authorities cannot specify that a firm to be awarded a contract must consult trade unionists.
Members of the Liberal Party may say that they initiated Lords amendment No. 1, which is entitled "Employee involvement" although on the copy of the Bill that went through the Lords the title was "Employee participation". There is a difference between the two phrases, which I hope the Secretary of State or his colleague can explain. That amendment, which will form a new clause, is all very well as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. To give it the title "Employee participation" is nonsense. The Labour Party wishes to strengthen the clause and that is why we have tabled amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) will advance arguments to expose the inadequacy of the amendment.
If we are to take the Government seriously in their assertion that they are in favour of employee participation, it is nonsense to restrict the debate to two hours. The House should not support the supplementary guillotine motion, because of what the Secretary of State has said today and on other occasions. Anyone who has read the House of Lords debate on the Bill will see that Conservative supporters in the other place wish to have further legislation to restrict trade unionism. The Secretary of State is only too eager to oblige. We know that he is preparing what he chooses to call a discussion document. That is another name for a Tebbit diktat.
We are told that the Employment Act 1980 did not go far enough, that this Bill is part of the Secretary of State's step-by-step approach and that he will not be satisfied until effective trade unionism is eliminated. Before we pass the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State—or one of his colleagues—must tell us what further legislative attack he is planning on British trade unions. The Secretary of State does not give a fig for trade unions. He insults their elected leaders almost every time he opens his mouth. He does not consult them as did the old-style Conservative Ministers of Labour. He attacks previous Governments, as at the Tory Party conference, and attacks his Conservative predecessors, such as Sir Walter Monckton, lain Macleod and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Secretary of State has discovered that it is best to have a two-pronged and simultaneous offensive against the millions of men and women in our trade unions. The first approach is step-by-step legislation to reduce their effectiveness, and the second, and perhaps more effective, approach is to pursue industrial and economic policies that create mass unemployment. On the latter, the Secretary of State is an unqualified success.
We have been told many times by Tories that the Bill is about individual rights, which is why it must be guillotined and why we can spend only five hours on it today. However, 4 million individuals make up the ever-lengthening dole queues that the Government accept without a murmur.
The Labour Party protests about the further restrictions on the debate. The Tory philosophy embodied in the Bill and in the amendments, which we have inadequate time to debate, is that if we eliminate trade unions and create

743
further unemployment the market will work even better. The trade unions have not created 3·3 million registered unemployed, nor have they brought about the lowest number of apprentices in modern times. The trade unions have not brought about the unprecedented fall in manufacturing output, nor have they brought about record bankruptcies and liquidations. The trade unions did not remove all exchange controls so that capital now flows across the exchanges and out of Britain. Nor did the trade unions cause the other horrors that have afflicted Britain during the past three and a half years.
We oppose the guillotine motion. Five hours in which to debate the amendments is inadequate, and that is why we shall vote against the motion.
4.10 pm
Mr. Tim Renton: I shall detain the House for only a minute or two because I know how anxious hon. Members are to get on with the main debate. However, I was prompted to rise by one remark of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). He said that there was no great urgency to get the Bill on to the statute book. Recent events belie that statement.
For example, we heard from the Under-Secretary, in answer to a question of mine last Monday, that his Department had already—by last Monday—received about 50 separate complaints in writing from both individuals and groups of employees outside the Health Service. They had been compelled to take industrial action on the day of disruption, 22 September, simply by threats from their trade unions that disciplinary action, including expulsion, would be taken against anyone refusing to strike. In none of those cases were the employees involved allowed by their union to vote on whether to take industrial action.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen to come to the House and make statements that may well not be based on truth when they have the option, before the debate, to go out and establish the truth? Is it not also—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must allow hon. Members to make the speeches that they desire to make. As long as they are in order I can make no objection.
Mr. Renton: I am quoting from a parliamentary answer to me from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. The answer was given a week ago, and I doubt whether it is incorrect in detail, except that I suspect that there are more complaints by now because another week has passed.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What proof?
Mr. Renton: It is surely intolerable that in this day and age individuals are compelled by their unions to take industrial action without being balloted, and under threat of losing their union card if they do not agree.
We have already heard of this sort of behaviour in the Health Service dispute. I wonder how many more cases we shall hear of in relation to the 24-hour steel disruption last Friday? What has that strike done for the British steel industry, which is in a parlous state? We know that the steel industry throughout the world is in trouble. We have heard the chairman of British Steel saying, when the steel industry unions went on strike on Friday, that the unions seem to think that they are living in a closed world that has
744
nothing to do with their customers. Going on strike will not bring another order for British Steel or another job, but will once again convince British customers that, if that is what happens in BSC, the customers should "second source"—buy more supplies from the Continent or from other sources in the world, which is what they did in the 13-week strike two years ago.
What member of the steel unions was balloted to find out whether he wanted to 'take part in this damaging, 24-hour strike? Not one was balloted. The only contrary' instance of which I know is that of the staff association, a branch of Frank Chapple's union—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union. As I have already said in an early-day motion signed by 60 hon. Members, that union alone had the courage to tell its members not to go on strike on Friday because it knew what damage the strike would do to the British steel industry.
Thus, the sooner that we get the Bill on to the statute book the better. At least it gives the protection to the employee that if he is judged by an industrial tribunal to have been unreasonably expelled from his union, it will, according to the Act, be unfair to dismiss him for not being a member of a trade union that operates a closed shop in an industry or firm. He also has much greater protection if he loses his union card as a result of not joining in the industrial action.
Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Renton: I shall not give way. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome the Bill. Let us get it on to the statute book as soon as possible and let us have a third Employment Bill in the next Session to give trade unionists a chance to demand secret ballots in their unions for the election of national officials, and before a national strike. Then we shall be on the course of returning control of trade unions to their members. That is what we want to achieve. We want not to reduce the power of trade unions, but to make them responsible to their members.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House, in case hon. Members are wondering what has happened to me, that I am aware that we are not talking about the timetable motion and whether this is the right time to have it, but are having Second Reading speeches. None the less, the debate will finish at 4.38 pm.
4.16 pm
Mr. Ian Mikardo: I have a point to make specifically on the guillotine motion, but I shall precede it by commenting on three points that have arisen. As those observations were in order, I presume that my comments on them will also be in order.
I was shocked by the Secretary of State's speech. In any Government, one of the most important jobs is that of Secretary of State for Employment, because it is his job to try to weld both sides of industry together in a joint effort to get the best out of industry for the benefit of our economy, and therefore for the benefit of the nation. Past Secretaries of Stare, including the Conservative ones mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), have seen the importance of

745
this role and have seen their task as one of creating bridges, getting people together and avoiding confrontation.
Secretaries of State such as Sir Walter Monckton and Robert Carr—the noble Lord as he now is—the most successful of Conservative Ministers of Labour, would have felt their skins shrivel if they had heard the present Secretary of State for Employment. I do not think that I have heard a more confrontational speech from the Front Bench in all the years that I have been here. I have heard similar ones from Back Benchers, including some from the present Secretary of State before he became a right hon. Gentleman, but Ministers should be more responsible. The Secretary of State's job is to get people on both sides of industry to work together, and he will not do that by consistently blackguarding those on one side.
The right hon. Gentleman licked his lips and quoted Frank Chapple on Left wing fiddling of elections. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the first fiddling of elections on a large scale in British trade unions was done by the Communists in the Electrical Trade Union, as it then was, by Frank Foulkes and Frank Chapple, the latter of whom has now gone full circle in his political views. He is a political authority on election rigging, because he was one of the first practitioners of it. I do not recall that the Secretary of State approved of what Mr. Chapple was doing when the Communists were ballot rigging in the ETU. It was most disgraceful for the right hon. Gentleman to pray that in aid.
I cannot imagine why the Secretary of State is laughing. He may recall that Oliver Goldsmith spoke about
"the loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind."
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Mikardo: I shall not give way to a giggle. Oh well, perhaps I will.
Mr. Tebbit: I was slightly amused, if I may express my feelings in the most gentle terms, to find the hon. Gentleman basing his attack on me on two things: first, that I had quoted the chairman of the TUC on the subject of lying and the manipulation of votes; and, secondly, that I had not mentioned that the Communist Party is the great expert in this practice and has been doing it for many years. It is very amusing coming from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Mikardo: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that remark. I think that there is a slur and an innuendo in it. My record and reputation are such that I do not have to take the least bit of notice. There is a Portuguese proverb that if one stops to kick every dog that barks at one's heels one never reaches the end of one's journey. I shall not stop to kick that particular dog.
Another issue that arises is that of one or two years' grace. The parts of the Bill that are most repugnant to trade unionists will not be implemented in a hurry, and for good reason. The Government do not want, before the general election, a winter of discontent perhaps preceded or followed by a long hot summer. The Government know jolly well that when some parts of the Bill are implemented they will cause considerable dislocation in industrial relations. They do not mind. However, they want to get
746
the general election out of the way first. The different times of starts of various parts of the Bill are based entirely on electoral considerations.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) mentioned the damage caused by strikes in the steel industry. That is true. However, the damage is not nearly so great—I invite him to examine the figures—as that done by unregulated imports of steel and the totally uneven application of cuts by the European Coal and Steel Community in the steel producing industries of the member countries of the Community. A reduction in output after 1975 was agreed by the member countries on the basis that these would be shared fairly among the countries that produce steel. What is that fair share-out? One major steel producer has increased production. One has held its production still. The Germans have dropped their production by 10 per cent., and ours has dropped by a quarter. Of all the steel jobs lost in the steel-producing countries of the EEC since 1975, 43 per cent. have occurred in British Steel and only 57 per cent. among the other countries.
Mr. Renton: Is it not the case that the period when imports from other EEC countries into this country increased disastrously and when British Steel's share of the home market fell from over 70 to under 50 per cent. coincided with the 13-week strike two years ago? At that time many customers who had been loyal to British Steel decided that they had to find a second source abroad. As the hon. Gentleman will know, having been involved in international trade, once a new supplier has his foot in the door it is difficult for the old supplier with whom virtually all the business was previously done to oust the new supplier.
Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman is not right. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read evidence given by the corporation and its chairman to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade. It is true that during the strike people bought elsewhere. However, the corporation has prided itself—I think, justifiably—on the fact that within a short period of the ending of the strike it recovered all that business. The damage has been done since that time. It is not steel from the Community countries that is mostly to blame. It is also steel from third world countries.
Before the Bill was introduced there was a good deal of consultation, with the circulation of Government papers upon which people were invited to comment. A great deal of material was submitted from many sources, which doubtless found its way to the Secretary of State's desk. Some may have been taken into account and some rejected. Not all points were conceded. Some were in conflict. Nevertheless, there was a process of consultation.
The Bill now before the House is a different measure, in some significant respects, from that which left us a few months ago to go to the other place. Some major new material has been introduced. These proposals could have been included in the Bill originally. If that had happened, the proposals would have been subjected to the same consultation procedure as occurred in respect of the rest of the Bill. There would have been an opportunity for people to consider how these matters would operate in practice and to present their views. No such opportunity exists in respect of the new matter that has been introduced during the Bill's passage through the other place.
Instead of imposing a guillotine on the last breath of the Bill, it would have made more sense if the Government

747
had followed the tradition of Governments of all parties and provided time for trade unions, employers and many others affected by the Bill to give the same thought and attention to the new measures introduced in the Lords as was accorded to the measures contained in the original Bill. Rushing the Bill through the House at this stage means that the Government have made some major changes without providing the least opportunity for those affected to figure out how they will work and to give their views. This haste is to be gravely deplored.
4.27 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) reminds us that he has been an hon. Member for many years. With all respect, he has no reason to do so. Everything that he says reminds the House only too clearly that his own thinking is rooted 20 or 30 years in the past. The hon. Gentleman attacks Mr. Chapple for his crimes, as he would have the House believe them to be, when Mr. Chapple was a member of the Communist party 20 or more years ago. The hon. Gentleman may accept that
"Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".
Mr. Chapple's present performance, I suggest, makes up for all the misdemeanours or worse that the hon. Gentleman suggests that he may have committed in the past.
Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Chapple's present performance, which he praises, includes total opposition to this Bill?
Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman goes too far. I had not gone so far as to praise Mr. Chapple. His present incarnation is a great deal better than his past. He is making progress. I hope that he will continue to make progress. There are many others in the political trade union sphere who, 20 or 30 years ago, were on the far Left and who now see the error of their ways. I hope that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will join them. The hon. Gentleman recalls from the past the days of Sir Walter Monckton and others on the Conservative Benches who had a different approach to the trade union problem. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the problem then was different from the one that we have now.
The task of getting Britain moving in the days of Ernest Bevin, George Woodcock and Vic Feather was very different from the task facing us today, bearing in mind some of the present members of the general council of the TUC. I am sure that what worries the hon. Gentleman, and also the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and all the other uncertain supporters of the attack on the Bill, is that they know that the problem lies with a very small handful of people, most of them at the top of the trade union movement, and not with the very large percentage of the trade union membership.
As the Minister of State, Department of Employment, suggested at the Conservative Party conference at Brighton, it is the spectre of democracy that is haunting people such as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and all the others who seek to defend the status quo. That is why there is a need for hurry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, the demonstration on 22 September showed clearly the power and the effect of the closed shop in ensuring that individual members of trade unions take action that they do not want to take. That is
748
the reason for hurry. We must deal with the problem of dislocation in industry that is caused by the threat of trade union pressure operated by the closed shop.
I am amazed that, given the pressure on time today—we have been told that five hours are not enough—we have debated the motion for 50 minutes so far and no arguments of substance have emerged from the Labour Benches.
4.31 pm
Mr. David Winnick: In listening to some Conservative Members speaking about democracy, and bearing in mind what a totally undemocratic organisation the Conservative Party is, it is clear that the trade unions do not need any lectures from Conservative Members on how to operate. Indeed, listening to the Secretary of State talking about trade unions was like listening to someone from the National Front talking about ethnic minorities. As the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, one could see his almost obsessive hatred of trade unions. He had very little to say about the positive virtues of belonging to trade unions. Instead, we heard only criticism and a totally negative attitude.
The difference between several members of the Cabinet and the right hon. Gentleman is that he cannot conceal the loathing and hatred that he has for trade unions. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to make a speech about events in Poland there would be buckets of tears about the Polish working people and the repressive way in which the junta has wrongly—certainly in my view—banned Solidarity. But when it is a matter of the right of working people in Britain to build up effective organisations for themselves at their place of employment, the right hon. Gentleman is an enemy of genuine trade unionism in his own country. He will do whatever he can on every occasion to undermine free trade unionism.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though there were something sinister about one trade union giving authority to its executive council. What is wrong with that? In the case in question, the executive council would have been duly elected. I am a member of an executive council of a trade union, duly elected by secret ballot. It is part of trade union tradition, as it is part of the tradition of many organisations which have nothing to do with the trade union movement, that an executive council is given due authority in the absence of an annual conference. I do not see anything wrong with that.
When Conservative Members speak about trade union democracy, they do not mention that almost every trade union in Britain has provision for an annual conference—sometimes for a conference every two years—at which rank and file people, elected from the branches, can decide policy. If the other side of industry had anywhere near that form of democracy, it would be very useful for British industry.
As my hon. Friends have said, the Bill is an attack not just on the trade unions, but on working people. In many respects, mass unemployment has been brought back deliberately to discipline people. Month after month, the Secretary of State announces higher unemployment figures. He has not expressed any deep concern that millions of people are denied the right to work—not because of naughty, sinister, wicked trade unions, but largely because of Government policies. Millions of people have to suffer the penalty, the humiliation and the indignity of not being about to get a job, but that is not the

749
right hon. Gentleman's concern. He can point to any excuse—world conditions, the recession, and so on—for what is happening to so many of our constituents, but his concern is to have anti-trade union legislation.
There have been many other occasions when anti-trade union legislation has been passed in the House because of the Conservative majority. We have only to remember the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman went into the Division Lobbies as a Back Bencher in enthusiastic support of that measure. But that Act was duly repealed. One could go back many years before 1971 in giving other examples—even starting with the combination Acts. Whenever action has been taken in law against the trade unions, they have always in time won back their rights and built on those rights. The reason why they have been able to do so is that they exist to defend the interests of the working people. There is no justification for trade unions except to act in the interests of working people. That is why they came into existence.
All the poison of the Secretary of State and his colleagues, all the loathing of the trade unions that they are expressing, and all the laws that penalise trade unions, will in the end come to naught. Despite the present Conservative majority in the House, working people will one day win back their right to act effectively at their place of employment. Long after the right hon. Gentleman has been forgotten, trade unions will rightly exist in Britain to defend the people that they exist to defend—the working people, manual and non-manual alike. No action of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government can destroy that basic British freedom—the right to belong to a trade union and to defend one's rights at one's place of employment through membership of a trade union.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 223.

Division No. 319]

[4.38 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brooke, Hon Peter

Alexander, Richard

Brotherton, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Brown, Michael(Brigg Sc'n)

Alton, David

Browne, John (Winchester)

Ancram, Michael

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Bryan, Sir Paul

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Buck, Antony

Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

Budgen, Nick

Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

Bulmer, Esmond

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Burden, Sir Frederick

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Butcher, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Beith, A. J.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bendall, Vivian

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Chapman, Sydney

Best, Keith

Churchill, W. S.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Blackburn, John

Clegg, Sir Walter

Blaker, Peter

Cockeram, Eric

Body, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cope, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Corrie, John

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Costain, Sir Albert

Bowden, Andrew

Cranborne, Viscount

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Crouch, David

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Brinton, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

750

Dover, Denshore

Lamont, Norman

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lang, Ian

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Latham, Michael

Durant, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Dykes, Hugh

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lee, John

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Eggar, Tim

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Elliott, Sir William

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Emery, Sir Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Eyre, Reginald

Loveridge, John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Luce, Richard

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Lyell, Nicholas

Faith, Mrs Sheila

McCrindle, Robert

Farr, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Fell, Sir Anthony

MacGregor, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Fisher, Sir Nigel

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

McQuarrie, Albert

Forman, Nigel

Major, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Marland, Paul

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Marlow, Antony

Freud, Clement

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Fry, Peter

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Mawby, Ray

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mayhew, Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mellor, David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Goodlad, Alastair

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Gorst, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Gow, Ian

Moate, Roger

Gower, Sir Raymond

Montgomery, Fergus

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Moore, John

Gray, Hamish

Morgan, Geraint

Grieve, Percy

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Grist, Ian

Mudd, David

Grylls, Michael

Murphy, Christopher

Gummer, John Selwyn

Myles, David

Hamilton, Hon A.

Neale, Gerrard

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Needham, Richard

Hannam, John

Nelson, Anthony

Haselhurst, Alan

Newton, Tony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Onslow, Cranley

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Hawksley, Warren

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Hayhoe, Barney

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Henderson. Barry

Parris, Matthew

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Hicks, Robert

Patten, John (Oxford)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Pattie, Geoffrey

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Pawsey, James

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Penhaligon, David

Hooson, Tom

Percival, Sir Ian

Hordern, Peter

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pink, R. Bonner

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

Pitt, William Henry

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pollock, Alexander

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Porter, Barry

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Irvine, Bryant Godman

Prior, Rt Hon James

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jessel, Toby

Rathbone, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Tim

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rhodes James, Robert

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Kimball, Sir Marcus

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rifkind, Malcolm

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Knight, Mrs Jill

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Knox, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

751

Rossi, Hugh

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Rost, Peter

Thornton, Malcolm

Royle, Sir Anthony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Trippier, David

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Viggers, Peter

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Waddington, David

Shepherd, Richard

Wakeham, John

Shersby, Michael

Waldegrave, Hon William

Silvester, Fred

Walker, B. (Perth)

Sims, Roger

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Waller, Gary

Smith, Dudley

Walters, Dennis

Speed, Keith

Ward, John

Speller. Tony

Warren, Kenneth

Spence, John

Watson, John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Squire, Robin

Wheeler, John

Stainton, Keith

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Stanbrook, Ivor

Whitney, Raymond

Stanley, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Stevens, Martin

Wilkinson, John

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Winterton, Nicholas

Stokes, John

Wolfson, Mark

Stradling Thomas, J.

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Tellers for the Ayes:

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Carol Mather.

Thompson, Donald

NOES

Abse, Leo

Davidson, Arthur

Adams, Allen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Allaun, Frank

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Anderson, Donald

Deakins, Eric

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Ashton, Joe

Dewar, Donald

Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

Dixon, Donald

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Dobson, Frank

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dormand, Jack

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Douglas, Dick

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dubs, Alfred

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bidwell, Sydney

Dunnett, Jack

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Eadie, Alex

Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

Eastham, Ken

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

English, Michael

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Evans, John (Newton)

Buchan, Norman

Ewing, Harry

Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Ian

Field, Frank

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Canavan, Dennis

Ford, Ben

Cant, R. B.

Forrester, John

Carmichael, Neil

Foster, Derek

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Foulkes, George

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

George, Bruce

Cohen, Stanley

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Coleman, Donald

Golding, John

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Gourley, Harry

Conlan, Bernard

Graham, Ted

Cook, Robin F.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Cowans, Harry

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

Crowther, Stan

Hardy, Peter

Cryer, Bob

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Dalyell, Tam

Haynes, Frank

752

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Pavitt, Laurie

Heffer, Eric S.

Pendry, Tom

Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'11)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Homewood, William

Prescott, John

Hooley, Frank

Race, Reg

Hoyle, Douglas

Radice, Giles

Huckfield, Les

Richardson, Jo

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Janner, Hon Greville

Robertson, George

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

John, Brynmor

Rooker, J. W.

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Sandelson, Neville

Jones, Barry (East Pint)

Sever, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheerman, Barry

Kerr, Russell

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Kilfedder, James A.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Short, Mrs Renée

Kinnock, Neil

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Lambie, David

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Lestor, Miss Joan

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

Soley, Clive

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Spearing, Nigel

Litherland, Robert

Spriggs, Leslie

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Stallard, A. W.

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Lyons, Edward (Brac'f'd W)

Stoddart, David

McCartney, Hugh

Stott, Roger

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Strang, Gavin

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Straw, Jack

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

McKelvey, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

McMahon, Andrew

Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

McNally, Thomas

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

McNamara, Kevin

Tilley, John

McTaggart, Robert

Tinn, James

Magee, Bryan

Torney, Tom

Marks, Kenneth

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Marshall, D(G'gow S ton)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wardell, Gareth

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Watkins, David

Maxton, John

Weetch, Ken

Maynard, Miss Joan

Wellbeloved, James

Meacher, Michael

Welsh, Michael

Mikardo, Ian

White, Frank R.

Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Whitehead, Phillip

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Whitlock, William

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Winnick, David

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Woodall, Alec

Newens, Stanley

Woolmer, Kenneth

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wright, Sheila

O'Neill, Martin

Young, David (Bolton E)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Palmer, Arthur

Tellers for the Noes:

Park, George

Mr. George Morton and

Parker, John

Mr. Ron Leighton.

Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House [20 April] be supplemented as follows:—
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 20 April, each part of those

753
proceedings shall, if not prevously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Lords Amendments

Time for Conclusion

1

7.00 pm

2 to 14

8.00 pm

15 to 22

9.15 pm

23 to 41

10.00 pm

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a)Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b)Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii)put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv)put forthwith the Question, that this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c)as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords
754
Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion

(a)Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Questions already proposed from the Chair;

(b)Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i)put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message;

(ii)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day
  Employment Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Employment Bill

    New Clause A
    EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 1, before clause 1, insert:
    "A.—(1) Section 16 of the Companies Act 1967 (additional matters of general nature to be dealt with in directors' report) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1), the following paragraph is added at the end—
    "(h) in the case of relevant companies, contain a statement describing the action that has been taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements aimed at—
    (i)providing employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees,
    (ii)consulting employees or their representatives on a regular basis so that the views of employees can be taken into account in making decisions which are likely to affect their interests,
    (iii)encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance through an employees' share scheme or by some other means,
    (iv)achieving a common awareness on the part of all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the performance of the company."
    (3) After subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection
    "(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(h) above, a company is a "relevant company" if the average number of persons employed by it in each week during the financial year exceeds 250; and for the purposes of this subsection the number of persons employed shall be the quotient derived by dividing by the number of weeks in the financial year the number derived by ascertaining, in relation to each of those weeks, the number of persons who, under contracts of service, were employed in the week (whether throughout it or not) by the company and adding up the numbers ascertained."
    (4) After subsection (7) there is inserted the following subsection—
    "(8) In subsection (1)(h) above "employee" does not include a person employed to work wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom; and for the purposes of subsection (l A) above no regard shall be had to such a person.""
    Read a Second time.
    4.51 pm
    Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) to move the first sub-amendment to the proposed new clause, and I suggest that it will be in the interests of the House to discuss also the three remaining sub-amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and others:
    In subsection (2)(h) leave out 'aimed at' and insert 'for'.
    In subsection (2)(h) (i) leave out 'as employees' and insert
    'including in particular, information about the arrangements by means of which the company carry out any statutory obligations to which the company may be subject regarding consultations with recognised independent trade unions,'.
    In subsection (2)(h) (i) at end insert
    'and in particular, information about the extent of the company's compliance with the requirements of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944,'.
    Mr. Giles Raclice: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed Lords amendment, in subsection (2)(h) .after 'statement', insert
    'a copy of which shall be issued free of charge to every employee of the company'.
    The Lords amendment is an extremely modest measure. It is hardly worthy of the name "reform". It is not that employee participation, or employee involvement as, apparently, it is new called, or, as the Labour Party prefers to call it, industrial democracy, is not of the highest importance. It is.
    In moral terms, the democratic case within industry has the same basis as he democratic argument everywhere—that every person should have a say in those decisions which affect his or her life. Every survey confirms the obvious point that the deeper the individual involvement, the greater the job satisfaction.
    There is another argument that is especially relevant to our predicament today. It will not be possible to carry through the re-equipment and reinvestment in British industry that is so desperately needed unless employees a re fully involved. We may examine foreign examples. Those countries that are doing best—Japan, for example, about which we hear a great deal from the Prime Minister—are those in which employees are fully involved.
    Unfortunately, the Lords amendment merely amounts to a small change in directors' reports to shareholders. Companies will be able to say what they have done to provide information for, to consult and to encourage involvement of employees through a shares scheme or some other means. If companies have done nothing, they need only say that they have nothing to report. As I understand it, there is nothing in the amendment to compel any company to do anything about information, consultation or representation. I do not believe that it will do any harm—although I regret that it is contained in this infamous anti-trade, union Bill—but it is unlikely to do much good.
    The first amendment speaks for itself. Company reports that include a section on employee involvement should go to all employees, not just to shareholders. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) present. When he moved his Bill on directors' reports, he said:
    "It is clearly desirable that the statement should be written not in the language beloved of accountants"—
    hear, hear—
    "but in terms to which employees can respond and that they should each receive a copy."—[Official Report,7 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 956.]
    That is precisely what the amendment would do.
    The third amendment stresses the role of trade unions in employee participation. It also makes companies report on how they are carrying out their legal obligations to unions, such as in section 17 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which provides information on collective bargaining, section 99 of the same Act, which notifies the procedure on redundancies and section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which deals with the appointment of safety representatives. That would be a useful amendment.
    In reply, the Minister may speak as though Government support for the amendment is a great new Government initiative. It should be clear that the Government resisted an amendment on those lines both in Committee and on Report in the House of Lords. They were defeated on Report. That is why we are discussing the amendment today.

    757
    The Government's attitude towards industrial democracy has been uniformly negative. From time to time they say that, in principle, they are in favour of it, but they have strongly resisted any legislation. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), told a personnel conference at Gatwick on 14 May that calls for legislation are misguided and that
    "there is no system which will suit the needs of every company and any system imposed by Government would cut across and lead to the abandonment of schemes of partnership in some industries which are working well."
    That is an amazing statement.
    We also know that the Government have expressed their consistent hostility both to the EEC fifth directive on worker representation on boards and to the Vredeling proposals on information and consultation. I understand that they have been threatening to use the veto. We know that Conservative MEPs watered down the fifth directive when it came before the European Parliament in May. We also know that, acting as the mouthpiece of the Government and the multinationals who orchestrated an unprecedented lobbying campaign, Conservative MEPs tore the guts out of the Vredeling plans only a fortnight ago. They voted to deny workers access to the head offices of multinationals, they voted to exclude firms with fewer than 1,000 employees and they voted to grant management the exclusive right to decide what information should be given to employees. No wonder the Conservative Group spokesman boasted with ill-concealed delight "Vredeling is dead."
    it is against that background of unrelenting hostility that Ministers appear in the House today as friends of employee involvement or participation. That is rank hypocrisy. Having been defeated in the House of Lords, the Government suddenly realised that the amendment would be useful as a fig leaf to hide their utter distaste for industrial democracy. They will now tell the European Commissioners "We are making good progress on industrial democracy so we do not have to take any notice of your directives." In other words, the Government are using this flimsiest of window dressing as their alibi for inaction. That is the truth of the matter and I challenge the Government to deny it. Even the Conservative trade union group, at least one member of which is here today and which, in line with the Conservative Party's promise before the election, is asking for a code of practice, has been disappointed by the Government's lack of progress.
    5 pm
    Any objective assessment of the past three years is bound to show how little progress has been made. The recession and the Government's reactionary attitude have encouraged employers to resort far more to unilateral decision-making. The Government have quoted the CBI's survey. That survey shows that only a third of British companies have consultative arrangements of any kind. We also know from other studies that, although British employees would like a greater say, they have a remarkably low level of involvement in decisions that affect them. The level is lower than in most other European countries. What is required now is action, not window dressing on the lines of the Lords amendment.
    I am deeply disappointed that the Social Democratic Party's leaders have learnt so little from their long
    758
    membership of the Labour Party. They do not seem to realise that if any system of industrial democracy is to succeed it must have the support and active involvement of the trade unions which represent the majority of British workers. The Social Democrats' panacea is the introduction of works councils on the German model in all firms employing more than 1,000 workers. They have forgotten that, whereas all German companies have had works councils for 60 years or more—indeed, they formed part of the Weimar constitution—in Britain only a small minority of firms have such councils, and their experience has not been exactly encouraging. In this country, the characteristic shop floor organisation is through shop stewards' committees, and shop floor bargaining and any effective system of industrial democracy must build on that. Characteristically, the Social Democrats, in their search for electoral popularity, have chosen to ignore that fact. Characteristically, too, they have fudged the issue of how workers are to be represented at top level. Are they in favour of that or are they not? No one would know from reading their documents.
    The Labour Party's proposals on employee involvement have had the support of both the TUC, about which we have heard so much today, and the Labour Party conference. They are firmly based on trade union organisation and the extension of collective bargaining and they go far beyond the amendment. An incoming Labour Government would not leave the matter to management, as the Lords amendment does, but would legislate to introduce new rights in three areas—information, consultation and representation.
    We have three aims with regard to information. First, we wish to spread and to improve disclosure practice throughout industry. Secondly, we wish to expand the range of matters relevant to the running of companies—for example, investment plans, closures, takeovers, performance, output, orders, sales, and so on. Thirdly, we wish to assist the full understanding of companies' operations.
    We go beyond the mere provision of information because we believe that disclosure without debate is meaningless. Therefore, we propose that management should be obliged to consult the unions on all impending decisions covered by information disclosure rules.
    Finally, we propose a right of representation so that workers' representatives will have a right to parity on policy boards, but they will also be able to choose a lesser proportion of representation and different methods if they wish. This will not only assist the provision of information and consultation, but ensure that the voice of the employee representative is heard at the top level.
    Mr. Tim Renton: On the matter of representation, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour Party is now abandoning the Bullock proposals and no longer supports the suggestion that worker directors should be on every major board, but still believes that they should be nominated and chosen by the trade unions only?
    Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. Of course we go beyond the Bullock proposals. This is a more comprehensive approach to the problem. It covers information and consultation as well as representation. However, if trade unions support the idea of having workers' representatives on boards and believe that it would be useful, they would have the right to establish it.

    759
    Our proposals have three advantages. First, they would be established naturally through existing employee organisations. We are not setting up something entirely new.
    Mr. David Penhaligon: If the trade unions considered it a good idea to have worker directors, would those worker directors be selected by the unions or by a ballot of all the employees of the company?
    Mr. Radice: We are not committed, but we have made it clear that any form of industrial democracy must be based on the trade unions. We would not set up a separate channel of organisation, as the Liberals and the Social Democrats propose. We believe that basically this should be done through the trade unions. We do not believe in elections through works councils, as I think the Social Democrats and the Liberals have proposed, because that would be foreign to our traditions. Our proposals are also flexible.
    Mr. Renton: The Bullock proposals specified worker directors chosen by authorised trade unions only. Many of us found that point in the Bullock proposals thoroughly objectionable. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying from the Labour Opposition Front Bench that worker directors should be nominated and voted for by all members of the work force, whether or not they are in trade unions, or does he still hold that they should be chosen by the trade unions?
    Mr. Radice: In each company where the trade unions believe that there should be worker representation on the board, a joint council of all the trade unions ought to be set up and the worker directors should be chosen through that representative body. If the hon. Gentleman is confused about this, I shall be delighted to send him a copy of "Economic Planning and Industrial Democracy" which contains our proposals.
    Mr. John Grant: Is there to be a ballot in which all the employees take part? That is still not clear.
    Mr. Radice: Some trade unions might believe that such a ballot ought to take place. It would be entirely up to them. We are not laying that down. Interestingly enough, it is not laid down in the Social Democratic Party's proposals either.
    Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman is attacking us for that.
    Mr. Radice: No, I am not. I am attacking the Social Democrats because they do not say what they favour. That is rather different.
    We believe that our proposals are flexible, because it is left to workers' representatives to decide the pace and, through information and consultation, gradually to build up to representation. That is the way that it should be done.
    Lastly, and importantly, we link our proposals on industrial democracy to industrial recovery. The Labour Party believes that considerable Government intervention will be required if British industry is to recover from the world recession and Government policies. That is why we propose industrial planning. However, it will be planning with a difference, because, through industrial democracy, for the first time, there will be proper input from below. Planning will not be imposed from above.
    For those three reasons we think that our proposals are realistic and relevant. At the very least, unlike the other
    760
    parties in the House, we are taking industrial democracy seriously. We are not proposing a Lords amendment at a late stage of an anti-union Bill and pretending that it is a great advance in industrial democracy. We are taking the issue seriously, as we did in the last Parliament with the Bullock report and the publication of the White Paper which—let the House remember—was prepared by a Cabinet Committee chaired by, I believe, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs Williams).
    We shall not oppose the Lords amendment, despite the fact that it is a flimsy bit of window dressing. We have moved an amendment to it, for which I hope we shall have the support of Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Members for Kidderminster and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)
    The Lords amendment does not measure up to what is required in British industry. The next Labour Government will take relevant and realistic action to establish a framework of democratic rights in industry.
    We believe that that will be good for employees, management and British industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment(Mr. David Waddington): Before I deal with the clause and the amendments, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr Radice). He told us that industrial democracy was the Labour Party's aim. The trouble is that many hon. Members doubt whether the Labour Party any longer has the faintest idea of the meaning of the word "democracy".
    It was obvious from some of the points made in the last debate that some people of considerable influence in the Labour Party and in the trades union movement did not know much about democracy when they threatened their members with disciplinary action if they did not come out on strike. That is why, as hon. Members know, we shall be consulting about internal democracy in trade unions, with a view to examining the possibility of legislation in that area.
    It is clear that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was talking not of industrial democracy but of shop steward power. He is even turning his back on the concept of one man, one vote from the shop floor. His mind is still firmly rooted to the single channel, which has nothing whatever to do with industrial participation and employee involvement which we are discussing today. The defects of that system have been apparent for years and I should have thought that all intelligent people should now be looking away from it for other ways to get rid of the "them and us" attitude in industry and making the desired progress.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) is present. He has been a pioneer in employee involvement and speaks with unrivalled authority. I notice that some Labour Members laugh, but it is a fact that my hon. Friend is engaged in a business which has practised employee involvement for years and is a model which other companies would be well advised to follow. It is nice that now and again there are hon. Members in the House who are able to speak with authority rather than simply mouthing political slogans with little idea of what is involved. My hon. Friend's persuasive advocacy of legislation requiring companies to include in their annual reports a statement about their

    761
    arrangements for employee involvement has done much to persuade the Government of the merits of the clause which we are now discussing.
    5.15 pm
    The House will remember that the Bill followed extensive consultations on the Green Paper on "Trade Union Immunities". During the Bill's passage we were, perhaps not surprisingly, reluctant to see added clauses covering matters which had not been canvassed in the Green Paper. Therefore, when a new clause on employee involvement was tabled in another place we made it clear that we had every sympathy with the proposal's objectives, but were, on balance, inclined to advise against its adoption. We were then, and remain now, conscious of the need to avoid imposing unjustifiable additional burdens and costs on industry. Everybody should approach a subject of this nature with the need for British industry to become competitive in the forefront of his mind. It is our duty to see that unnecessary additional costs are not imposed.
    The matter was cogently argued by Lord Rochester. When his new clause was carried on Report, the Government immediately accepted the decision in principle. However, we felt that there might be some difficulty about the form of the clause. As it was industry which would have to operate the requirement, we felt that it was important that industry should have an opportunity to comment. We issued a consultative letter on 4 August and more than 80 detailed and constructive replies were received. I am grateful to those organisations that responded.
    I am also grateful to Lord Rochester, who was kind enough to come and see me and with whom I had a very helpful discussion. The upshot was that the Government presented the revised version of the clause for debate on Third Reading in another place, and it was agreed after discussion.
    Subsection (1) gives effect to the general wish expressed by industry that requirements relating to company reports should form part of company law. Subsection (1) amends section 16 of the Companies Act 1967, which deals with the contents of such reports.
    Subsection (2) sets out the substantive reporting requirements, and the introduction to the subsection requires that a statement be included in the directors' report on action taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements for employee involvement. Hon. Members will see that the word "maintain" is new. That was inserted as a result of our consultative exercise and is a good illustration of the value of consulting on such matters.
    Many people who replied to us pointed out that companies which had long-established arrangements and had already made progress towards developing a high standard of employee involvement would not, without the word "maintain", have been required to report at all. That would clearly have been absurd, because one of the advantages of the clause is that matters such as employee involvement will have to be discussed at boardroom level and included in company reports. Company directors will be able to look at other companies' experiences to see what
    762
    they are doing in that area and study whether they can emulate it to the advantage of themselves and their employees.
    Paragraphs (i) to (iv) describe the particular employee involvement activities that companies will have to cover in their statements, and it is to that part of the clause that the Opposition have tabled amendments. If I had a suspicious mind, I might have thought that tabling amendments at this stage was an attempt to frustrate the Bill's progress, but I am sure that it would not be right to be so suspicious.
    I have studied all the amendments carefully. The first amendment requires that a copy of the statement about employee involvement should be issued to each employee. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. It may be desirable, and it may be good practice to issue such a statement to each employee, but any company that has developed arrangements will take steps to bring them to their employees' attention. More importantly, companies use a variety of means for communicating, such as special employee reports, notice boards and presentations by senior management, and it would be wrong to prescribe one means that would also, incidentally, be costly. Indeed, there should be no doubt about the cost. It may be a desirable step, but it is not the type of step that should be made compulsory.
    Mr. Radice: Our amendment does not say that other means could not be taken. We are merely laying down one means. The Minister has brought up the issue of cost again, but how much would such a measure cost the average firm?
    Mr. Waddington: Obviously the answer depends on the number of employees and the complexity of the operations being carried out. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the amendment allows for other means to be used, why has this means alone been set out?
    Mr. Harold Walker: Doubtless the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me if I am wrong, but I understand that every shareholder in a limited company is required by the Companies Act to be supplied with a copy of the company's report. I see nods from Conservative Members confirming that I am right. Why should that information be provided to the shareholders and not to the workers? Surely the giving of such information should be the fundamental starting point for any employee involvement. If it is possible to bear the cost for shareholders, why is it not possible to do so for workers, whose lives are integrally bound up with the company's well-being and fortunes?
    Mr. Waddington: One obvious difference is that the shareholders may be spread across the globe, while employees are under one roof or at any rate at a location at which it would be easy to communicate with them by other means.
    The second Opposition amendment states that arrangements should be "for", rather than "aimed at", providing employees with information and so on. I am a little baffled by that and I doubt whether the amendment would materially alter the meaning of the clause. Of those whom we consulted, no one suggested such a change. We consulted not only employers but trade unions and virtually all of those who responded to the Green Paper entitled "Trade Union Immunities".
    Mr. Walker: I had not intended to inflict a speech on the House, but the amendment stands in my name. As a result of the amendment, the clause would refer to
    "action that has been taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements for—

    (i)providing employees…

    (ii)consulting employees".

    In other words, it would get rid of the permissive "aimed at". That is the sort of waffle that is often used in election addresses to avoid the issue. It would make the provision mandatory. A company could not say that it aimed to do something; it would have to say that it had done it. That would remove the present permissiveness and make the clause more effective.
    Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman is losing sight of the fact that, apart from the duty to put something in the company report, there is nothing mandatory about the clause. There is nothing in the clause to require the company to consult—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman cannot understand what I am saying and I certainly cannot understand what he is saying. It would take a lawyer with a far more confused mind than mine to see the important distinction between "aimed at" and "for".
    If the amendment is meant to require companies to report on what they have achieved rather than on what they have sought to achieve, it would have little effect, because arrangements that have been newly developed or introduced in the financial year are unlikely to have yielded any results by the time the report is made.
    Mr. Walker: I am trying to avoid making a speech, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me because I have been too brief. My point is the very one that he has confirmed—that there is nothing mandatory in the clause. It is entirely permissive, and to that extent it is meaningless. Our amendment would take away the permissive element and turn the clause into a provision that imposed an obligation on companies.
    I shall re-read the clause as it would stand if amended. It would read:
    "in the case of relevant companies, contain a statement describing the action that has been taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements for—

    (i)providing employees systematically with information…

    (ii)consulting employees…

    (iii)encouraging the involvement"

    At present the clause merely requires a company to say what it has done to aim at those things. As amended, it would not only have to aim at something, but do it. It may well be that all the clever and sophisticated lawyers who advise the Minister have said that the language of our amendment is inappropriate for statutes. However, we all know that it is traditional for Ministers to consider the substance of the argument and, if persuaded by it and by the views of the House, to ask parliamentary counsel to find the right form of words to achieve the intended effect. I may have chosen the wrong words, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman understands our aims and that he will address himself to them instead of to semantics.
    Mr. Waddington: I am sorry. I do not wish to lecture the right hon. Gentleman, but if he reads the clause he will see that there would be nothing mandatory about it even if one were to substitute "for" for "aimed at". We are discussing merely a reporting requirement and not a clause that will make employers provide employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as
    764
    employees. It merely attempts to point out the type of issues that a board of directors should try to canvass in the annual report. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that "aimed at" is not mandatory, but the substitution of "for" for "aimed at" would not make the provision mandatory. Therefore, the argument is boring and unnecessary.
    The words "aimed at" seemed satisfactory to those who were consulted and it certainly did not seem to be an unsatisfactory formula to the trade unions that replied to the consultative exercise. In those circumstances, I cannot see any powerful argument for moving away from a clause that was found acceptable by the other place and, in particular, by Lord Rochester.
    The Opposition's third amendment states that a statement should include arrangements for carrying out statutory obligations to consult recognised trade unions. It seems unnecessary, because there are adequate legal sanctions for failure to consult. Of course, if there is a failure to consult, those who are entitled to be consulted, such as the recognised trade unions, will be the first to complain and they will not have to look at a company annual report to discover whether they have been consulted.
    It is strange to suggest that such verbiage should be included in an annual report. I stress that if there is a failure to consult about redundancies the trade unions concerned can go to industrial tribunals, which can impose sanctions and make protective awards. There is no need to use an annual report to draw the attention of unions to the fact that they might have a remedy before an industrial tribunal. Long before the publication of the annual report the trade union will have been to the tribunal and back.
    The fourth Opposition amendment states that
    "information about the extent of the company's compliance with the requirements of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944"
    should be included in the statement. There are recent more general requirements in regulations for the inclusion of information on policy towards the employment of disabled persons. It would be right, surely, to allow those new regulations, which require reporting on policy towards disabled persons, to settle down. This again was not a matter that was raised in consultation.
    5.30 pm
    I revert now to the new clause itself and to subsections (3) and (4), which deal with matters of scope. The only change of substance is that the clause will now apply to companies with 250 employees or more, instead of 200. That is a sensible threshold, because it is in line with the regulations imposing the obligation to report on policy regarding the employment of disabled people. There must be powerful arguments for uniformity.
    In conclusion, I repeat that we are grateful to those who have inspired the new clause. It should help stimulate the continued growth and development of employee involvement arrangements in British industry. We believe in removing restrictions from industry rather than in imposing them. It is of the utmost importance to remove the "them and us" attitude in industry and to get home the message that companies which have implemented employee involvement policies have reaped tangible gains in terms of improved industrial relations and performance.
    Progress on employee involvement has, unfortunately, been uneven, and more could be done. This provision will encourage progress by ensuring that attention is given in the boardroom to company policy on employee

    765
    involvement. We also feel that shareholders, for whom the directors' report is designed, and the general public have a legitimate interest in companies' activities in this area.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred to something that I said not long ago in a speech about employee involvement. On that occasion, if my recollection is correct, I spoke of the danger of laying down by law fixed patterns of employee involvement and pointed to the danger of our cutting across existing policies for employee involvement which are working well. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was something strange in that statement. It seems to me to be only common sense. There are great dangers in laying down a rigid framework when circumstances are so varied, particularly when companies in British industry are confronted with differing problems.
    That is why we are more than sceptical about the proposals for legislation in the draft directives issued by the European Commission. We are not ashamed of saying that we are more than sceptical. We still believe that successful employee involvement depends, above all, on a spirit of co-operation and that any formal arrangements are best introduced voluntarily and tailored to meet the needs of individual enterprises. The clause is valuable in underlining the voluntary approach.
    It is a modest but important change. It is now up to industry to decide whether to respond constructively to make a success of the voluntary approach to employee involvement. I have every confidence that it will.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: I am at a loss to some degree with regard to the discussion that has taken place this afternoon, because I was not a member of the Committee that discussed the Bill in detail. However, certain comments by the Minister suggest to me that, with regard to the new clause and to the amendments submitted by my hon. Friends, the subject under discussion is undustrial democracy—a point that he made on a number of occasions.
    What baffles me about the Minister's remarks is that the words "aimed at", which are contained in new clause A, place no responsibility on the employer really to carry out the spirit of the clause, while the word "for", which is suggested by the Opposition amendment, does imply that the employer will do something of value. We will never change the "them and us" situation until employers have a responsibility to carry out the spirit of the clause.
    There is another aspect that disturbs me. It may have been debated at length in Committee, but I see no reference to it in the Bill. I am referring to the areas in which employees will receive information and be able to participate in decision-making within the company about its future. Although it might be suggested that there is no need to mention specific items, there is no mention of profits, costs, pricing policies or investment plans. There is no mention of product prospects within the market and the possibility of diversification in order to make it a viable company in which the employees can respond in the way that is suggested in the new clause, which refers to
    "encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance".
    We shall get involvement in the company's performance only when the employee feels that he can be involved in real terms in the decision-making within the
    766
    company. Industrial democracy, if it means anything at all, means that the employee can participate in a discussion about the forward investment plans of the company, the product prospects, to which I have already referred, or, indeed, possible merger proposals in which a company may be involved. Is that not a matter of which the employee should be fully apprised?
    While the annual report deals largely with what has happened in the past, it will nevertheless deal with the prospects for the future, or the shareholders will wish to know why it does not. If that is to be the case, prior to the writing of the report there should have been some dialogue—probably extensive discussions—between the management of the company and the employees at various levels within the firm.
    If the employer, as is being suggested, is to be encouraged to maximise a relationship in the factory—the feeling of "we are all in this together"; an esprit de corps—it is vital that the employee should be able to make a contribution in real terms and to feel a sense of overall commitment to the decision-making. I am not referring to issues such as whether the curtains in the canteen are of the right colour, or to the relationships that exist between one canteen and another, or even about the siting of the stores, although often employers do not take sufficient notice of employees' points of view on such issues. Employees should certainly be consulted as of right about the future of their company and matters that directly affect their economic interests.
    Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I support the Lords in their first amendment. My hon. Friends and I are delighted at the Minister's response to the initiative from their Lordships' House. The clause resembles closely the Companies (Directors' Reports) (Employee Involvement) Bill which I and my hon. Friends recently introduced but which failed through lack of time. The essential provisions are the same—information for employees on a systematic basis, regular consultation and the encouragement of active involvement through profit sharing and other means.
    In converstations earlier in the year before introducing our Bill, I found the Minister extremely sympathetic. He had, however, to consider whether the annual report was the right place for such an initiative, whether a code of practice might be preferable, or whether, in the light of what was going on in the European Parliament, such provision as is contained in the clause might form part of a larger Bill. I am glad that after due consideration of the state of the debate in Europe, Lord Rochester's initiative and the views of industry, the Government have decided to table the new clause now.
    The clause follows the provision in section 46 of the Companies Act 1980 under which directors are to take into account the interests of their employees. This reversed the judgment in Parkes v Daily News and was a necessary first step to developing a more positive approach to employee participation.
    The next logical step was to require directors to spell out in the annual report how they did this. The clause does that. No two companies behave in exactly the same way and it would be wrong to believe that a rigid formula would be appropriate in all cases. The new clause accepts that. In essence, it calls for a statement on industrial

    767
    relations in the company. That will be a record that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) rightly said should be available to all employees.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street should consider, however, whether a company with many plants which produces for employees in a particular plant a statement which is fuller and more relevant to them than the annual report needs to provide each employee with a copy. In such cases it might not be appropriate to provide a full annual report. Otherwise, I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman said. Equally, I accept what the Minister said about avoiding unnecessary cost and placing a further burden on industry.
    It is important to ensure that at least once a year boards of companies consider formally the state of industrial relations in their companies and what action might be taken to improve them.
    During discussions I hope that a number of questions will be asked. For instance: What are we doing to meet the requirements of the law and our own objectives? Are these shared by our employees? If not, why not? What are they asking us to do? Are we sympathetic? If not, why not? What are other companies doing? Is this or that a good idea and should we investigate it? How does our record look? What have we done in the past 12 months and what do we intend to do in the next 12 months? By no means all companies employing more than 250 people go through that process—certainly not at board level.
    It is important that the chairman of a company—not the managing director, not the personnel director or somebody senior in line management—is responsible for ensuring that this happens. In some cases he will be able to draw on the considerable experience of non-executive directors. Such a process will change the present position for the better. It should be a serious exercise so that the press and the trade unions believe that considered judgments have been made and that they have the right to challenge them. If they are not satisfied, they should be able to make that clear.
    5.45 pm
    At the time of the Bullock report it was clear that there was an absence of any record of what was going on in companies. The Bill will provide some record in due course. How good it will be, only time will tell. I accept that some companies will do no more than the minimum. Others—and we have some first-class companies—will provide a record of their experience which will be valuable to others. Much will depend upon the spirit of a company's approach. Some will be positive and some will not. I hope that those which are not will recognise that if further legislation which they do not like is passed, it might be because they did not respond to the opportunity to state their case positively.
    The time is ripe in another way for such an approach. Many companies have established a new unity as a result of the hard times that they have experienced. The outlook for improved profitability is there in many cases and therefore the moment is right for the introduction of profit sharing.
    Research in the United States has shown consistently that companies with profit sharing outperform those that do not have it. I have no doubt that similar research here will establish that companies that go out of their way to recruit the understanding and commitment of the work force perform much better than companies that do not.
    768
    The more that can be clone to develop a common interest and deeper understanding of how companies function, the better the prospects for those who work in British industry. I wonder how many people who worked in the motor and steel industries and who are out of work today might be in work if they had understood the financial state of the companies for which they worked when they went on strike.
    I am sure that in due course the Minister will wish to address himself to a glaring omission in the Bill's approach—the exclusion of the public sector. There is a greater problem in the public sector in terms of "us and them" than in the majority of private companies.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that people are now out of work because at some time they went on strike? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the land bankrupt companies which have never experienced a strike have closed as a result of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Bulmer: If the right hon. Gentleman went to Longbridge and talked about what went on in the past, he would find that the point that I have just made is readily understood.
    The proposed new clause is a modest first step. Today's debate has shown that it is as far as we can go while commanding support from all sides. I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said about taking part in decision making. I look for further improvements in that area. I also look forward eventually to establishing a body representative of all employees with which a board consults on the basis of "one man, one vote" taken in secret. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street might think that is as provocative as some of us thought the Bullock proposals. The fact that we can go forward in such short steps is a legacy from what happened when the Bullock report made such biased and provocative proposals.
    I believe that most people who work in industry would prefer to have changes in industrial relations introduced on the basis of consensus so that they may have some confidence that the rules will not change and change again.
    The clause is consistent with a voluntary approach, but at the same time it requires companies to take action to produce information that should increase understanding and, therefore, improve the chances that when we come to further legislation—as I have no doubt we shall—that legislation will be based on tested and proven experience.
    Mr. Penhaligon: I am delighted that the amendment has reached this stage, and I have no doubt that it will become part of the Bill. It was proposed by Lord Rochester, but during the eulogies paid to him everybody has chosen to forget that he is a Liberal peer. I expect that most people can work out why that was not mentioned. The amendment was passed only because it had broad support from the Social Democrats and the Labour Party. Without that support it would have never been passed in the other place. I am pleased that the Government accept the amendment and that it is to be part of the Bill.
    I agree with the comment of the Opposition that it is not an enormous breakthrough in industrial democracy or participation, but it is a step in the right direction. The House should work towards a system of industrial relations in which most employees in Great Britain can see that the success of the companies for which they work is to their

    769
    advantage. I was a fitter-turner apprentice when I was 17, and unfortunately that was not the attitude that existed among even a minority of the workers on the shop floor. I should confess that that was 20 years ago, but I do not believe that those attitudes have changed much. The clause makes a small but useful contribution towards the creation of that sort of attitude, and for that reason must be welcomed.
    The attitude of employers was often that there was no point in telling employees anything because they were not interested. It was extremely frustrating for those who were interested—albeit perhaps a minority—not to be able to find out anything about the enterprise in which they were involved, and not to be able to interest their colleagues and friends and make them more aware of what was going on. There are people on the shop floor who are interested in their company. They are well informed and well read—not in a classical university way—and they have had the initiative to find out what is happening. They understand, and, used properly, they can be a great asset to the management. They can pass on information when they meet socially and at work. The House should be seen to be encouraging that, and I am pleased that the amendment is to be part of the Bill.
    A large company in my constituency employs 5,500 people and produces large quantities of china clay. The company has worked hard over decades to build up the respect of its employees. If one dares to attack the English China Clay Company, the employees will be after one for having the audacity to do so. They feel that the well-being and prosperity of the company are to their benefit, and they are absolutely right. It is good to see that attitude and realise that a few companies in Great Britain can achieve that degree of co-operation and interest.
    I shall probably ruin the political career of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) by saying that I rather like him, but he should re-read his speech. At the beginning he said that the Labour Party's idea on industrial democracy involves everybody who works in the company. If those really are their ideas, the Lib-Lab pact could have passed some useful legislation before the last election. Every attempt to reach an agreement between the Liberal and Labour Parties failed, because we insisted that all company employees should be involved, while the Labour Party insisted that it should be trade union nominees only. That is a fundamental principle. I am pleased that my party stood firm and did not allow such legislation to go through the House.
    If the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is right, that is a delightful breakthrough. If he is not right, he should be more careful about the precise words that he uses when talking about industrial democracy. I thank the Government for their co-operation, and Lord Rochester for taking the initiative in the first place.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I am not going to get involved in arguments between the Liberal and Labour Parties about what should and should not have been done as a result of the Lib-Lab pact. I leave history to attend to that. The next Conservative Government will probably ensure that some of those wishes will be fulfilled and that all employees will become involved in what the Liberal Party calls industrial democracy.
    770
    I have always kept away from industrial democracy as I believe that it is a rather dangerous description when what is really wanted is individual participation at the work place. That is different from industrial democracy. Many of the problems in British industry have their origins in the secrecy of management, and, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) mentioned, in union intransigence. The problems that we face are not the result of one group of people becoming involved in one set of ideas; it is a collective matter. Management has a responsibility as well. That is one of the reasons why I am happy to support the amendment. I believe that it is a good amendment and should have the support of the House.
    The Bill deals quite properly with the intransigence of unions. Therefore, on the Government Benches we are happy to see an amendment that deals with management secrecy. I have never attempted to defend such secrecy, because I believe that it is mistaken.
    The financial position of British firms has been unfortunately misrepresented to the employees, who have been misled into making wage demands that were unrealistic. The result was that jobs vanished because firms were no longer able to compete. If the firms had been more forthcoming and given their employees sufficient information early enough many different attitudes would have been developed. That has to be seen against a siege mentality that has existed in British industry because organised labour through trade unions and the creature that they spawned—the Labour Party in Parliament—produced legislation that was intended to improve matters, but which in fact made industrial relations progressively worse. The truth about productivity, net profits and capital investment was not known to the employees who otherwise would not have been motivated to take part in the political strikes which could and did bring about the end of many jobs. The steel industry is a prime example. It is nonsensical to ask for a wage increase that one's company cannot pay. When that leads to closures and loss of jobs it is no good wringing one's hands.
    I believe that the amendment will stimulate and encourage employee participation and involvement in their companies. That is something which I have tried to encourage throughout my adult life, both in my trade union activities and in management. Human resources are the greatest asset of any company or corporation. It is how well those human resources are motivated that determines how the company will compete in the market place.
    Too often British management has been hung up on the lack of what it thought was investment, when the real problem was lack of profitability. That is the great problem that we have faced since the end of the war in 1945, and as a result British firms have not been profitable enough. If directors are required to give employees information on matters of concern, it means that employees need to be told the facts of life. If the facts of life had been told to a firm in my constituency—Smedley's canning factory—early enough, I am sure that it would be in existence today, because when it closed the employees produced many workable plans whereby the company could still be a viable concern. I put it no higher than that. Sadly, however, it was too late. The closure was in part due to management not keeping the employees in the picture.

    771
    6 pm
    It is right that management should consult employees and their representatives on a regular basis. I do not believe, and never have believed, in a doctrinal, laid-down, rigid format to make those people part of the decision-making process of the company—in other words, the board of management. If that formula were right, would not the Co-op be the dynamo of the High Street? Would it not be the dynamo of manufacturing? That is surely what it would be, if that formula worked.
    It is essential to study aspects that have failed, whether they be lack of information from management, intransigence by unions, or management structures of the type which have existed in the Co-op for many years, but which have not generated the dynamic drive in manufacturing, marketing, or in the High Street, which would make that organisation comparable with Marks and Spencer, GUS or Boots.
    Let us consider carefully the differences. One involves the structure of management and the decision making. I have never supported what I consider is the wooly thinking of industrial relations employee participation and involvement, all wrapped up in what is called industrial democracy. One cannot have that management structure and be effective in the market place. If I believed that, I should support it wholeheartedly, but my experience of looking carefully at the Co-op, the one organisation in the United Kingdom which has participated in this way on a large scale, has convinced me that it is not a road that we should travel—certainly not one that we should use legislation to enforce. That is the great weakness in many of the cases that are put forward in the name of so-called industrial democracy.
    A legal framework would be wrong. We should not force industrial democracy in that way. The amendment will force boards of directors to insert in their annual reports a statement on what they have been doing. Anyone who has sat in a boardroom discussing what is to go into the annual report knows that certain things happen only when the annual report is about to be written. That is because the pressure is on whoever is accountable actually to do something. I am in favour of that, and I am in favour of much more involvement. The training machine in a company is one method of employee involvement. That is where two-way exchanges take place, and it needs more encouragement. Participation, not just in employee shares, but in bonus schemes and so on, is also vital.
    We must consider how to motivate individuals in every company to operate effectively within that company. There is no textbook on human relations that tells us how to motivate different people in different companies in different parts of the country. Such a textbook does not exist. So we need something flexible, which will encourage those who are accountable—the boards of management and the chairmen—to make people more aware of what is happening in companies, how their companies are performing in the market place, what the future is, and what share they can expect in the future in terms of remuneration, holidays, and so on. If they take more out of a company than the company can stand in the market place, eventually jobs in that company will vanish. Sadly, that is what has happened in British companies for too long.
    I welcome the amendment and I believe that it will be welcomed throughout industry.
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: I, too, welcome the amendment, but with a little less enthusiasm than some of those who have spoken. To a hungry man, it is not really true that half a loaf is better than no bread. One dried crust is better than no bread. That is about the weight of the concession in the amendment. I greet it, therefore, not with three cheers, not with two cheers, but with one muted cheer, which is about what it is worth.
    The House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his clear exposition of the purposes and effect of the amendment and its limitations—its very severe limitations—which he explained most fairly. I was a little sorry—not for myself, but for him—that he felt it necessary, as a prelude to his excellent and enlightening speech, to follow his master's voice and engage in a little vituperation. He is much too good to try to go down in history as the poor man's Norman Tebbit. No doubt he observed that his right hon. Friend got a seat in the Cabinet by substituting abuse for argument and offensiveness for enlightenment. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman, for his own sake, not to follow that bad example.
    I agree with much of what has been said by Conservative Members, and also by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The hon. Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) and Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said many things with which I agree and which I have said for a long time. They did drop one or two clangers, but we shall forgive them those for the positive things that they said.
    In particular, I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire. who has had much experience—some of which may be similar to the experience that I had in my years in industry—when he said how self-defeating is the secrecy of management. I 'wish that managers would realise that. I know that the hon. Member for Kidderminster understands that and that he tries to persuade others to understand it, too. Managers should realise that industrial management—the personal involvement of workers in decision making, or whatever one likes to call it—is not merely an instrument of social justice or an extension of political democracy into economics, but is a valuable tool of management. If they realised that, there would be an enormous improvement in the average performance of British industry. I spend half my life as a management consultant trying to get people to understand what a useful tool of management it is and getting managers to understand that the real barrier to increased productivity is the lack of confidence which most workers have in their management. It derives from the fact that they see the disadvantages of management decisions. Often they do not see the advantages, because no one has ever told them.
    Therefore, all management decisions are a choice between evils. There is never a clear-cut choice. There are always options and one has to choose the best or the least bad option. No one ever explains to the workers the pros and cons of each option. Therefore, whatever option is chosen by management, the workers condemn it. The workers say "Here is this so-and-so adjectival management. I would not pay it in washers. Why should I bust my guts working harder when it dissipates all the effects of my work doing the wrong things?" The management may not be doing tie wrong things. The workers might agree that it was not if they were told about the considerations that led to the managerial decisions, but they never are.

    773
    That is why the companies that resist any invasion of the secrecy of management, to use the words of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, or the companies, to use the words of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, which do the minimum—that is to say, no more than they are statutorily compelled to do—are being not merely reactionary but stupid. They are committing not a crime, but something worse than a crime, which is a mistake. If this—if the Under-Secretary and Lord Rochester will forgive me—piddling little amendment makes a small contribution to the enlightenment of our more backward managers, it will have done some good.
    Hon. Members confuse two questions. The first is whether one should seek to lay down a standard pattern of industrial democracy or worker involvement which every firm must follow. The second is whether the whole system should be voluntary or whether there should be some statutory compulsions. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire spoke as if the two were the same. They are not. I can dispose of the first easily. I wrote a pamphlet for my union in 1944 saying that we should not write a blueprint for industrial democracy and expect every firm to follow that precisely, because that is grossly impracticable. One has to ensure that every organisation does things along certain lines of principle and let it work out the details for itself.
    There are certain lines of principle. It is no good saying that one will rely for ever on the voluntary arrangement. We have had that arrangement for a long time. The overwhelming majority of firms have done nothing in the direction so well advocated by the hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire and Kidderminster. Therefore, the voluntary arrangement does not work. One always has the problem of those who, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, will do only the minimum. They will not do anything that they are not forced to do. Therefore, one must lay down a statutory framework and then, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, within that framework let the bosses and blokes in every workplace work out for themselves what is the best way to implement it in the light of what they are making, how they are making it, and so on.
    6.15 pm
    What should be the framework and the degree of statutory compulsion? First, the provision of information ought to be a compulsory requirement. Otherwise, there will be too many secrecymongers among managers. Secondly, the acceptance of the principle—here I go along strongly with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne)—that any decision within a workplace that affects the welfare of any worker should be negotiable. No unilateral management decision on any matter can affect the welfare of the worker. If his welfare, his wages, his environmental conditions, his prospect of future employment and his esteem in the community—which counts for a lot among workers—will be affected, any decision must be negotiable. If one accepts that principle and the principle that the chap on the other side of the table is entitled to all the information that the other person has on his side of the table to carry out the negotiations, there is no problem about working out the best system within the framework and circumstances of each organisation.
    774
    Therefore, without being too rigid, we must face the fact that the voluntary system has not worked. If there is to be a statutory framework, it has to have flexibility. The decisions on details must be left to those concerned.
    There have been many references to the argument whether whatever machinery one has in an organisation to fit that organisation should be chosen through the mechanism of the trade unions or by everyone in the factory. On the face of it, there seems to be an overwhelming case for everyone having an equal say. However, one must deal with life as it is and with practicalities.
    I worked in a factory as a consultant 40 years ago. There was a works council elected by all the workers in the factory. That was fair enough. However, there were also agreements with a number of trade unions that specified that on wages and working conditions—later health and safety were added—the management had to negotiate with a joint shop stewards' committee. It entered into firm commitments so to do. It was a contractual obligation. The management could discuss with its works council anything that it liked about the factory as long as it did not affect the workers' wages and conditions. Everything that happens in a factory affects workers' wages and conditions. In that factory there was an awful conflict. Anything that the works council agreed to, the shop stewards committee vetoed. There was an impossible situation.
    That example is being mirrored everywhere else. One cannot separate the normal contractual arrangements for negotiating with trade unions on wages, working conditions, health and safety and welfare from industrial democracy about everything that does not affect wages, conditions, health and safety and welfare, because everything that does not affect wages, working conditions, welfare and health and safety is nil. That is silly.
    Mr. Ron Leighton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the striking confirmation of his view by Lord Rochester when he replied to the debate in the House of Lords on 28 July at column 254 in the Lords Hansard? He said that in his old factory all the employee representatives were, and still are, shop stewards and that they would be engaged as the employee representatives in the consultation exercise.
    Mr. Mikardo: That is a man speaking from practical experience, as I have been trying to do. One of the greatest joys of my life was being a management representative on such a joint committee. I disagreed with some of the committee members and resigned in a friendly fashion. I was replaced by another member of management, but three weeks later I was elected as works representative on the same committee. I had a very good time in the following few months.
    People, such as Lord Rochester, who have had firsthand experience of industrial problems understand the problem that we are discussing. It is no use being theoretical and using large-sounding phrases. In order to reconcile the conflicting interests, much thought must be given to the problem. To say glibly that democracy demands that everyone should be involved, irrespective of the consequences, will result in a beautifully democractic framework that produces an impotent instrument. Such a result will not help either side of industry.
    I end as I began by giving a muted cheer to the clause.
    Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am pleased that the amendment has given the House an opportunity to discuss industrial democracy. I am especially grateful to the hon. Members for Chester-le-Steet (Mr. Radice) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) for spelling out their support for industrial democracy, using the term in the same way that some of us use the words "participation" or "involvement".
    The terms "democracy" and "industrial democracy" are different and should have different meanings. "Industrial democracy" should mean power sharing in all its aspects. That is how the Opposition believe that the term should apply in industry. . Democracy was introduced to Government over many years and is now accepted at all levels to be the ultimate constraint against dictatorship. It is right that we should have such democracy in Government, but to extend that democracy to all companies, which have a different role to play from that of Government, is unsatisfactory. Decisions about a firm's products, future, marketing and finance may have to be taken rapidly and cannot be subjected to such protracted debates as those with which we are all familiar and which we all know, perhaps to our cost, are part of the work of the House and local government. Therefore, I welcome the amendment for its encouragement of greater involvement by employees in industry. That involvement will increase their commitment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) gave us a clear picture of how the amendment could affect the attitude and, more important, the action of company boards and managements to achieve increased involvement and commitment by the work force.
    I welcome the amendment, but I must make the point to Ministers that there is still considerable anxiety among many British managers, especially articulated by the CBI, about the amendment being tacked on to the Bill and requiring such information to be shown in the company report. There is anxiety that the company report is not the right vehicle. We must accept that the provision is tacked on to a Bill which was not designed to achieve greater involvement. That is not to say that I or members of the Conservative Party do not wish to achieve greater involvement, but it requires voluntary commitment by companies. During the next year and beyond, I hope that my party will bend all its energies towards developing policies that will increase participation, but not along industrial democracy lines. We must consider the position as companies respond to the proposals.
    Although the amendment is valuable, we must be aware of the likely EEC legislation on the horizon. We must assure British companies that we are keeping a close eye on that legislation so that we do not run the risk of imposing statutory EEC requirements on our present voluntary system of industrial relations and participation. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spelt out the Government's anxiety and awareness about the fifth directive and the Vredeling proposals. From the exposure given by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to the activities of Conservatives in the European Parliament, we are aware of those dangers and prepared to be robust in ensuring that our concerns are considered properly in the EEC as they will be here in due course.
    We must be careful not to build up a Christmas tree of requirements in the annual report. If we do that, the report will lose the impact of its original intention, which is a crucial and important document to shareholders.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. John Grant: The new clause should be welcomed as a modest, but worthwhile, step in a Bill which, for the most part, will do little, if anything, to improve industrial relations, and may well turn out to be largely counterproductive. Contrary to the impression that the Minister seeks to give, it will do nothing to reduce the shameful figure of 3½ million unemployed, which should be the Government's preoccupation.
    It was a bit much for the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) to complain about the shortcomings of the clause. The official Opposition did nothing to secure more discussion on industrial democracy at an earlier stage of the Bill, when they had the opportunity to do so. The new clause resulted from an initiative in the House of Lords, particularly that of Lord Rochester and Liberal peers, supported by SDP peers and, to be fair, with substantial Labour support. We should congratulate the Government on supporting that initiative, however belatedly and reluctantly.
    Mr. Bulmer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause received the support of Conservative peers as well?
    Mr. Grant: Yes, that is true. I do not know what happened when the Government were defeated. Presumably, the Secretary of State, in that lovable manner that we know so well, patted his Minister on the shoulder, said "Hard luck," swallowed hard and made the best of the problem.
    Mr. Waddington: There is no mystery about this. Our spokesman in the House of Lords made it plain that we accepted the verdict of the House and the purpose of the new clause in principle. The hon. Gentleman will agree with the force of the argument that I advanced that, as there was a consultative process on the basis of a Green Paper on trade union immunities, we were rather reluctant to add to the Bill matters that were not canvassed in that consultative process.
    Mr. Grant: I take the Minister's point. However, if British industry across the board paid more attention to its most valuable asset—the work force—a clause of this type would not be necessary. Unfortunately, sensible and progressive employers, and I count the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) among them, are not necessarily the majority. There are too many laggards when it comes to taking employees into their confidence and encouraging them to share in decision taking.
    The clause does not go far enough. The SDP green paper makes positive proposals for far-reaching changes in providing employees with a share in decision taking in British industry, through right and not favour. However, the document is just a green paper for consultation, and when the consultation is over the SDP will vote on the proposals on the basis on one person, one vote. We shall reach our conclusions, and we shall make our commitment at that stage.
    Let us hope that, with the Government's acceptance of the clause, we have at least the seeds of recognition that there has to be accountability and greater openness in British industry. Recognition may come soon. We may have to move because of the EEC and its requirements. The Minister referred to scepticism of the Vredeling proposals and the fifth directive, but I have the strong

    777
    impression, which he confirmed today, that the Government are opposed to the proposals at Council of Ministers level. That would be regrettable.
    I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street mentioned what was in our green paper, and I wonder whether he has read it carefully. He should reread it. I will not read from it to the House, because that would not be welcome. However, it envisages the full involvement of the trade unions. Perhaps we can get somewhere with those proposals instead of running into the sort of deadlock that we saw after the Bullock report.
    The direction in which the clause points us is relevant to finding lasting solutions to the class-ridden "them and us" attitude that bedevils so much of British industry. In that respect, it is perhaps more relevant than the rest of the Bill put together. It should have been part of a separate, much more substantial Bill about industrial democracy, and we shall certainly want that.
    Despite what the Minister says about consultation, I can understand the Government's initial reluctance to support a proposal of this sort, because it conflicts with the general confrontational attitude of the Secretary of State, which he is never tired of showing. It also conflicts with the attitude of the increasingly dominant part of the Labour and trade union movement. I hope that that attitude does not spread to the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
    It is an attitude that is growing, and is best personified when one listens to or sees Mr. Arthur "Wedgwood" Scargill preaching his class war claptrap on every second television programme. He is interested not in industrial democracy, but in industrial demagogy. Every time he needs another boost for his earnings, his ego or his votes, Auntie Beeb is always obliging.
    Mr. Scargill, and others like him, are the perfect excuse for those on the other side of the industrial argument who are determined to resist all moves towards greater participation and industrial democracy and are too blinkered to see the potentially greater, all-round prosperity that such changes can help to achieve. We have to move away from the depressing and damaging confrontational atmosphere and try to build a genuine industrial partnership.
    Legislative proposals by the SDP aim to do that. They recognise the need for flexibility and diversity, and do not impose a blueprint, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). That is the right approach, and it is better than passing a rigid law that will be flouted in spirit if not in letter. However, we must have a legislative framework, because voluntarism has not provided the impetus or the answer, and the Government have done little, if anything, to promote changes.
    The SDP has put preliminary proposals on the table. We are ready to discuss them with anyone, as they are in green paper form. Meanwhile, the clause should be received with all-round approval and, if it is, that will be an achievement.
    Mr. Michael Martin: I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary say that a good way of commenting on a company's statement would be to put a notice on the factory notice board. It is obvious from that that the hon. and learned Gentleman has never seen a factory notice board, because if he had he would know that when a notice is pinned on the board in a factory,
    778
    somebody comes along with another notice and covers it. Then someone else comes along with another notice and covers the second until the information on the board is no good to the work force.
    I was also interested to hear what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) had to say about profit sharing. I hope that the Government will encourage more companies to give shares in their companies.
    I know that one large employer in my constituency, involved in the tobacco industry, has been able, over the years and with consultation with the shop stewards and the work force, to introduce new technology which the work force knew would ultimately mean that people lost their jobs. However, they were courageous enough to allow that machinery to be introduced. It is only right that if people make decisions which improve the prospects of the company but which also mean, at the end of the day, that they or their colleagues could lose their jobs, they should be entitled to a share in that company. Even if they are involved in redundancies, they should have the benefit of security for the courageous decision that they made.
    Several hon. Members, including the Under-Secretary, have mentioned the trade union movement in the context of a "them and us" situation. That is far from a true picture. It has been my experience in the West of Scotland that the vast majority of trade unions and those involved as shop stewards get on well with management. There is a first-class relationship. One is always reading in the newspapers about disputes, redundances or something else that puts industrial relations in a bad light. Those experienced in industrial relations know that managements and the trade union movement have gone far in recent years to improve those relations.
    I wish that more hon. Members in these debates would try to emphasise the positive developments that are taking place in industry and the trade union movement. If the Under-Secretary is worried about a "them and us" situation, he should perhaps encourage some employers to eliminate problems that create such a situation. There are hourly paid workers who, no matter how long they have been working for a company, are not paid if, due to sickness or some other reason, they have to leave their place of work. They receive no sick pay from the employer.
    However, a person in the same company employed under staff conditions can be paid full wages if taken ill or even if possessing a legitimate excuse for leaving the place of work. Six years ago, when I was employed in a large engineering factory, an hourly paid, or what we called a direct, worker who had been employed by the company for 30 years was taken ill with influenza at about three o'clock in the afternoon. His shift ended at 4.30 pm. The employer took from him one and a half hours' wages because he had had to leave his place of work.
    That man's own daughter, an 18-year-old typist, who had spent only about a year with the company, was given time off with pay the following week to go with her boyfriend to see a house that they wanted to buy. They were about to be married. That happened because she enjoyed staff conditions. It creates a "them and us" situation which should be removed from industry. In some factories, even today, there is an apartheid situation where a man wearing a boiler suit is not allowed into the staff canteen. That is ridiculous.
    The Lords amendment refers to a company with more than 250 workers. We should not deceive ourselves. If a

    779
    company with 50 workers told me that it was setting up business in my constituency, I would welcome it with open arms. Every hon. Member, I am sure, would adopt the same attitude. Nowadays, a company with 50 employees can be regarded as large. We should not merely be considering industrial democracy for those fortunate enough to have a job in a company with 250 or more employees. In this day and age, a company with 50, or even 25 employees, is considered to be a large employer. It is a sad feature of the industrial society in which we live.
    6.45 pm
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster referred to industrial democracy in the public services. This area worries me. The nature of the company or the service means that it is obviously non profit-making. I believe, for instance, that the National Health Service, which is run by the people for the people, should have better industrial relations and that the work force should be involved to a greater extent in the running of its affairs. This is not the case. A great deal of pettiness exists in industrial relations within the National Health Service.
    I am not referring to the present dispute. In normal times, within the Health Service, there are many petty problems that could be ironed out if more training were given to those who work in the personnel sections. One has only to examine Health Service cases that go to industrial tribunals to see that many petty problems could be resolved if more expertise existed within the personnel departments. Once the existing problems of the National Health Service are resolved—I hope that this happens quickly—attention should be given to the personnel sections. They have been treated as poor relations. I do not feel that the right type of person has been attracted into personnel which controls the destiny of many employees.
    Mr. Renton: I apologise to the House for being absent for half an hour following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). I was attending a committee meeting. I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the work that Lord Rochester carried a step further in the other place and which we see culminating today with the support, I am sure, of both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has emphasised the need to diminish the "them and us" characteristics of British industry. I agree wholeheartedly. One of the many things from which British industry suffers is the civil war that has continued for too long between management, particularly in the larger companies, and the work force. This small amendment is a step towards diminishing that civil war by establishing better understanding and consultations between management and work force on a permanent basis. That is of prime importance.
    I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster asked me to be one of those supporting his Ten-Minute Bill some months ago. I am pleased to see it reach its culmination. It must be clear to all hon. Members, certainly to those who have spoken, that it is the company which consults which prospers. One cannot help thinking, looking back to what happened at British Leyland at Longbridge and at Speke, that if there had been much greater consultation much earlier in those factories, many more jobs would have survived than is now the case in our depleted major industries.
    The very message that the company which consults is the one which prospers is emphasised when we consider
    780
    shining examples such as United Biscuits, Sainsburys and, I have no doubt, that eponymous company, H. P. Bulmer. I hope that when the requirement to state in the annual report what a company has been doing about employee involvement in the last 12 months is enacted, those who attend the annual general meeting will ask questions about it. I hope that if there is merely a paragraph or two in. the statement, the small shareholder with 100 shares and the institutional fund manager will both rise and ask the chairman why more has not been done about employee involvement. It is very important that the matter should be raised and discussed at the annual general meeting.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), who is somewhat endearing in the way that he works himself into a lather about a Lords amendment and then says that he intends to support it, has urged in his amendment that a copy of the statement should be circulated as of right to every employee. Annual reports from large companies are full of glossy photographs and many pages of elaborate financial data. I do not think that that is the document—often running to 100 pages—which should be circulated to every employee. I take the point that the statement about what is being done concerning employee involvement should go to every employee, but it would be better to put that information in a separate statement specially produced for the employees of a particular unit within the group,.
    I have in mind the report that Wiggins Teape produces as part of BAT Industries, a company that I had the privilege of studying under the aegis of the Industry and Parliamentary Trust. As part of a very large group, it was proud of the report that it produced annually, specifically and only for employees of Wiggins Teape.
    Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought it right that a copy of the statement referred to in their Lordships' amendment should go to every employee. That is entirely consistent with the Bill presented earlier this year by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). The Opposition amendment is entirely in line with what the hon. Member—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very generous to the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker).
    Mr. Renton: Many of us would like to ask the Minister when the provision is likely to come into operation, and whether employers will be given any guidance in meeting the new legislative requirement.
    Mr. Waddington: I think that Lord Rochester's clause was intended to apply to any financial year beginning after 1 January 1983. Our present intention is to use the same date, but there is no need for the date to be in the clause, because the Bill provides for the commencement of various clauses on various dates, as decided by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Renton: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, in speaking for the Opposition, said that I was one of the Conservative trade unionists present. I am privileged to be president of the large and growing organisation of Conservative trade unionists, and I agree with him that we have published a pamphlet on the question of participation, the conclusion of which was that we needed a code of participative practice.

    781
    It is difficult to draw the balance between legislation, code of practice and purely voluntary proposals, particularly when not only the size of company is so enormously different but when the stage that companies have reached along the line of employee involvement is so different. We took the view that a code of practice on the subject would be helpful. I hope that the Government—perhaps when they have been re-elected in 12 or 18 months' time—will consider it to be a suitable subject for the next Parliament.
    I fully agree with the hon. Member for Springburn on the importance of employees, whenever possible, holding shares in the business in which they work. I am delighted that under a Conservative Government the number of employee share schemes has grown from a mere handful when we came into office to many hundreds. But there is a gap to which attention should be drawn. When an employee shareholder obtains shares—for example, when his company goes public, as in the case of the recent British Aerospace issue—how can we ensure that he keeps those shares? Often employees apply for shares, they get an offer, and within a year or two many of the shares end up in the hands of an institution. That aspect ought to be studied. It is not just a matter of encouraging employees to obtain shares, but of trying to ensure that they keep them. I am interested to know that, according to the newspapers, that may be one of the features of the Britoil flotation in two or three weeks' time, to which hon. Members on each side of the House are looking forward so keenly. It is one matter which I shall study with interest in the prospectus. I hope that a means will be found not only of helping employees to get shares, but of ensuring that they keep them for a few years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminister on his initiative in the matter.
    Mr. Don Dixon: The new clause is the wrong clause in the wrong Bill, and in my view it is a con. How on earth can people talk about industrial democracy and put a new clause into a Bill which is primarily designed to destroy organised trade unionism in industry? It is an absolute farce.
    The Minister was truthful when, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), he said that the new clause had no powers whatever and was purely consultative. He admitted that there was nothing mandatory about it. Subsection (2)(h)(i) aims at
    "providing employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees."
    Who is to determine which matters are of concern to employees? I well recall, when working in industry, being asked "What is a fair day's work for a fair day's pay?". My answer was "It all depends whether you are giving it or receiving it". That has been the position in industry for a considerable time.
    The Minister said that the reason why the clause was accepted in the House of Lords was that there had been time for some consultation. I think he said that 90 letters were sent out. It is rather ironic that of the 19 clauses and the four schedules, the only one to come into operation when the Bill receives Royal Assent will be schedule 1, paragraph 1, which has no provision whatever for consultation. That is the paragraph in the schedule which
    782
    gives the Secretary of State for Industry the right to pay out £2 million of taxpayers' money to those who were "free riders" between 1974 and 1980.
    I repeat that the amendment is a con and should be rejected, because the whole Bill is anti-trade unionist. The clause is simply a bit of icing that the Government are seeking to put on it.
    Question put, That the proposed amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 292.

    Division No. 320]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Adams, Allen

    Ewing, Harry

    Allaun, Frank

    Faulds, Andrew

    Anderson, Donald

    Fitch, Alan

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Ford, Ben

    Ashton, Joe

    Forrester, John

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Foster, Derek

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

    Foulkes, George

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    George, Bruce

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Golding, John

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Gourlay, Harry

    Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

    Graham, Ted

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

    Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Hardy, Peter

    Buchan, Norman

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Campbell, Ian

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Haynes, Frank

    Canavan, Dennis

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Cant, R. B.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

    Homewood, William

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S),

    Hooley, Frank

    Cohen, Stanley

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Coleman, Donald

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Huckfield, Les

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Cook, Robin F.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cowans, Harry

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Crowther, Stan

    John, Brynmor

    Cryer, Bob

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Deakins, Eric

    Lambie, David

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Lamond, James

    Dewar, Donald

    Leighton, Ronald

    Dixon, Donald

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Dobson, Frank

    Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

    Dormand, Jack

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Douglas, Dick

    Litherland, Robert

    Dubs, Alfred

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Dunnett, Jack

    McCartney, Hugh

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Eadie, Alex

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Eastham, Ken

    McKelvey, William

    Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

    McMahon, Andrew

    English, Michael

    McNamara, Kevin

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    McTaggart, Robert

    783

    Marks, Kenneth

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Snape, Peter

    Maxton, John

    Soley, Clive

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Spearing, Nigel

    Meacher, Michael

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Mikardo, Ian

    Stallard, A. W.

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Stoddart, David

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Stott, Roger

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

    Strang, Gavin

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Straw, Jack

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Morton, George

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Newens, Stanley

    Tilley, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Tinn, James

    O'Neill, Martin

    Torney, Tom

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Palmer, Arthur

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Park, George

    Wardell, Gareth

    Parker, John

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    Parry, Robert

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Watkins, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Weetch, Ken

    Penhaligon, David

    Welsh, Michael

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    White, Frank R.

    Prescott, John

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Race, Reg

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Radice, Giles

    Whitlock, William

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Richardson, Jo

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

    Robertson, George

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Winnick, David

    Rooker, J. W.

    Woodall, Alec

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wright, Sheila

    Ryman, John

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Sever, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Mr. Allen McKay and

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Alexander, Richard

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Brinton, Tim

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Ancram, Michael

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brotherton, Michael

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Buck, Antony

    Banks, Robert

    Budgen, Nick

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Bendall, Vivian

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Butcher, John

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Best, Keith

    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Blackburn, John

    Churchill, W. S.

    Blaker, Peter

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

    Body, Richard

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Bowden, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    784

    Cope, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Corrie, John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Crouch, David

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Dorrell, Stephen

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Dover, Denshore

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Knox, David

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Lamont, Norman

    Durant, Tony

    Lang, Ian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Latham, Michael

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Eggar, Tim

    Lee, John

    Elliott, Sir William

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Loveridge, John

    Farr, John

    Luce, Richard

    Fell, Sir Anthony

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    McCrindle, Robert

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    MacGregor, John

    Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Forman, Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

    Fox, Marcus

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    Major, John

    Fry, Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Marlow, Antony

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mates, Michael

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mawby, Ray

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Gorst, John

    Mellor, David

    Gow, Ian

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Mills, lain (Meriden)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Gray, Hamish

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Grieve, Percy

    Moate, Roger

    Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Moore, John

    Grist, Ian

    Morgan, Geraint

    Grylls, Michael

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mudd, David

    Hannam, John

    Murphy, Christopher

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Myles, David

    Hastings, Stephen

    Neale, Gerrard

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Needham, Richard

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Neubert, Michael

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Newton, Tony

    Henderson, Barry

    Onslow, Cranley

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Hicks, Robert

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Hill, James

    Parris, Matthew

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Hooson, Tom

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Hordern, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Pollock, Alexander

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, Barry

    Irvine, Bryant Godman

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Jessel, Toby

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    785

    Rathbone, Tim

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Renton, Tim

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thompson, Donald

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Rossi, Hugh

    Trippier, David

    Rost, Peter

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Viggers, Peter

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Wardell, Gareth

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Wakeham, John

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walker, B. (Perth )

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Richard

    Walters, Dennis

    Shersby, Michael

    Ward, John

    Silvester, Fred

    Warren, Kenneth

    Sims, Roger

    Watson, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wells, Bowen

    Smith, Dudley

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wheeler, John

    Speed, Keith

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Speller, Tony

    Whitney, Raymond

    Spence, John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Wilkinson, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Squire, Robin

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stainton, Keith

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stanley, John

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    Stokes, John

    Mr. Carol Mather.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

    Clause 2
    DISMISSAL FOR NON-MEMBERSHIP OF UNION
    Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
    "(7A) In any case where neither subsection (4) nor subsection (7) has the effect of displacing subsection (3) and the employee—

    (a)holds qualifications which are relevant to the employment in question;

    (b)is subject to a written code which governs the conduct of those persons who hold those qualifications; and

    (c)has—

    (i)been expelled from a trade union for refusing to take part in a strike or other industrial action, or

    (ii)refused to become, or remain, a member of a trade union,

    subsection (3) shall not apply if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for his refusal was, in a case falling within paragraph (c)(i), that his taking the action in question would be in breach of the code, or in a case falling within paragraph (c)(ii), that if he became, or as the case may be remained, a member he would be required to take part in a strike, or other industrial action, which would be in breach of that code."
    Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment makes it unfair to dismiss an employee for non-membership of a union in a closed shop if, first,
    786
    he holds qualifications that are relevant to his employment, secondly, he is subject to a written code that governs the conduct of people who hold those qualifications, and, thirdly, he has been expelled or has resigned from or refused to join a union because of a conflict between his code of conduct and industrial action that is called for by his union.
    The amendment is drafted so that it bites only where neither the existing protection for conscientious objectors to union membership nor the existing protection for people who are unreasonably expelled from their union is relevant.
    The Government introduced the amendment on Report in another place as a result of widespread anxiety that this type of protection should be provided for professional employees who work in a closed shop and who would be in an impossible position if their membership of a trade union involved them in industrial action contrary to their professional code of conduct. Concern was expressed on both sides, particularly by Lord Howie of Troon for the Opposition. There was almost universal welcome for the amendment.
    I hope that Opposition Members will not argue that professional employees are not entitled to this type of protection. The spread of the closed shop, which the previous Government encouraged, introduced compulsory union membership in many areas of employment where it had not previously existed. As a result, professional employees, especially in local authorities and nationalised industries, have become increasingly vulnerable to enforced trade union membership, which in turn may place them with an actual or potential conflict of loyalties between a professional code of ethics and their union's instruction to take industrial action.
    If, in those circumstances, the professional employee decides to put his code of ethics first by, for example, continuing to provide safety cover if he is an engineer, he must be protected against dismissal if his refusal to strike leads to his being expelled from his union.
    7.15 pm
    It is no use Opposition Members saying that such a thing cannot happen. It happened to Mr. Partington, an engineer employed by Scottish Gas, who was expelled for not taking part in a strike although he had been told by his employers to provide emergency cover and ensure public safety.
    There is a narrower legal point whether the Bill and existing legislation would provide such protection without the amendment. There may be room for argument about that. The view that sufficient protection already exists was not shared by many of those who spoke in another place, including some Opposition noble Lords. They pressed us to put the matter beyond doubt. This is essentially a belt and braces exercise. Such employees may already be protected by the Bill as it is drafted. It may be, therefore, that no one will ever need to use the new clause because he will be able to get all the protection that he needs under the conscience clause in the Bill. Nevertheless, there will be provision in case of need. In these matters, it is far better to be safe than sorry.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment. However, that does not mean that we have no reservations about it. I cannot extend a warm welcome to it, but I shall not ask the House to oppose it.

    787
    It is a bit much the Under-Secretary of State saying that it is no use Opposition Members saying that this sort of thing cannot happen. He should wait to hear what we have to say. I am not sure what is meant by a professional employee. This sort of thing could happen to any employee, not merely those with professional qualifiactions.
    I understand the point about the possibility—the Minister has cited an example—of a conflict between the requirements imposed on an employee by his trade union and the code of conduct to which he subscribes. I wish that the Government would give equal consideration to the conflict that can also arise between the instructions of an employer and the employee's code of conduct. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not say that that cannot happen. It can, especially to members of the National Union of Journalists who have such a code of conduct.
    I have one other reservation about the amendment. I am doubtful about legislation that discriminates between one type of employee and another. As drafted, the amendment could apply to any group of workers who have a code of conduct.
    The 1980 Act produced a code of practice on closed shop agreements and arrangements. We are now once again discussing amendments relevant to clause 2, which is one of the important clauses dealing with the closed shop.
    I heard last week on the parliamentary grapevine, if I may so put it, that the Department—I do not know whether it was Ministers or officials—had been briefing journalists about possible changes in the code of practice. Indeed, the game was given away at Department of Employment Question Time last Tuesday when a Conservative Back Bencher referred to changes in the code of practice and when they would come before the House.
    Apparently there are to be changes. Last week I tabled a question to which I received the following written answer from the Secretary of State today:
    "Consideration of the Employment Bill makes this an appropriate time to re-examine the code and consider what changes should be made. I therefore intend, in accordance with section 3 of the Employment Act 1980, to consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and then to publish the draft of a revised text as a basis for consultation with all interested parties. Thereafter I shall lay a draft of a revised code before Parliament for approval."
    There is, however, interaction between the provisions of the Bill and the provisions of the code of practice. Any changes in the contents of the code will be highly relevant to our discussion of the Lords amendments. We should have been told what changes the Secretary of State had in mind so that we could take account of them in our proceedings. I am happy to give way if the Secretary of State wishes to intervene.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): As some of the changes are very recent, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would have been difficult for us to begin to consult or to conclude our consultations in any sensible way before now. He must know that there was no chance of our being able to do that.
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I understand. If the Secretary o0f State says that I have been misled or have misunderstood, I will readily accept that. However, I began by saying that I had heard that journalists had been briefed last week
    788
    about the possible changes, and it seems that some Conservative Back Benchers have also been told what the changes may be. Instead of telling certain selected people in smoke-filled rooms in this hole and corner fashion, the Secretary of State, if he has things to tell, should tell them openly in the House. Let him give us some idea of what the changes are so that we may take them into account in framing our attitude to the Lords amendments. Perhaps he will tell us something now about what the changes are, when we may see them and what the timetable may be for his bringing them before the House.
    Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) knows that a fairly involved procedure must be followed before a new code can come into existence. He will certainly recall that ACAS must be consulted. We must then consider what is proposed by ACAS. There must then be further consultation before final proposals are put before the House by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman if he is asking me to tell him how long that process will take, any more than I can possibly tell him what final proposals will be put before the House. They will depend on what comes out of the consultation process. What is absolutely certain, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, is that one cannot even begin the process of consultation with a view to revising the code until one has finalised the Bill. The Bill has to be enacted. One then gets to work on the code. I should have thought that that was fairly plain.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No.3, in page 4, line 6, at end insert—
    "(7B) For the purposes of subsections (3)(c) and (6)(c), where votes in a ballot may be cast on more than one day, the ballot shall be treated as held on the last of those days."
    Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
    Mr. Waddington: These are somewhat technical amendments. I hope that I shall not need to detain the House for long.
    The amendments concern the closed shop balloting provisions in the Bill and in particular the period of time over which a ballot is held. It has always been the Government's intention that the closed shop ballots provided for in the Bill should not necessarily have to take place in a single day. We have always recognised that in certain industries it may prove very difficult to hold a ballot among employees of larger companies within that time scale. It was brought to the Government's attention, however, that the Bill as drafted might have given rise to doubt as to whether a closed shop ballot held over more than one day would be valid for the purposes of the closed shop balloting clauses in the Bill. That is because the original Bill referred in new sections 58(6)(c) and 58A(3) to the "the day" on which the ballot was held.
    The purpose of the amendments is simply to remove any possible doubt in that regard. They provide explicitly that a closed shop ballot may be held over a period longer than one day and they make it clear that, in the case of a ballot held over more than one day, the last day is the day that matters for calculating the five-year period and also

    789
    the day that matters with regard to the right of non-union employees in new closed shops to remain non-members under new section 58(6)(c).
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 25, at end insert—
    "(10A) Where the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal of an employee was—

    (a)his refusal, or proposed refusal, to comply with a requirement (whether or not imposed by his contract of employment or in writing) that, in the event of his failure to become or his ceasing to remain a member of any trade union or of one of a number of particular trade unions, he must make one or more payments; or

    (b)his objection, or proposed objection (however expressed), to the operation of a provision (whether or not forming part of his contract of employment or in writing) under which, in the event mentioned in paragraph (a), his employer is entitled to deduct one or more sums from the remuneration payable to him in respect of his employment;

    that reason shall be treated as falling within subsections (1)(c)and (3)(b)."
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 12.
    Mr. Alison: The amendments are related. They are designed to close a possible loophole in the Bill which might have enabled an employer to evade liability for unfair dismissal by arguing that the reason for dismissing an employee in a closed shop situation was not that the employee was not a union member but that he failed to make a payment in lieu of union membership. The amendments also give an employee a remedy if his employer seeks without the employee's consent forcibly to deduct money from the employee's wages or salary as payment in lieu.
    A consistent principle lies behind all three amendments. It is that where an employee has a right not to belong to a trade union—this right clearly flows from clauses 2 and 5 and is a fundamental part of the Bill—he should also have what is in a sense a lesser, but a naturally consequential, right not to be forced to make a payment in lieu of trade union membership.
    I shall deal briefly with the detail of the three amendments. Amendment No. 4 provides that dismissal for not complying with a requirement to make a payment in lieu or for objecting to an employer deducting such a payment from an employee's pay against the will of the employee is to be regarded as dismissal for non-membership of a union, whether that be fair or unfair. That means that such indirect forms of effective dismissal, as it were, will carry the enhanced compensation which would naturally flow from clause 2 of the Bill as originally drafted.
    Amendment No. 8 is consequential upon amendment No. 4. It provides that where an employee is unfairly dismissed for failing to make a payment in lieu of trade union membership the fact that he may have breached a contractual undertaking in failing to comply with a requirement for such payment or has objected to payment being made for him or on his behalf is not to be regarded by an industrial tribunal as conduct making it just and equitable to reduce his award of compensation.
    790
    7.30 pm
    Amendment No. 12 is also consequential on amendment No. 4 and makes it clear that any compulsory deduction from an employee in lieu of union membership amounts to action short of dismissal taken against him by the employer from which he is protected by the Bill. It is relevant here to note that compulsory deductions might not necessarily be paid to a charity and it could be part of the deal between the union and an employer that payments go to the union in lieu of membership fees.
    The charity option or "agency shop" arrangement is not ruled out by the amendments. If a closed shop agreement is endorsed by an 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. majority—whichever is relevant—and an option is offered as an alternative to membership, but is refused in an endorsed closed shop, the dismissal will be fair. It does not in any way interfere with or inhibit a voluntarily agreed or arranged system for paying money to charity.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I regret that the House and the Minister will not find me as co-operative and helpful on this matter as I was on the previous issue. The Minister has not advanced any justifications for this significant change in the Bill that left the House to go to the other place. It would have been helpful if we had been told whether the Government had had any consultations with anybody outside Parliament and in industry on this matter. It would also have been helpful if, instead of making generalised justifications, he had given us some specific examples, such as the deals with unions to which he alluded. Examples may exist—though I know of none and have never come across them in my fairly lengthy experience—of unions entering into arrangements where someone could be exempt from closed shop requirements if a contribution were made that eventually found its way back to the union.
    The amendment is unwise and unnecessary. We have not argued in favour of closed shops, but have consistently said that where closed shops are operated and where union membership agreements apply in industry, the law and the courts are unsuitable instruments for their regulation. Much the better way is to leave such matters to the common sense, experience and judgment of those who are involved in the day-to-day management of industrial relations. None the less, I have said on many occasions that union membership agreements should be applied in a flexible and tolerant way.
    By the amendments the Government are removing the last bit of flexibility that might have remained in the operation and application of closed shops. The provisions go well beyond even those of the 1971 Act, which recognised the free rider problem in the good conduct of industrial relations.
    We must recognise that even those hon. Members who have had much direct experience in industrial relations have not done so recently. We have considered it more appropriate to quote the voices of those who have day-to-day involvement in such industrial matters. One of the voices that has been quoted in the house has been that of Mr. Dennis Landau, the chief executive of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. If his association with the Labour Party makes that seem inappropriate, let me say that he was previously the managing director of Cadbury Schweppes Foods Limited.
    On 3 February Dennis Landau wrote an article which was headed:

    791
    "Creating industrial chaos out of order".
    That is what he suggested the Bill would do. He referred to the large amount of compensation now available under the Bill and said:
    "Employers could, of course, merely ignore the non-compliers, but this is simply likely to encourage others and lead to erosion of trade union membership. As in the first situation described, this erosion takes us back to all the dangers of refusal by the trade unionists to work with the 'free riders'.
    These are proposals for creating chaos out of order. Closed shop agreements are not merely a soft management option for tidiness and convenience at the expense of personal liberty. the stability obtained benefits employers and employees alike. Trade unions become more effective and the employees have a greater voice in those decisions affecting their working lives. If there are good relations with trade unions, special arrangements can always be made for the very occasional genuine conscientious objector."
    That is the voice of Mr. Dennis Landau who is not a trade union leader or even a spokesman of a publicly owned industry but the former managing director of Cadbury Schweppes Foods Limited—a man with enormous experience in such matters. That view also corresponds with my experience as a shop steward and a chairman of shop stewards. Rather than enjoy, at the expense of their fellow workers, the terms and conditions of employment won by the unions, which they object to joining for a variety of reasons, people can understand and accept the obligation on them to put their money in the kitty even if it goes to a nominated charity and not to the trade union.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I have been a branch secretary and there is a society of such people. The Minister will put the unfortunate branch secretary in an invidious position. He could accept something gratuitously but it would be illegal. He would not dare to accept it. A situation could arise where a branch secretary could take that money and, over a period of time, not being able to pay it into the union funds, he could put it in his pocket, forget all about it and at some later stage there could be a controversy about its being paid illegally to the union. If the Minister wants the Bill to go through in a legal pattern he should not sponsor that part of the Bill.
    Mr. Walker: Doubtless the Minister will have taken account of that point. I am bound to say that when I hear the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary denouncing evil, malicious wicked trade union officers, I often think of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). He has spent a lifetime as a trade union official, both lay and full time, and one more difficult to reconcile with the description of trade union officials that we hear from Conservative Members I could never imagine. It would do the Minister much good to listen to my hon. Friend, who exudes charm, wit, courtesy and compassion, to see whether he can fit him into his picture of trade union officials.
    Unlike Lord Carr, the Secretary of State has not only aligned himself with the free riders, but is dangling before them the golden carrot of the bonus of up to £30,000 for being a non-unionist—those whom the General Council of British Shipping referred to as unscrupulous rapacious seafarers who might seek to take advantage of the bounty that is available.
    Perhaps the most important point is that there must be many occasions where there have been long and protracted discussions, perhaps even industrial action, that have been resolved by persuading someone, in the circumstances that
    792
    the amendment seeks to deal with, to make a payment to charity. That has become the established and accepted practice, creating stable industrial relations. That may now be put at risk because the provisions will apply not merely to future but to existing cases. Someone who has happily reconciled himself to working with his workmates on the basis that instead of paying money to the union he pays it to charity will now risk the disruption of stable industrial relations. He will have placed before him the incentive of compensation and the fact that the Secretary of State is sanctifying the disruption that he might cause. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has put me at a great disadvantage in one sense, because he invoked his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). If I ever have to fall, guilty, into the hands of justice, there is no one into whose hands I would rather fall than those of the hon. Member for Burnley.
    The right hon. Member for Doncaster asked about the origin of the amendments. They resulted from the receipt by one of the relevant associations of a draft agreement on trade union membership for manual workers, which had been introduced by Nottinghamshire county council to cover new employees taken on from 1 January 1982. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the details of that draft agreement. It required a new employee either to be a member of one of the specified unions within eight weeks of his employment, or, after eight weeks, to contribute to an agreed charity a sum equivalent to union membership. The agreement laid down that, where the employee complied with neither of those alternatives, the council would have the right to deduct a sum equivalent to union membership from the employee's salary and to pay it direct to a charity. New employees had to sign a form of undertaking, agreeing to accept all the terms of the union membership agreement before their appointment.
    The agreement highlighted two possible loopholes in the Bill as originally drafted, to which I have referred. First, there was no certainty that an employee who had been dismissed for failing to pay money to a charity as an alternative to union membership would succeed in a claim that he had been unfairly dismissed because of his non-membership of the union. It could be argued that he had been unfairly dismissed merely for his failure to fulfil his contractual undertaking. That is exactly what we are trying to put right. If he did not succeed, he would at least not be entitled to the enhanced compensation in the Bill and, at worst, his dismissal might have been found fair under the normal unfair dismissal test of reasonableness, and so on.
    Secondly, it highlighted the loophole that an employee probably had no legal redress. I agree that the case is hypothetical, but we must always consider the possibilities. It is probably true that an employee would have no legal redress if his employer, under the terms of a Nottinghamshire type agreement, simply deducted money from his salary in lieu of union membership and proceeded to pay it to a union or charity. Therefore, the provision seeks to close that loophole. It is not a draconian measure, but a weaker version of the protection given in clause 2 to the individual who contracted to join a union before joining the firm, subsequently failed to do so, left the union or failed to maintain his membership. From the

    793
    point of view of those strongly in favour of the closed shop, the provision closes a loophole but is weaker than that contained in clause 2.
    The right hon. Member for Doncaster quoted Mr. Dennis Landau. He no doubt did so because he is one of the very few employers who take that line. However, the CBI is on record as saying that the Bill as a whole has got it just about right. I believe that it is rather more representative of the employers than Mr. Landau. Since introducing the amendment in the other place, we have not received any representations against it from any employer or employers' association.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I have not participated much in the debates on the Government's amorphous Employment Bill. We regard it as an anti-trade union Bill. When it comes to industrial relations, it has an air of unreality about it. I listened carefully to the Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and I am glad that the House is to divide. It will highlight the fact that the Government have not got the Bill right and are unlikely to do so.
    It is all very well for the CBI to reflect on the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) said, we always thought it a bit crackpot—given the background and history of industrial relations—that payment should be made to charity. I remember when a Jehovah's witness was carried by London bus workers, who were otherwise all members of the Transport and General Workers Union. They did not pillory the man or send him to Coventry, but had a deep respect for his religious feelings, just as I respect the Minister's well-known religious feelings.
    The workers' representatives do much more than merely talk to employers about wages and general conditions. I have some experience of the railway industry. I was a local shop steward, or local departmental committee representative, as we were called. When a non-unionist from another depot said that he had torn up his card because he had fallen out with the local branch secretary, we made it clear that we wanted him to be one of us. If he had told us that he did not want to be one of us because he did not like us or the local branch secretary, he would have been required to prove it. We had in our hands such matters as the holiday roster and the shift working rosters. We could see to it that his life was a misery because he had refused to be one of us.
    If someone did not wish to belong to a union because he had deeply held religious convictions or conscientious objections, and if he said, for example, that he put all his faith in God to provide for him and his family, it would be different. The average, decent British worker who makes up our trade union movement will carry such people. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has experience of the print industry, which runs a closed shop par excellence. Those involved are a bit scared of the proposed changes. My hon. Friend has great experience and I have heard him tell the Government, time and again, that the Bill will not work. It will not work when the vast majority of workers in any plant or print shop decide that it will not work. That is the essence of the issue.
    The Government will push the workers into acting illegally, but when they twig the full meaning of the Tebbit
    794
    Bill—as it is known in the trade union movement—they will find all sorts of ingenious ways of getting round its provisions, including the silly business of the conscientious objector. They are fighting for their families and for their standard of living, and they regard such silly, sideline activities, which are not in the guts of the Bill, as ridiculous.
    Those workers see the Bill as the thin end of the wedge and as an instrument that seeks to destroy the movement that they have cherished for so many years. They could stop work any time they liked. They could stop work because they did not like someone who was not in their union. They could walk out of the gate, and when the employer complained that they were striking they could deny it and could give various excuses for taking time off. Trade union leaders have plainly spelt out such things.
    I have far more respect for the Minister than I have for most Conservative Members, particularly those involved with the Department of Employment. I am sure that the Minister realises in his heart of hearts the truth of my remarks. One can take a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.
    The Bill will help to dig the Government's grave when the general election comes. If the provisions have time to bite before the next general election, and if there are stupid, foolish upheavals in the workshop and in industry as a result of these crazy propsals, we shall see the end of this Government, which is long overdue.
    Mr. John Prescott: I intervene on behalf of the seafaring industry in which I have a particular interest, and which is in a special position. The Bill has been through Committee and through the House of Lords, yet no special substantial changes have taken place to mitigate the charge that the Bill is out to destroy the seafaring unions as well as the rest of the trade union movement. What distinguishes the previous Tory Administration from the present Administration is that when the former attempted to outlaw the closed shop principle they found that there were great difficulties with regard to seafarers, as indeed with actors, and that they would need to change their basic approach to the principle of the right not to belong to the union, being equal to the right to belong to a union. I made that point on Second reading and I wish to pursue the matter with regard to seafaring and the amendments to clause 5.
    I deal first with compensation. It is no coincidence that the shipowners are extremely concerned about those who may become known as the bounty hunters—those who, because of the peculiarities of the seafaring industry, can seek a considerable amount of money for, all of a sudden, not wishing to belong to a union. I give as an example the seafarer who joins a ship in some other port of the world, many miles from the United Kingdom. There might be considerable difficulties in communicating with that place. That is why we give captains on such ships considerable power to ensure that their orders are obeyed which can have criminal consequences for industrial relations incidents quite different from any other form of industrial set up.
    Certain practices pursued in the shipping industry are not pursued with the best of justice in mind. Some shipowners have tried to board vessels by using all types of physical violence. I cite as an example what happened some years ago with the "Globtik Venus". In such cases

    795
    people are hired to undermine the traditional work practices on board the ship or to remove a crew that is in dispute with the owners or captain. Such men are hired and flown out to achieve the objectives of certain owners.
    Let us consider the argument that leads to the possibility of an award of compensation by a tribunal. A man arrives on a vessel on the other side of the world and decides that he no longer wishes to belong to the union, or, having previously said that he would join the union, decides that he does not like the captain or the convener and for one reason or other does not wish to join the union.
    Those considerations would have to be taken into account if action were taken, presumably by the owner, to return the man to the United Kingdom, when a tribunal would consider what compensation he was to receive. The circumstances surrounding the man's decision whether to join a union is material evidence in considering whether the Bill facilitates anti-trade union activity or seeks, as the Government want us to believe, to strengthen trade unions and the right of the individual to decide whether to belong to a union.
    The argument about whether a man should be able to decide not to belong to a union because of a conscientious objection has been dealt with in previous legislation and is generally recognised in the trade union movement. It is recognised in the trade union movement that if one does not want to belong to a trade union it is possible, particularly where a closed shop exists, to pay the equivalent amount to charity. In a dispute on the other side of the world where a man decides that he does not want to belong to a union, an owner at least has the opportunity, as a compromise, to ask the man whether he will agree to his union dues being paid to the charity.
    That is one way to deal with a difficult position, but in the maritime industry if the man decides, when he joins the ship, that he no longer wishes to join the union, for whatever reason, and the men on the ship refuse to sail the ship because he is a non-unionist—that is a legitimate argument to deploy—such a ship could be held up on the other side of the world. The owner wishes to get his ship to sea and both parties to the dispute are becoming more aggrieved about it and the men refuse to sail.
    The crew realise that if that man holds to his position and goes to a tribunal, he is likely to receive compensation of up to £30,000. If a man wants to make a killing he can simply go abroad and agree to join a ship. He does not say that he might have disagreements about union matters, but he arrives abroad and decides to go for the bullseye, which is £30,000 in compensation. He could not care a damn about whether he belongs to the union. He simply wants to get a better reward than he would be likely to get if he served on that ship for three years. That is a consideration and an incentive that might cause a considerable amount of disagreement.
    In such circumstances, the captain may order the crew to sail the ship. If the men refuse to obey the captain's order, they face a charge of committing a criminal offence. That is the law that we impose on seamen at their place of work. Those who exercise their right to remain in the union and say to the person who refuses to join that they did not want to work with him are coerced by the law. The man who caused the problem is in for a killing and could make £30,000 in compensation.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will realise that all the difficulties that he has described can be averted if a
    796
    ballot is held when the closed shop is approved. Furthermore, even if it is not approved the tribunals have the right to reduce—indeed, to eliminate entirely—compensation if it is thought that there is a bounty hunter who is simply trying to wreck the system.
    Mr. Prescott: I refer the Minister to hearings of tribunals because clearly he has not had a great deal of experience of seeing how tribunals deal with people who are sacked for belonging to a union and people who are sacked for not belonging to a union. The two groups are treated considerably differently both in attitude and in compensation. He can ascertain that fact for himself.
    I did not think that the Minister would advance the argument about the ballot, because it does not stand up with regard to seafaring. During the Falklands war our seamen could not receive mail for five weeks. Therefore, when men are all over the world an 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. share of the ballot is impossible to achieve in any time slot, even if one allowed two years.
    I shall give the Minister an example of that. One can assume that on matters of wages every seaman will take an interest in whether he takes part in a ballot but we have not been able, even with nearly two-month balloting, to get more than 15 per cent. participation, because most men receive their mail in different parts of the world.
    To offer the argument of the ballot as protection against injustice flies in face of the evidence. At least the previous Tory Administration recognised the difficulties of the seafarers and changed the law fundamentally to accommodate them, even though I opposed what they were doing in that sense.
    The present Government do not recognise the difficulties, and to use the ballot in those circumstances makes it clear that the Government are determined to break the trade unions wherever they can. One can show it more easily with seafarer 3, but I think that the law, the rules and the attitude of the Government are applicable to all the trade union movement and not just to seafarers.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I take the view, and I say it with respect, that the Minister has not been firmly and correctly advised about the Bill. I shall mention only one aspect of the consequences of the Bill. I am referring to the terms of compensation, a subject with which I have dealt for many years.
    I repeat my clam—I challenge any member of the Conservative Party to examine it and prove that I am not speaking the truth.—that the Minister has not been correctly advised on the form of the Bill. I regret that I was not in the House when the Bill was presented.
    I am talking about workers' compensation. All who examine what is happening in the courts today know that when a case is taken to court it is always supported by a team of established barristers, but no union will take a case—
    It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 222.

    Division No. 321]

    [8 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Alton, David

    Alexander, Richard

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Ancram, Michael

    797

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Forman, Nigel

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

    Fox, Marcus

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Freud, Clement

    Banks, Robert

    Fry, Peter

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Beith, A. J.

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Best, Keith

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, John

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Gow, Ian

    Blackburn, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Blaker, Peter

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Body, Richard

    Gray, Hamish

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Grieve, Percy

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Grist, Ian

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Grylls, Michael

    Brinton, Tim

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Brotherton, Michael

    Hannam, John

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Buck, Antony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Budgen, Nick

    Henderson, Barry

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Hicks, Robert

    Butcher, John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Hill, James

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Hooson, Tom

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Hordern, Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Colvin, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Cope, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Corrie, John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Crouch, David

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Dover, Denshore

    Knox, David

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Lamont, Norman

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Lang, Ian

    Durant, Tony

    Latham, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Lee, John

    Eggar, Tim

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Elliott, Sir William

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Loveridge, John

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Luce, Richard

    Farr, John

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Fell, Sir Anthony

    McCrindle, Robert

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    MacGregor, John

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    798

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    McQuarrie, Albert

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Major, John

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Marland, Paul

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Marlow, Antony

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mates, Michael

    Shepherd, Richard

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Shersby, Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Silvester, Fred

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Sims, Roger

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Mellor, David

    Smith, Dudley

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mills, lain (Meriden)

    Speed, Keith

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Speller, Tony

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Spence, John

    Moate, Roger

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Squire, Robin

    Moore, John

    Stainton, Keith

    Morgan, Geraint

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Stanley, John

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Mudd, David

    Stokes, John

    Murphy, Christopher

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Myles, David

    Tapsell, Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Needham, Richard

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Nelson, Anthony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Neubert, Michael

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thompson, Donald

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Parris, Matthew

    Trippier, David

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Viggers, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Waddington, David

    Penhaligon, David

    Wakeham, John

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Walker, B. (Perth )

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Pollock, Alexander

    Waller, Gary

    Porter, Barry

    Walters, Dennis

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Ward, John

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Warren, Kenneth

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Watson, John

    Rath bone, Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Renton, Tim

    Wheeler, John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Whitney, Raymond

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wickenden, Keith

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Wolfson, Mark

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Rossi, Hugh

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rost, Peter

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Mr. Carol Mather.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Adams, Allen

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Allaun, Frank

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Anderson, Donald

    Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

    Ashton, Joe

    Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

    Buchan, Norman

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Campbell, Ian

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    799

    Cant, R. B.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Cohen, Stanley

    Lambie, David

    Coleman, Donald

    Lamond, James

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Leighton, Ronald

    Conlan, Bernard

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Cook, Robin F.

    Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

    Cowans, Harry

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Litherland, Robert

    Crowther, Stan

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cryer, Bob

    McCartney, Hugh

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Dalyell, Tam

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Davidson, Arthur

    McKelvey, William

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    McMahon, Andrew

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Deakins, Eric

    McTaggart, Robert

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Dewar, Donald

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Dixon, Donald

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Dobson, Frank

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dormand, Jack

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Douglas, Dick

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Dubs, Alfred

    Maxton, John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Dunnett, Jack

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Eadie, Alex

    Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

    Eastham, Ken

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    English, Michael

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Morton, George

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Ewing, Harry

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Faulds, Andrew

    Newens, Stanley

    Field, Frank

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fitch, Alan

    O'Neill, Martin

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Ford, Ben

    Palmer, Arthur

    Forrester, John

    Park, George

    Foster, Derek

    Parker, John

    Foulkes, George

    Parry, Robert

    Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Pendry, Tom

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    George, Bruce

    Prescott, John

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Race, Reg

    Golding, John

    Radice, Giles

    Gourlay, Harry

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Graham, Ted

    Richardson, Jo

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Hardy, Peter

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Robertson, George

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Rooker, J. W.

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

    Ryman, John

    Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

    Sever, John

    Home Robertson, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    Homewood, William

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Hooley, Frank

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Huckfield, Les

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Snape, Peter

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Soley, Clive

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Spearing, Nigel

    John, Brynmor

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Stallard, A. W.

    800

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Welsh, Michael

    Stoddart, David

    White, Frank R.

    Stott, Roger

    White, J. (G'gow Pollak)

    Strang, Gavin

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Straw, Jack

    Whitlock, William

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Thomas, Dafydd (Morioneth)

    Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

    Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

    Tilley, John

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Tinn, James

    Winnick, David

    Torney, Tom

    Woodall, Alec

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric 3.

    Wright, Sheila

    Wardell, Gareth

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(C'caster)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Watkins, David

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Weetch, Ken

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eight o'clock.
    Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 14 agreed to.

    New Clause B
    PROHIBITION ON UNION RECOGNITION REQUIREMENTS
    Lords Amendment No. 15, after clause 11, insert:
    "B.—(1) Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports to require arty party to the contract—

    (a)to recognise one or more trade unions (whether or not named in the contract) for the purpose of negotiating on behalf of workers, or any class of worker, employed by him; or

    (b)to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named).

    (2) A person contravenes this subsection if, on the ground of union exclusion, he acts in a manner falling within paragraph (a),, (b) or (c) of section 11(2) of this Act.
    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person acts on the ground of union exclusion if the ground or one of the grounds for his action is that the person against whom it is taken does not, or is not likely to, recognise, negotiate or consult as mentioned in subject: on (1) above.
    (4) Subsection (2) above does not create an offence but the obligation to comply with it is a duty owed to each of the following

    (a)the person against whom the action is taken; and

    (b)any other person who may be adversely affected by the contravention

    and any breach of that duty shall be actionable accordingly (subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty)."
    Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 16 to 22 and 24.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Waddington: The new clause and the consequent amendments were tabled by the Government in another place to deal with a practice that came to light after the Bill left this House. It 3ecame clear that a number of local authorities were insisting that constractors must recognise and negotiate with trade unions, or have agreements with trade unions, about procedures before they could even

    801
    tender for contracts. It was equally clear that those recognition requirements were simply a means of evading the provisions of clause 11.
    The Government believe that trade union recognition should be a matter for each employer and his own employees to decide for themselves. It is not something that should be forced on them as the price of their economic survival and the preservation of their jobs. The principle of trade union recognition is not at issue. What is at issue is whether we should permit trade union recognition to be enforced by commercial pressure and industrial coercion by one employer of another.
    The clause will in no way cut across the nationalised industries' statutory obligations to consult recognised trade unions. It will not interfere with employers' statutory obligations to consult trade unions about redundancies or safety matters. No existing statutory obligations of employers are affected by the new clause. We are not talking about the relationship between an employer and his employees. The clause will not even prevent a client from imposing the most stringent and rigorous conditions on his contractors, whether in terms of health and safety, pay and conditions or requirements to inform or consult employees on matters which affect them, provided that those conditions do not amount to a requirement to recognise a trade union.
    There is nothing in the clause that forces a client to do business with a firm that he considers has unsafe working practices or may put his employees' safety at risk. He must not use the safety requirements as a device to enforce recognition. The purpose of the clause is specific.
    I must return to the local authorities, which are primarily responsible for our debating this matter. After the Bill left the House in May, it came to our attention that a local authority in Scotland—East Kilbride district council—had decided that from 1 October this year all contracts involving work for the council would include a provision requiring all contractors to have signed a recognition and procedural agreement with the appropriate trade union. Opposition Members may be interested to know that the local authority followed the debate in another place so closely that during the Summer Recess it decided to withdraw the requirement, because it realised that the practice was destined to become unlawful.
    We can draw two conclusions from that episode. First, legislation can work with surprising swiftness. I doubt whether there are many other examples of a rotten practice passing through all the stages from creation to abolition before the legislation has passed through Parliament. Secondly, it illustrates clearly that the recognition requirement that the local authority wanted to impose on its contractors was no more and no less than an attempt to circumvent the provisions of clause 11.
    That clause contains a provision to prevent local authorities and others from requiring contractors to employ trade union labour only. The recognition requirements imposed by some local authorities are not covered by that clause, because they do not necessarily mean that all the contractors' employees must be union members, but their effect is much the same, and, in our view, equally undesirable. First, they force trade union recognition on firms and employees who do not want it. Secondly, they would exclude non-union firms from tendering for contracts. Thirdly, and consequentially, they would
    802
    restrict free and fair competition, and therefore raise costs and ultimately destroy jobs. Finally, it is entirely unreasonable to expect ratepayers to pay the price for the prejudice of certain local authorities against non-union firms.
    The purpose of the amendment is to make the requirements about recognition and negotiation unlawful and to provide redress for those who suffer from them. Lords amendment No. 15 mirrors the original clause 11. It provides, first, that any requirements about recognition, negotiation or consultation which appear in a contract will be void and unenforceable. Secondly, it makes it unlawful to exclude someone from tendering, or to fail to award him a contract or to terminate a contract with him, on the ground that he does not recognise, negotiate with or consult a trade union or trade union official.
    Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 are amendments to the original clause 12. They deal with the liability of a trade union in that position. They remove immunity from trade unions that take or threaten industrial action to put pressure on an employer to act in a way that is unlawful under the new clause or to discriminate on the ground of non-recognition.
    The other amendments seek to remove immunity when industrial action is taken to interfere with the supply of goods and services because a supplier does not recognise, negotiate with or consult trade unions or trade union officials. I emphasise that all these provisions focus specifically on requirements about union membership and recognition. The voiding of a term in a contract requiring union membership or recognition, for example, does not affect the legal enforceability of other terms in that contract, nor does it invalidate the contract itself. Equally, it remains lawful to make it a condition of a contract that the contractor should observe any other provisions of a collective agreement, as long as the effect of doing so is not to require the use of union labour only or recognition.
    We believe that the new clause and the amendments constitute an important addition to the Bill. They may not stop all those practices overnight, but they should act as a deterrent to their spreading and provide a remedy for contractors who suffer from them. As I said, there is some encouraging evidence that their inclusion in the Bill is already acting as a deterrent, even before the Bill becomes law. What has happened at East Kilbride is, in itself, justification for the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill. However, other councils have imposed these requirements on contractors, or intend to do so. I hope that they will follow East Kilbride's lead. I believe that the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill will encourage them to do so.
    Mr. Harold Walker: When the Under-Secretary claimed that it was a victory for the Government's legislation that the East Kilbride local authority beat a swift retreat when it saw what the Government were preparing for it, he was really saying that it is a good example of the intimidation of a local authority by the Secretary of State. The Government have intimidated East Kilbride. The Under-Secretary said that the Government are anxious to stop local authorities foisting trade union recognition on firms and employees who do not want it. I wonder how many trade union members in firms where employers will not recognise their unions and will not consult or negotiate with them were consulted about these provisions.

    803
    These Lords amendments became known as the East Kilbride amendments. I call them the Aims of Industry amendments. We spent more than 100 hours debating these matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and then at one fell swoop Aims of Industry achieved something that far surpassed what Parliament achieved. It has achieved the most important, serious, far-reaching and destructive amendments to the Bill.
    Who consulted the employees? According to the Under-Secretary, they do not want trade union recognition foisted on them. I wonder how many mini-Grunwicks there are. There must be many. We quoted one or two in Committee, both on this Bill and on the 1980 Bill. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary said that they do not want it foisted upon them.
    The Under-Secretary talked throughout about local authorities. Does he believe that these provisions are limited to local authorities? The Bill does not say that they are limited to local authorities. The provisions will apply throughout industry and commerce in the private and public sectors, wherever one company awards a contract to another or wherever an individual awards a contract to another individual. He said, as though to comfort us, that the person or firm awarding the contract can require the contractor to comply with almost anything—reasonable rates of pay; anything, so long as it will not strengthen trade unionism. It confirms what we have said time and again—that the Bill is deliberately aimed at undermining the trade union movement. He as good as said so in moving the amendment. He said that in awarding a contract one can require the firm or individual to do anything so long as it does not strengthen the trade union. There we have it.
    The Bill, as drafted originally, caused us great concern, and we expressed that concern in votes both in Committee and on Report. The Government have now significantly widened and extended the original provisions. The Under-Secretary quoted them in part. The original Bill said:
    "Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports—

    (a)to require that the whole, or some parts of, the work done for the purposes of the contract is to be done only by persons who are not members of trade unions or not members of a particular trade union; or

    (b)to require that the whole, or some part, of such work is to be done only by persons who are members of trade union or members of a particular union."

    They have now extended that voiding to make it unlawful to include in a contract any term that requires the person giving the contract to require those to whom he is giving the contract
    "to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named)."
    The Under-Secretary might have reminded the House that both the original words and the amendments carry the provision that relates to those who may complain to the courts that they have been injured by the contravention of this provision. The new clause contains the words
    "any other person who may be adversely affected by the contravention".
    I shall not bore the House by giving examples of all those who may be affected. However, it is important to recognise how sweeping the consequences may be if someone does not comply with either the new or the original or both provisions.
    The Under-Secretary sought to reassure us that an employer would still have to comply with any statutory obligation to consult. Parliament has made these
    804
    requirements to consult. Section 17 of the Employment Protection Act requires consultation about the disposal of information. Section 99 of the Employment Protect ion Act 1975 imposes a duty on the employer to consult when there is large-scale redundancy. There is also section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Only last year, we had the transfer of undertakings regulations from the EEC. Those statutory obligations have been passed by Parliament, presumably intending that they should be observed, believing that they are in the public interest and that employers should do these things in the interests of good relations and of the workers on whose behalf the consultations take place.
    It is surely not unreasonable for the organisation or individuals awarding contracts, knowing that an applicant submitting a contract is not complying with these statutory obligations, to say '`We do not consider that you are a good employer, and until you observe the law and behave consistently with it, we shall withhold our contract." I am told that this is the Governmet of law and order.
    Mr. Waddington: Will the right hon. Gentleman point to any part of the amendment that would forbid a contractor from saying to somebody to whom he might give work that he must obey statutory obligations?
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Walker: The new clause states:
    "Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports to require any party io the contract—

    (a)to recognise one or more trade unions (whether or not named in the contract) for the purpose of negotiating on behalf of workers, or any class of worker, employed by him; or

    (b)to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named)."

    I have referred to the statutory obligations upon an employer to consult his recognised trade unions. The Minister can interrupt me if I am wrong. I understand that if I as an individual, not a local authority, wish to award a contract for the painting of my house in Doncaster, and there are half a dozen painting firms, each of which suggests that it would like the contract, I can say that I do not want a particular firm because the management does not consult its workers on anything and will not recognize the trade union although it employs 10 employees, nine of whom are members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. However, the individual firm can say that Tebbit's law states that if one imposes such a term or condition in giving a contract, that contract is void. Is that right?
    Mr. Waddington: I am open to correction, but I pose this question: are there any statutory obligations to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring that apply only when there is a recognised trade union? The answer is that there is only one, which relates to safety representatives. Surely that is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Walker: I do not follow the Minister's point. Section 99 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 requires the employer to consult the representatives of the independent recognised trade unions in his firm.
    Mr. Waddington: We are talking not about whether there is a recognised trade union within a firm, but when one employer is trying to dictate to another employer when there is not a recognised trade union that there should be a recognised trade union.
    Mr. Walker: I think that I see the Minister's point. He is either wilfully misunderstanding or is ignorant of my point. When in an establishment a substantial number, the majority, or perhaps all the employees belong to a union but the employer refuses to recognise that union and consequently refuses to comply with his statutory obligations to negotiate or to consult the union, surely it is reasonable for an organisation or an individual to take that into account in deciding whether he should award a contract to that firm. The management of that firm may be told that it is not a good employer, that it acts contrary to the public interest and the express wishes of Parliament, that it does not recognise the trade union to which the majority of the workers belong and which they wish the management to recognise, so it shall not be awarded the contract. Is the Minister telling me that once the person who sought the contract knows why he did not get it he can take legal action? Can he do that?
    Mr. Waddington: That is a correct proposition. Why should the employer of one group of workers use commercial pressure to compel another employer to recognise a trade union? A simple issue is involved. The right hon. Gentleman used many emotive phrases. What has it to do with the first employer? What right does he have to exert commercial pressure for union recognition on the other firm?
    Mr. Walker: I asked the Minister a simple question. He is now making another speech. I asked him whether I understood the position aright. He has confirmed that I understood it aright and that my proposition was correct.
    The Minister is putting forward his opinion. He is pursuing the right policy, in his opinion. He asked why anyone should be able to stipulate the conditions with which a contractor must comply before he can get the contract. However, the Minister said earlier that anyone awarding a contract could insist on anything he liked—for example, with regard to wages—so long as he did not insist on anything in the contract that might help the trade unions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it is fine for anything else to be stipulated in the contract, but that it is wrong for the first contractor to say to the firm seeking the contract that the contract will not be awarded to it because it is a bad employer. It is a bad employer because it refuses to recognise the trade union to which all its employees belong and consequently refuses to confer on the employees the statutory rights that such recognition entails.
    Mr. Mikardo: I understand the amendment to mean that it will be illegal for a contractor to put out tenders and to stipulate that nobody need apply who does not recognise trade unions, but that it will be legal for a contractor to put out a tender stipulating that he will give preference to firms that do not recognise trade unions. Nothing in this Bill would prevent that from happening.
    Mr. Walker: With his enormous experience of such matters and the persuasive skill that he brings to all our debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has reminded me of another dimension to this argument. The Under-Secretary keeps trying to persuade the House that only local authorities would be affected by the provisions. My hon. Friend reminds me of an example that has nothing to do with local authorities and often nothing to do with the public
    806
    sector—the subcontracting of drawing office work in engineering, shipbuilding and related industries where a fair list is agreed with the technical, administrative and supervising section of the AUEW. The agreement between TASS and the Federation of Engineering Design Companies Ltd. is that work will be subcontracted only to firms that are on the fair list. In order to get on the list, firms must negotiate with TASS. The agreement was debated in the proceedings on the Employment Act 1980, when the then Secretary of State said that he understood the purpose of the agreement and did not wish to disturb it. That agreement would be abolished by these provisions. Similar agreements in other industries would also be affected.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can mention the print industry, where there has been a long-established practice of some unions in publishing refusing to handle work that does not carry the trade union stamp.
    Mr. Waddington: Shame.
    Mr. Walker: The Minister says "Shame". My father worked in the felt hatting industry where such an agreement had been in practice since the nineteenth century. Such agreements ensure that unions are defended against undercutting and exploitation of labour. The Minister's cry of "Shame" gives us a better understanding of why the Government wish to repeal the fair wages resolution. They are obviously in favour of the undercutting of wages and the exploitation of labour.
    The Conservative Party wishes to withdraw the fair wages resolution because jobs in the public sector can then be exposed to a range of subcontractors who will offer jobs to the unemployed at cut-rate wages. Doors in the public sector will be thrown open to subcontractors who will prevent workers in most firms from seeking the right to negotiate and consult and to refuse to work with firms that do not recognise trade unions.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Such trade union practices are long enshrined and they are designed to protect workers and their families. In addition to attacking such practices, the Government are now actively promoting breaches of the law. Under these provisions, if an employer refuses to recognise a health and safety at work committee, which must be composed of representatives of trade unions, a contractor cannot now insist that the employer recognises the committee, as is required by the law
    The Minister said that it is the Labour Party's fault, but the law is on the statute book. It is enshrined in an Act of Parliament. This legislation means that if an honest employer says that he wishes to recognise a health and safety committee in order to ensure safety standards, he cannot do so because the contract will be rendered void.
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is right to remind us that it is an Act of Parliament passed by the elected representatives of the people. When the Minister sneers that the Labour Party is at fault, he should not overlook the fact that the Queen gives Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament, not to one side of Parliament.
    Mr. Waddington: When the right hon. Gentleman accepts what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)

    807
    says, although he knows that it is wrong, he is not carrying out his duty to the House. Nothing in the legislation removes the duty on an employer to allow safety representatives to be appointed at the behest of a recognised trade union. The only issue is whether one employer is entitled to say to another "You had better recognise a trade union so that you can appoint a safety representative under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974". If the hon. Member for Keighley wishes to use such a convoluted argument to justify his case—
    Mr. Cryer: It is not a convoluted argument. We wish to have good health and safety at work standards.
    Mr. Waddington: —it exposes the naked attempts of the Labour Party to have union labour only clauses in the Bill.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand the Bill, he is turning his back on the arguments that he accepted from me a few moments ago, or he is trying to mislead the House about the consequences of the Bill.
    During proceedings on the 1980 Act, I referred to Solar Tubes, a firm just outside my constituency but in which many of my constituents worked. The majority of the workers there wished to belong to a trade union, but the employer refused to recognise it. When some of the workers took industrial action to try to persuade their employer to recognise the union, he dismissed them. There were subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings in which the workers were successful. That was a case not of employees having trade unionism foisted upon them by an outside party, as the Minister suggested, but of employees who were members of a trade union and who wished to have the benefits of trade union membership recognised. It is no good the Government saying "We do not object to anyone belonging to a trade union, but we object to an employer recognising the union". One might as well belong to a worthless Christmas club if the employer does not recognise the trade union. As the employer refused to recognise the union, for the purposes of the Act it was not a recognised trade union and it could not insist on the benefits that Parliament intended for it, such as the establishment of a health and safety committee.
    Mr. Waddington: There is a simple way round that, and I wonder why it was not accepted by the Labour Government. A non-unionised labour force could appoint health and safety representatives. However, the Labour Government set their face against allowing those rights to any body other than a unionised work force.
    Mr. Walker: I am wasting my time in allowing the hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene. I wonder how the Minister became learned. I must refer to him in future as the hon. and "learned" Gentleman. We are talking about the law as it is and as the Government are trying to make it. The Minister is denying workers a way in which they might have secured recognition. A good employer elsewhere, which recognised the union, could have said
    "Because we believe that you are a bad employer, we shall not give you contracts. You are a bad employer because you do not give your workers their due recognition and you do not comply with the statutory obligations."
    8.45 pm
    The majority of people would say that it is a perfectly reasonable proposition that bad employers should have
    808
    pressure put on them to comply with the obligations imposed by Parliament. However, the Under-Secretary is protecting them, and he is asking Parliament to protect them.
    Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman asked me, and I answered.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. and "learned" Gentleman will keep interrupting and making more long speeches which are either contrary to what he said before, or show an abysmal lack of understanding of industrial relations and the law in these matters.
    When I was at the Department of Employment I seemed to be engaged interminably in trying to create some order out of the jungle of the construction industry, and that part that dealt with major sites. The hon. Member far Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) knows a lot about these matters. I am sure that he would agree that over the years there have been bad industrial relations in the part of the construction industry that deals with large sites.
    An NEDC team went into this. All kinds of committees were set up and they finally came to the conclusion that the one major contribution to creating order out of this chaos might be a rational agreement for the construction industry. Eventually a national agreement emerged after a great deal of trouble. I was involved in the midwifery process, as was the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), to whom I pay tribute. The chairman of the committee was Mr. John Morris-Jones. The national agreement seemed to bring hope for good industrial relations to that industry.
    It was an employer member of the industry who drew to my attention the fact that one of the conditions in that national agreement read as follows:
    "The trade unions, signatory to this National Agreement are recognised as the sole negotiating trade unions for the employees covered by this Agreement.
    Employers will encourage all their employees covered by this Agreement to be members in good standing with a signatory trade union.
    Signatory trade unions will inform employers as to who is their local full time official and any subsequent changes.
    Contractors shall recruit (or deploy existing employees) from whatever source, those members of the signatory trade unions whom management considers to be most suitable for the task(s) in question."
    That condition becomes irreconcilable with the new requirements in the Lords amendment. All the good work that has gone into trying to improve and create new bases for industrial relations in that industry is put in jeopardy by these provisions inserted at the whim of Aims of Industry. It is motivated by political malice against Labour-controlled local authorities. The Government share that political malice and malevolence towards Labour-controlled authorities. They are pursuing that course heedless of the consequent harm that it will do to industrial relations. That is why I ask the House to kick the amendment back to where it came from.
    Mr. Raymond Whitney: As the debate goes on, the record from the Opposition sounds older and older. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) seemed to be playing a record dated about 1974 or 1975—those unhappy days when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Employment, was doing what Mr. Jack Jones told him to do. He operated the laws of this country as a recruiting sergeant for the trade union organisation—not for the trade

    809
    union members, but for the members of the general council of the TUC. I understand that the right hon. Member for Doncaster is stuck in that groove. If it was not understood before, the right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear by his intervention tonight.
    The attitude of mind of Labour Members is deeply entrenched in the past in their relationship to trade union leaders rather than to present members of trade unions. I hope that they will try hard to bring themselves up to the present day. They must understand that the proposition that local authorities, or any other contracting authority, should act as recruiting sergeants for trade unions, which cannot recruit members by any other method, is not acceptable to the people. In his one attempt at humour the right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of discriminating against East Kilbride. I invite him seriously to consider the important discrimination that would be involved if we made the mistake of following the course that he proposes.
    The real importance is that the contracts that are placed should reflect the interests, for example, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, of the good citizens of Doncaster. If the Doncaster corporation places a contract, it is not the business of the corporation to make sure that a particular employer has recruited enough men in a particular union. The union is, of course, free to try to recruit. It is, however, for the Doncaster corporation—this is the suggestion that I should like the right hon. Member to consider when he returns to the Chamber—to make sure, in the interests of the ratepayers of Doncaster or the taxpayers of this country that it obtains the best value possible for their money. Its duty is not to operate as a recruiter on behalf of a trade union executive.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should make no difference to a local authority in deciding where to award a contract if it is known that a firm which, in other circumstances, might qualify has the worst possible conditions for its employees, is notorious for the manner in which it treats its employees and denies them fair conditions? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the good ratepayers and the good citizens who make up the majority on the council should say that such circumstances are not relevant?
    Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is the other side of the distorting mirror by which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster try to confuse the House. The amendment does not say "Thou shall impose those sort of conditions". It is not discriminatory in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It merely states that it shall not be an absolute condition that the company to which a contract is awarded shall have members of a trade union. The criteria has to be left to the contracting employer, the authority. That is surely right.
    I could understand it if the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we go back to the days of 1974. However, the right hon. Member for Doncaster talked of the public interest. I suggest that the public interest goes far wider. It is the job of the trade union organisation in an enterprise to recruit or not to recruit. It has nothing to do with the authority. I commend the amendment.
    Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman says that this is not discriminatory. It will now be illegal under the Bill for a
    810
    contractor asking for tenders to say that it is a condition of acceptance of an offer that the employer must recognise a trade union but perfectly legal for him to say that it is a condition of acceptance of the offer that the employer refuses to recognise a trade union. How can the hon. Gentleman say that this is not discriminatory?
    Mr. Whitney: I am glad I gave way because it gives me the opportunity to clarify, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit, the meaning of the clause. Obviously, he has misunderstood it. When he understands it I hope that he will join us in the Lobby in support of the Lords amendment. The discrimination would be to say, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, that the contracts would go only to those firms which had trade union membership. The amendment leaves it open. The firms may have trade union membership; they may not have it. I urge the hon. Gentleman to study the wording carefully and not to let his old-fashioned 1950s prejudices sway his judgment.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should have thought that it would be possible for the Minister to make it clear whether the supposition of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is correct. I take the interpretation of the amendment to be the one that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) gave—that it would rule out union only labour contracts, as has happened in East Kilbride. If it is suggested that a requirement can be made that only firms which do not recognise unions may have contracts placed with them, I can only say that that is not my interpretation of the clause, but it is possible for the Minister to deal with the question and I hope that he will do so, because the House has the right to ask for his interpretation.
    We ought to be concerned about the matter of coercion both ways. I understand that the Government feel it necessary to block what might be an attempt to get round the closed shop, which has been rejected in clauses 11 and 12, by the East Kilbride method. In other words, the Government are trying to plug a loophole which East Kilbride has found under which the local authority can, in effect, enforce the closed shop at one remove. One sees that the Government do not want that loophole to be used in a way that enables authorities to get round the intentions of the House.
    In so far as the Government have seen, in East Kilbride and in some other local councils, an attempt to use the local council as a recruiting sergeant for unions, as the hon. Member for Wycombe put it, they have a point. It is a form of coercion to refuse to allow small business men to be on local councils' tender lists when the employees may not wish to join a union. It must be the role of the House to defend the right of individuals to join or to refuse to join a trade union. To that extent, I understand what the Government are trying to do. Many small business men whose employees are not union members ought to be allowed to tender for jobs provided by local councils. Indeed, to some extent our criterion ought to be the interests of the consumer, of the tenant of the council estate, and so forth. The man who does a good job ought to be considered for tenders.
    Mr. Cryer: What about cheap textiles?
    Mrs. Williams: It should not be decided simply on the basis of whether union or non-union labour is involved. That is why, if the amendment meant what the hon.

    811
    Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said it meant, I should be equally opposed to it on that basis. That should not be the criterion. The criterion should be the job that the tenderer does. That should be the basis upon which he gets contracts.
    Mr. Michael Martin: On the question of the consumer's rights, when a local authority makes it plain to the electorate that it has a policy of employing only contractors with trade union members, and when that electorate consistently elects Labour-controlled authorities, surely that authority is entitled to say that it is truly representing the people who have elected it. In the city of Glagow, which I served as a councillor, we made no secret of the fact that we had that policy, and the Labour majority increased over the years. Local authorities are testing opinions.
    9 pm
    Mrs. Williams: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is an immediate problem. The electors who elect a Labour council may go on to elect a Conservative Government who are committed to changing the union rule.
    Coercion can work both ways. The Minister did not respond to the question of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about what happens in certain areas of the private sector. Most of us have in mind the construction industry. In the Green Paper on trade union immunity, direct reference is made to the danger of an undercover attempt to bring about the same result. The issue was considered so serious that the Green Paper did not recommend the sort of proposal in amendment No. 15. It suggested, for example, that there might be attempts to refuse to encourage the fair list and to force it underground—to have unwritten clauses in contracts that might in practice become binding on the contractor. The Government must deal with that.
    The Government must also answer another question. In substantial areas in the private sector, again particularly in the construction industry, reasonable conditions of health, safety and work generally do not obtain. In many cases the union is the only safeguard. The Government seriously undermine their case by deciding to rescind the fair wages proposition of 1946 and the accompanying International Labour Organisation resolution No. 94 of 1949. The Minister must reply to the right hon. Member for Doncaster. We have never debated the matter. If the Government argue that fair conditions and wages and fair health and safety precautions can be maintained, even though the protection of the unions is removed, why have they removed the non-union safeguards of the ILO and the resolution passed in 1946? It arouses suspicion when the Government rescind those agreements and resolutions and finally move to rescind the powers of unions to obtain fair conditions.
    Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) makes the same point that I made earlier. The Secretary of State has not been properly advised in formulating the part of the Bill dealing with accidents in industry, and the Lords have not corrected it. Accidents occur frequently, with calamitous results for the person involved and sometimes for the factory. The person may suffer a serious injustice if he is not legally represented.
    812
    I am pleased that the Secretary of State is now in the Chamber. I hope that he will listen carefully. I repeat that he has not been correctly advised.
    I have had direct experience over many years of what I am saying. A person may be seriously injured or killed. We in AUEW call in our legal men to inspect the site where the injury took place and if we find that it has resulted from neglect a man could prosecute the company concerned and receive substantial compensation. That is not generally known except in the industry and by progressive trade unions. Last year, we sometimes collected hundreds of thousands of pounds from such employers. That depends entirely upon trade unions being able to perform such legal functions. There should be far more effort in that direction.
    That is not always the case. As a result, there is neglect in industry. By and large, employers would not like the backlash of such action. It is obvious that companies that are not subjected to that type of surveillance can produce products more cheaply. Fortunately, the majority of employers are respectable, but venomous employers are being allowed into industry and they will undermine those who play the game and who should want such people taken to task.
    We should recognise that possibility in the Bill or abandon the Bill. If we do not, the Government will find that respectable employers wall object. They want such action. Working-class people who are not members of trade unions—there are many—have been exploited. It would be a point in the Government's favour to recognise that. If they do not, they will surely regret it.
    Mr. Den Dover: The contracting industry warmly welcomes the banning of union membership only contracts but is wondering whether the Government are going for overkill with regard to the East Kilbride problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer two points.
    First, is it up to the subcontractor or the main contractor to introduce adherence to fair wages for the national working rule agreement if the client does not specify? Secondly, as union members only carrying out contracts is to be banned, will it be in order for contractors to encourage their workers to join trade unions?
    Mr. Greville Janner: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who was apparently speaking for the contracting industry, would be worried about the way in which that industry has been contracting, and about the coercion of that industry by the absence of work for the people in it and by the absence of profit for the people who run it. The real coercion has nothing to do with trade unions and everything to do with the fact that no one can afford to pay for the work that they want done.
    Throughout the debate, Conservative Members and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) have talked about coercion I wonder whether they realise what is going on in industry today. The real coercion has nothing to do with trade unions being entitled to recognition. It has everything to do with money and the fact that small businesses that Conservative Members purport to love are being forced to close in my constituency because big businesses will not pay them the money that they owe. It has much to do with the fact that small businesses are unable to operate because they are

    813
    being squeezed out of business by the coercion of those who can afford to cut-rate them out of business when there is no money around and no work for their employees in my constituency or anywhere else. The coercion is on trade unions because their membership is shrinking because there are no jobs. It is the coercion of unemployment that is afflicting this country.
    The Bill is irrelevant to anything that matters to the people in my constituency or, I should have thought, anywhere else in the country. It is a contrived and evil irrelevance designed to take people's minds off reality and to rally the troops behind the Secretary of State for Employment, who sits there like the Thinker of old working out ways to rally his forces—or perhaps he is asleep, as he is certainly asleep to the real coercion in the contracting industry and elsewhere.
    One Conservative Member spoke of casting one's mind back to the past, so let us do that. In 1981, the Conservative Government brought in a Bill designed, they said, to strengthen the hands of "responsible" trade unions. That is not their purpose now. They have only one object now—to destroy responsible trade unions—and they are pursuing that objective with the ferocity and determination of people who see no other cause behind which to rally their forces.
    The Minister referred to emotive language. Emotive language is, of course, what other people say when they wish to make a point. I suppose that it is non-emotive to say that the trade unions are trying to protect their members. That is their job. They are there to look after their members. They are in business to protect their members at a time when—thanks to the Government—that protection has never been more needed.
    The Bill is designed to remove even more of the unions' power to protect their members—as though enough had not been removed already because their members are afraid to take industrial action from fear that there will be no jobs to come back to.
    The weakness of the trade unions has little to do with past legislation. That is why we have the Bill. It is to do with the fact that there are no jobs in this country. In those circumstances, the clause is designed to give employers the freedom to employ those who do not enter into agreements with unions whereby the employers are required to recognise, negotiate or consult.
    In the 1980 Act, the Government removed the rules which required a procedure for recognition. In the Bill they seek to remove the freedom of local authorities to bargain in the way that they see fit. Of course, it is freedom when employers have the right to do or not to do, but coercion when local authorities have that right.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the numerous questions that have been put to the Minister, who appears to wish to reply, is there any chance of a reply to the debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has the Floor. It is a matter for him.
    Mr. Janner: I am very much obliged. I cannot wait to hear the Minister reply. Before he does so, however, we have some questions to ask him.
    First, why at a time of the highest unemployment does the Minister wish to bring in this irrelevancy?
    814
    Secondly, does he care whether trade unions continue to exist to protect their members or not?
    Thirdly, why does he seek to remove from trade unions the right to be recognised at a time when recognition is more essential than ever?
    Fourthly, why does the Minister have the humbug to bring in a Bill which requires consultation when it does not matter, while taking away the right to require consultation when it does?
    Mr. Waddington: I shall write to all the hon. Members to whom I am not able to reply now. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) raised an important point. The fair wages resolution will be debated in due course, but it is a red herring in this debate. Even after the fair wages resolution is revoked, it will still be possible, after the passage of the Bill, for an employer to impose conditions on another contractor as to the wage rates which he should observe. It will still be possible, after the passage of the Bill, for an employer to impose any amount of conditions on another contractor. The only condition that he must not impose is that there must be membership of a trade union or the recognition of one.
    It being fifteen minutes past Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 234.

    Division No. 322]

    [9.15 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Butcher, John

    Alexander, Richard

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Alton, David

    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Ancram, Michael

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Chapman, Sydney

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Banks, Robert

    Cockeram, Eric

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Colvin, Michael

    Beith, A. J.

    Cope, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Corrie, John

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Crouch, David

    Best, Keith

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Dover, Denshore

    Blackburn, John

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Blaker, Peter

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Body, Richard

    Durant, Tony

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dykes, Hugh

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Eggar, Tim

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Elliott, Sir William

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Brinton, Tim

    Eyre, Reginald

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Brotherton, Michael

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Farr, John

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Fell, Sir Anthony

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Buck, Antony

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Budgen, Nick

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    815

    Forman, Nigel

    Marlow, Antony

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Fox, Marcus

    Mates, Michael

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Fry, Peter

    Mawby, Ray

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Mellor, David

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Gorst, John

    Moate, Roger

    Gow, Ian

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Moore, John

    Gray, Hamish

    Morgan, Geraint

    Grieve, Percy

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Mudd, David

    Grist, Ian

    Murphy, Christopher

    Grylls, Michael

    Myles, David

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Needham, Richard

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hannam, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Hastings, Stephen

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Hawksley, Warren

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Henderson, Barry

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hicks, Robert

    Parris, Matthew

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Patten, Christopher(Bath)

    Hill, James

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Pawsey, James

    Hooson, Tom

    Penhaligon, David

    Hordern, Peter

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Pollock, Alexander

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, Barry

    Irvine, Bryant God man

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Jessel, Toby

    Rathbone, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Renton, Tim

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Knox, David

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Lang, Ian

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Latham, Michael

    Rossi, Hugh

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rost, Peter

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Lee, John

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Loveridge, John

    Shepherd, Richard

    Luce, Richard

    Shersby, Michael

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Silvester, Fred

    McCrindle, Robert

    Sims, Roger

    McCusker, H.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Smith, Dudley

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Speed, Keith

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

    Speller, Tony

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Spence, John

    Major, John

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Marland, Paul

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    816

    Squire, Robin

    Viggers, Peter

    Stainton, Keith

    Waddington, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walker, B. (Perth )

    Stanley, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D

    Steen, Anthony

    Waller, Gary

    Stevens, Martin

    Walters, Dennis

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Ward, John

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stokes, John

    Watson, John

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Wells, Bowen

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wheeler, John

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Whitney, Raymond

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wickenden, Keith

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Thompson, Donald

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Townend, John(Bridlington)

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trippier, David

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Mr. Carol Mather.

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Douglas, Dick

    Adams, Allen

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Allaun, Frank

    Dunnett, Jack

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Eadie, Alex

    Ashton, Joe

    Eastham, Ken

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

    Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    English, Michael

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ewing, Harry

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Faulds, Andrew

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Field, Frank

    Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

    Fitch, Alan

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Ford, Ben

    Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

    Forrester, John

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

    Foster, Derek

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Foulkes, George

    Buchan, Norman

    Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

    Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Campbell, Ian

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    George, Bruce

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Cant, R. B.

    Golding, John

    Carmichael, Neil

    Gourlay, Harry

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Graham, Ted

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

    Coleman, Donald

    Hardy, Peter

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Cook, Robin F.

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Cowans, Harry

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Crowther, Stan

    Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

    Cryer, Bob

    Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Home Robertson, John

    Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

    Homewood, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hooley, Frank

    Davidson, Arthur

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Huckfield, Les

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Deakins, Eric

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Dewar, Donald

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Dixon, Donald

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dobson, Frank

    John, Brynmor

    Dormand, Jack

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    817

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Robertson, George

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roper, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lambie, David

    Ryman, John

    Lamond, James

    Sandelson, Neville

    Leighton, Ronald

    Sever, John

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Litherland, Robert

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

    Skinner, Dennis

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Snape, Peter

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Soley, Clive

    McKelvey, William

    Spearing, Nigel

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Spriggs, Leslie

    McMahon, Andrew

    Stallard, A. W.

    McNally, Thomas

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stoddart, David

    McTaggart, Robert

    Stott, Roger

    Magee, Bryan

    Strang, Gavin

    Marks, Kenneth

    Straw, Jack

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

    Maxton, John

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Tilley, John

    Meacher, Michael

    Tinn, James

    Mikardo, Ian

    Torney, Tom

    Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Wardell, Gareth

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Watkins, David

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Weetch, Ken

    Morton, George

    Wellbeloved, James

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Welsh, Michael

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    White, Frank R.

    Newens, Stanley

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Whitehead, Phillip

    O'Neill, Martin

    Whitlock, William

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Palmer, Arthur

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Park, George

    Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

    Parker, John

    Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

    Pendry, Tom

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Winnick, David

    Prescott, John

    Woodall, Alec

    Race, Reg

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Radice, Giles

    Wright, Sheila

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Richardson, Jo

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Roberts, Ernest(Hackney N)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Mr. Hugh McCartney.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at fifteen minutes past Nine o'clock.
    Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 agreed to.

    New clause C
    AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 13 AND 30 OF 1974 ACT
    Lords amendment: No. 23, after clause 16, insert:
    "C.—(1) In section 13 of the 1974 Act (acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.
    (2) In section 30 of the 1974 Act (interpretation), in the translation of "tort" as respects Scotland, for the words from "any" to "reparation" there shall be substituted the word "delict"."
    Mr. Tebbit: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 39.
    Mr. Tebbit: The clause was tabled in another place by the Government as a direct result of a recent judgment in the Scottish courts. The case in question concerned a sit-in by workers at Plessey's Bathgate factory to protest about its closure. Plessey sought an interdict—for the benefit of southerners, that is an injunction—from the courts to have the workers removed. This was refused by both Houses of the Scottish Court of Session on the ground that section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 might provide immunity in such cases.
    It is fair to say that the decision caused surprise in legal circles. The tort which it was believed might have been developed in 1906—and that is where section 13(2) of the 1974 Act originates—was the tort of interference with business or trade. In fact, the law has not developed to create the tort of interference with business or trade, but, in so far as that area of law has developed, it has done so in the direction of interference with business or trade by unlawful means for which no immunity has ever existed.
    9.30 pm
    To develop the concept that an unlawful action—in this case trespass—has immunity if committed in order to interfere with business or trade would seem to point the law in a most dangerous direction. Certainly no one had previously thought that section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 provided any protection to those who occupied factories or trespassed on private property.
    More importantly, this decision also caused great concern in Scottish industry. There was an understandable fear that it might act as an encouragement to workers to occupy factories in Scotland and that this in turn could only be a further discouragement to business and investment in Scotland. These fears were increased when the judgment was greeted by the Scottish TUC as a "charter for sit-ins".
    We believed that it was essential to move quickly to allay the fears of Scottish industry by nipping in the bud this unwelcome and unexpected extension of the law on immunities. We decided to do it by repealing section 13(2) of the 1974 Act altogether and by amending the definition of "tort" as regards Scotland. These two changes are contained in new clause C.
    It has been suggested by some trade union leaders—we may hear the allegation again tonight from the Opposition Benches—that the repeal of section 13(2) is a further major incursion into trade union immunities and that it may put at risk the immunity which currently exists in section 13 for primary industrial action. I say

    819
    categorically, therefore, that this is neither the intention nor the effect of the proposed repeal. I do not believe that those who take that view will be able to bring a shred of evidence to support their case.
    Section 13(2) has probably been a dead letter since it first appeared in statute in the second half of section 3 of the Trades Disputes Act 1906. It was inserted in 1906 to guard against the possible reversal of the House of Lords' judgment in the 1898 case of Allen v. Flood, and thus the development of the tort of interference with business or trade to which I have referred. In fact, I think that it is now widely accepted that the tort never did develop and that the second part of section 3 of the 1906 Act and its successor, section 13(2) of the 1974 Act, therefore, provided no substantive immunity.
    That was certainly the view of the Donovan commission in 1968 when it came to the conclusion:
    "Strictly speaking…there would seem to be no need today for the second limb of section 3".
    That was section 3 of the 1906 Act. However, it concluded that the provision might as well remain on the statute book because it did no harm.
    When the second limb of section 3 of the 1906 Act was re-enacted as section 13(2) of the 1974 Act, it was clear that the then Labour Government still regarded it as having no purpose other that to clarify the law. Indeed, they even went so far as to preface the provision with the words
    "for the avoidance of doubt".
    In the light of the Plessey judgment, it appears that rather than avoiding doubt, the continued existence of section 13(2) is now creating doubt and is doing so in a way which greatly widens the scope of immunity. Thus, Donovan's reasons for retaining it are no longer valid.
    The repeal of section 13(2), as proposed in subsection (1) of the new clause, is the simplest way to clear up this doubt and specifically to prevent there being any possibility that factory occupations might be found lawful in future. As I have explained, in our view, this will not create any new liability for interference with business, since it is now well established that mere interference with business is not actionable in its own right.
    It is worth mentioning that there is a particular difficulty about this case. It is most unlikely that a case of this nature would ever go all the way through the courts to be decided in the House of Lords. Therefore, although these were only, in effect, interim judgments—judgments in interim cases—they do represent a particular problem in Scotland. There must be a clear possibility that would-be investors in Scotland, seeing that that is the way that the law has been interpreted, would prefer not to put new premises at risk by positioning them in Scotland.
    Until the Plessey decision it had never been thought that factory occupations were protected by the immunities provided by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. The amendment simply returns the law to where it was before the judgment. Before the Plessey case, trade unions did not believe that sit-ins were lawful. That is shown by the fact that the TUC conference in 1975 passed a motion calling for
    "Changes in the law which would enable such occupations to be treated as accepted forms of industrial action with immunity from legal proceedings".
    The Labour Government did not respond to that motion with a change in the law. Therefore, I can only conclude that they saw the dangers of legalising sit-ins.
    820
    I wonder whether, just for a change, any right hon. and hon. Gentleman or the Opposition Benches will take the same view in Opposition as they did when in Government, and support the amendment.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I suffer from one great disadvantage, in that the Secretary of State has a brief and I do not have one. He read it well, but I am not sure that he understood it. I do not say that in any disparaging way, and I shall resist the temptation to ask whether he understands subsection (2) of the amendment, which says
    "In section 30 of the 1974 Act (interpretation), in the translation of 'tort' as respects Scotland, for the words from 'any' to 'reparation' there shall be substituted the word `delict'."
    The right hon. Gentleman wishes to tell me.
    Mr. Tebbit: I am only too willing to help the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether any of my Scottish legal hon. Friends were about to do so. In subsection (2) of the new clause, we are reinforcing the repeal of section 13(2) by amending the definition of "tort" in Scotland provided by section 30 of the 1974 Act. The present translation of "tort" into Scottish terminology is:
    "Any wrongful or negligent act giving rise to liability in reparation."
    It is cumbersome and does not fit well into the 1974 Act. Moreover, it is not considered to be ideal since some wrongful acts which would be torts in England and Wales might, under some circumstances, not give rise to liability in reparation—that is the possibility of claiming damages—in Scotland. To use the simple translation of "tort" equals "delict" is, I am advised, a fairly straightforward way round the problem, and none of my advisers can give me any reason as to why that was not done originally.
    Mr. Walker: I am no wiser about the meaning of the word "delict".
    Mr. Tebbit: In essence, the word "delict" is the Scottish equivalent of "tort". If the right hon. Gentleman substitutes the word "tort" for the word "delict", I ant assured by the lawyers that he will not come to undue harm.
    Mr. Walker: I shall accept the right hon. Gentleman's word for once. I accept his word when he says that the changes have the effect that he described. The TUC does not share that view. The Government are being consistent, because when, exceptionally, a court gives a decision in favour of a trade union, the Government cannot wait to get in with the Secretary of State's big hob-nailed boots to crush what is apparently a new-found right for trade unions in Scotland. They had to stamp it out immediately. That is consistent with the Secretary of State's attitude throughout the Bill.
    The TUC apparently does not share the Secretary of State's view as to how innocuous the change will be. I said that I had not been in touch with the TUC. I depend on a. report that appeared in the Financial Times of 16 August, from which I shall row quote:
    "A barely noticed amendment to the 1982 Employment Bill may seriously threaten the right to strike, according to a confidential paper being drawn up by TUC officials.
    The paper, which will eventually go before the Employment, Policy and Organisation Committee of the TUC, claims that scrapping of Section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 will undermine a large part of the immunity strikers now enjoy from civil action".
    The report continues:

    821
    "TUC officials say that the scrapping of that section will return the law to the confusion that existed before the 1906 Trades Disputes Act.
    The paper says that any tort arising 'only from interference' with trade will now force the Lords to reinterpret two contradictory judgements made over 80 years ago. The Allen v. Flood case of 1897"
    —which the Secretary of State mentioned—
    "was favourable to workers' rights to 'interfere with trade,' and the Quinn v. Leathern case"
    —I seem to have lived with that case for 15 years
    "of 1901 was unfavourable, it says.
    The report goes on to say that the TUC says
    "At best we will be in a situation of great uncertainty following the removal of the amendment, and at worst it will directly challenge the right to strike".
    I do not know whether those views were expressed directly to the Secretary of State. He assured the House that it misunderstands and—to quote him
    "They will have neither the intention nor the effect that the TUC attribute to them".
    Mr. Tebbit: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He puts the matter fairly in this respect. The TUC has not put that view firmly to me. Certainly it has not raised the matter with me as a major issue. On further consideration, the TUC may have reached the same conclusion, as my lawyers did, that the Allen v. Flood case—the one which, having gone to the House of Lords, clearly stood and has stood since 1898—still stands today. No difference will be made in that respect by the repeal.
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful—and, no doubt, the TUC will be grateful—to the right hon. Gentleman for his reassurance. I am sure that the TUC will read our proceedings this evening and will be in touch either with me or with the Secretary of State, saying whether it is still worried on the subject.
    We are now reaching the end of what for many of us has been a long and tiring road. I repeat that this change reflects one of the criticisms—to put it mildly—that we have made to the Government from the outset of our proceedings, that it illustrates their determination to crush underfoot the trade unions and the rights of trade unionists. Notwithstanding what I said about the reassurance that we have had from the Secretary of State, I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on this issue.
    Mr. George Foulkes: For those of us who happen, fortunately, to be Scots, to have sat through what we have just heard is a little like hearing two teetotallers talking about the various merits of Scotch whisky. They seem to know very little about the subject they are debating, and not much about its effects.
    It is a great pity that we have not had, at least, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, if not the Secretary of State for Scotland, here to explain the effects of what the Government are doing on Scotland, because it has serious implications, not just for trade union activity in Scotland but for Scots law. For those of us who are concerned about the methods of this United Kingdom Parliament, where legislation is passed for the whole United Kingdom, affecting two legal systems—that in England and Wales, and that in Scotland—which are totally separate, it provides a good instance of the difficulties that arise.
    9.45 pm
    Where legislation is United Kingdom legislation and the legal system is totally different in many ways, serious
    822
    anomalies arise. What the Government are putting forward does not just have serious and worrying implications in Scotland for the trade unions, which have been noticeably freer, more active and, if Conservative Members will excuse the word, more militant, but has some serious implications for Scots law.
    The Secretary of State talked about the law of trespass in Scotland. As I understand trespass in Scotland, with no legal training, it has been more liberal and totally different from that in England. The Secretary of State and the Government are suggesting something that has serious implications for the law of trespass in Scotland. If that is used as a precedent and extended to other areas tremendous difficulties will be created.
    It is a great pity that there are no Scots lawyers present. There are some English lawyers, but no Scots ones. I understand that in England when one goes on to other people's property it is clear and unequivocal that one can be guilty of an offence described as trespass.
    Mr. Percy Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in England trespass is not a criminal offence? Will he tell the House what would happen to Mr. Fagan if he went to Holyrood House instead of Buckingham Palace?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished English lawyer, has put me right on English law. It is important to have someone here to explain the position in Scots law. My understanding is that the amendment will have serious implications for Scots law.
    It is not my responsibility to explain the implications. It is the Government's responsibility. However, the truth is that the Government have been caught with their trousers down.
    Mr. A. W. Stallard: That legislation comes next.
    Mr. Foulkes: I shall ignore my hon. Friend, who left Scotland—
    Mr. John Maxton: Before the Union of Parliaments.
    Mr. Foulkes: I think that it was a little after that.
    The workers in Plessey took an important action because they felt strongly. They found that they were in the right and that Scots law was on their side. They found that Scots law, which has been traditionally on the side of the worker, is still on the side of the worker. It is regrettable that on this occasion a change should be made by an English majority of Conservative Members and introduced by an English Secretary of State. It is alien to what the people of Scotland want and alien to the wishes of the majority of the elected representatives of Scotland. If we had a Scottish Assembly, as we should, the amendment would not have been introduced today.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I have listened to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) on many occasions. It is unfortunate that he should come in at the fag-end of this long debate and, although he has no real knowledge of the subject, try to peddle his favourite comment about the Scottish Assembly.
    One reason why we have such provisions in United Kingdom legislation is to ensure that employers and employees are treated equally throughout the country. If equal treatment were not provided, there would be

    823
    enormous problems for branches of trade unions and for branches of companies that must operate under different conditions. Enormous problems would be caused both for organised labour, whether trade unions or other forms, and management. Therefore, in passing legislation, we must ensure that Scotland is treated even-handedly.
    When the hon. Member for South Ayrshire intervenes in such debates, he should remember that some hon. Members on both sides of the House have been through all the stages of the Bill and have put in many hours. They find it offensive when someone rises simply to peddle his favourite ware.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the purpose of this stage of the Bill expressly to allow those who were not members of the Committee to take part in the debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Walker: I leave the House to judge whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has contributed to meaningful and sensible legislation. When we divide on matters of policy, I hope that we do not divide on the fact that whatever Government are in power they will expect United Kingdom legislation to apply to Scotland, England and Wales. Sometimes legislation must differ, for example in Northern Ireland, with its unique problems.
    One of the marvellous things about our democratic assembly is that we make allowances. The proposed legislation affects both sides of the employment ence—management and organised labour. It is important that both the workers and management at the Plessey factory in Scotland should be treated uniformly. Such even-handedness is vital if our industrial relations are not to be more chaotic than they have been in the past. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) shaking his head.
    I recognise that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has his own views. He also believes that the Scottish trade unions—I hope that I quote the hon. Gentleman accurately—have been more militant than the trade unions south of the border. If one has listened to the long debates on this subject, one can understand why many jobs have been lost in so many factories in Scotland. The militancy that has been mentioned is a major reason for the loss of jobs and competitiveness. The hon. Gentleman wishes to divide management and trade unions. This amendment is essential in order that all who work in industrial relations understand the rules of the game.
    Mr. Maxton: It had not been my intention to speak until the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made such an appalling statement. As a Scot who recognises that there is still a need for separate Scottish legislation to be passed in the House, he should realise that he was saying essentially that there should be no separate Scottish legal system. I hope that he will go to the polls in Scotland saying that.
    Mr. Walker: I did not say that.
    Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not say that. He says that industry should be treated equally. However, Scotland has different contract and company law. Will the hon. Gentleman propose amendments to future legislation that will bring Scottish legislation into line with English law? He said that separate Scottish law must go completely.
    824
    The Secretary of State said that if this provision remains in the Bill Scotland will not attract industry. I listened to many radio programmes about a fortnight ago, when his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry made great claims about how he had managed to attract the Wang Corporation to Scotland against competition from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If that is so, why does he believe that it will be different for another company that wishes to invest in Scotland? We must have protection for Scottish trade unions.
    Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for putting his point briefly. The answer is that we could attract those companies to Scot and because we made it plain that we would bring in this amendment to correct Scottish law. [Interruption.] It was not a barrier to investment, but it would have been had we left the law in such an uncertain state.
    The Scottish courts did not declare that the trespass was lawful. They declared that it was unlawful, but said that section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 might provide immunity and that, therefore, they would not grant an interim interdict. The courts left open the question and the law remained uncertain. It would be extremely unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, the process of the law would be taken to the House of Lords in order to remove the uncertainty.
    I assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is worried about Scottish law, that the law on trespass there is different from English law, but until the Plessey judgment it did not prevent Scottish employers from obtaining interdicts against sit-ins. The new clause does not change Scottish trespass law, but removes the doubt and puts the minds of those concerned at rest.
    It is not a trampling underfoot of trade union rights. It is the establishment of certainty that employers will not be subject to unlawful sit-ins in Scotland which have been given immunity by that reading of section 13(2) of the 1974 Act.
    Mr. Foulkes: Who does the Minister believe will have their minds put at rest by the legislation?
    Mr. Tebbit: Those who invest in and bring jobs to Scotland will have their minds put at rest by the clarification of the law that arises from the repeal of section 13(2).
    I shall say nothing more about the contents of the Bill, but I thank all hon. Members who have participated in our debates, although it was difficult to believe always that they showed total goodwill towards the Bill. I am grateful that many of the debates were constructive. I am pleased that the Bill will soon receive Royal Assent and bring great protection to working people in industry around Britain.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 227.

    Division No. 323]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

    Alton, David

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Ancram, Michael

    Banks, Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    825

    Beith, A. J.

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Ginsburg, David

    Best, Keith

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Blackburn, John

    Gorst, John

    Blaker, Peter

    Gow, Ian

    Body, Richard

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gray, Hamish

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Grieve, Percy

    Bowden, Andrew

    Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Brinton, Tim

    Grist, Ian

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Grylls, Michael

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Brotherton, Michael

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

    Hannam, John

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Buck, Antony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Budgen, Nick

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Henderson, Barry

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Butcher, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hill, James

    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Hooson, Tom

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hordern, Peter

    Churchill, W. S.

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Irvine, Bryant Godman

    Cockeram, Eric

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Cope, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Corrie, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Crouch, David

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Dover, Denshore

    Knox, David

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Lamont, Norman

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Lang, Ian

    Durant, Tony

    Latham, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Lee, John

    Eggar, Tim

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Elliott, Sir William

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Loveridge, John

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Luce, Richard

    Farr, John

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Fell, Sir Anthony

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    McCrindle, Robert

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    MacGregor, John

    Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Forman, Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

    Fox, Marcus

    McNally, Thomas

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Fry, Peter

    Magee, Bryan

    826

    Major, John

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Marland, Paul

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Marlow, Antony

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mates, Michael

    Shepherd, Richard

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Shersby, Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Silvester, Fred

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Sims, Roger

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Mellor, David

    Smith, Dudley

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Speed, Keith

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Speller, Tony

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Spence, John

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton ltchen)

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Moate, Roger

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Squire, Robin

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stainton, Keith

    Moore, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Morgan, Geraint

    Stanley, John

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Steen, Anthony

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Stevens, Martin

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Mudd, David

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Murphy, Christopher

    Stokes, John

    Myles, David

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Neale, Gerrard

    Tapsell, Peter

    Needham, Richard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Neubert, Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Thompson, Donald

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Parris, Matthew

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Trippier, David

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Pawsey, James

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Penhaligon, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Waddington, David

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Wakeham, John

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Pollock, Alexander

    Walker, B. (Perth )

    Porter, Barry

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Waller, Gary

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Walters, Dennis

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Ward, John

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rathbone, Tim

    Watson, John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Renton, Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wheeler, John

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Whitney, Raymond

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Wickenden, Keith

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

    Roper, John

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rossi, Hugh

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rost, Peter

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    Sandelson, Neville

    Mr. Carol Mather.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Adams, Allen

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Allaun, Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Anderson, Donald

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Booth, Rt Hon AlBert

    Ashton, Joe

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    827

    Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

    Homewood, William

    Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

    Hooley, Frank

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Buchan, Norman

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

    Huckfield, Les

    Campbell, Ian

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport) Janner,

    Cant, R. B.

    Hon Greville

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    John, Brynmor

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Coleman, Donald

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Conlan, Bernard

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Cook, Robin F.

    Lambie, David

    Cowans, Harry

    Lamond, James

    Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

    Leighton, Ronald

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Crowther, Stan

    Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

    Cryer, Bob

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Litherland, Robert

    Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Davidson, Arthur

    McCartney, Hugh

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Deakins, Eric

    McKelvey, William

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Dewar, Donald

    McMahon, Andrew

    Dixon, Donald

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dobson, Frank

    McTaggart, Robert

    Dormand, Jack

    Marks, Kenneth

    Douglas, Dick

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Eadie, Alex

    Maxton, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

    Meacher, Michael

    Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

    Mikardo, Ian

    English, Michael

    Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Ewing, Harry

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morton, George

    Field, Frank

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Fitch, Alan

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Fitt, Gerard

    Newens, Stanley

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Ford, Ben

    O'Neill, Martin

    Forrester, John

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Foulkes, George

    Palmer, Arthur

    Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

    Park, George

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Parker, John

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Parry, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Pendry, Tom

    Golding, John

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Gourley, Harry

    Prescott, John

    Graham, Ted

    Race, Reg

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Radice, Giles

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

    Richardson, Jo

    Hardy, Peter

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Robertson, George

    Haynes, Frank

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rooker, J. W.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'11)

    Ryman, John

    Home Robertson, John

    Sever, John

    828

    Sheerman, Barry

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Wardell, Gareth

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Watkins, David

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Weetch, Ken

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    White, Frank R.

    Snape, Peter

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Soley, Clive

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Spearing, Nigel

    Whitlock, William

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Stallard, A. W.

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Williams, Rt Hon A.(S sea W)

    Stoddart, David

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Stott, Roger

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

    Strang, Gavin

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Straw, Jack

    Winnick, David

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Woodall, Alec

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Wright, Sheila

    Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Tilley, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tinn, James

    Mr. Derek Foster and

    Torney, Tom

    Mr. Austin Mitchell.

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Question put :—
    The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 227.

    Division No. 324]

    [10.14 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Budgen, Nick

    Alexander, Richard

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Alton, David

    Butcher, John

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Ancram, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

    Banks, Robert

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Beith, A. J.

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cockeram, Eric

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Colvin, Michael

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Cope, John

    Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

    Corrie, John

    Best, Keith

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Crouch, David

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Blackburn, John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Blaker, Peter

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Body, Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Dover, Denshore

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Bowden, Andrew

    Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Durant, Tony

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Dykes, Hugh

    Brinton, Tim

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Eggar, Tim

    Brotherton, Michael

    Elliott, Sir William

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Buck, Antony

    Farr, John

    829

    Fell, Sir Anthony

    McCrindle, Robert

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    MacGregor, John

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Forman, Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

    Fox, Marcus

    McNally, Thomas

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Fry, Peter

    Magee, Bryan

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Major, John

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Marland, Paul

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Marlow, Antony

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mates, Michael

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mawby, Ray

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Maxwell-Hyslop,

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Robin Mayhew, Patrick

    Gorst, John

    Mellor, David

    Gow, Ian

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Gray, Hamish

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Grieve, Percy

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Moate, Roger

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Grist, Ian

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Grylls, Michael

    Moore, John

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Morgan, Geraint

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hannam, John

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mudd, David

    Hastings, Stephen

    Murphy, Christopher

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Myles, David

    Hawksley, Warren

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Needham, Richard

    Henderson, Barry

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Hicks, Robert

    Newton, Tony

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hill, James

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Hooson, Tom

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hordern, Peter

    Parris, Matthew

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Pawsey, James

    Irvine, Bryant Godman

    Penhaligon, David

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Jessel, Toby

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Pollock, Alexander

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, Barry

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Rathbone, Tim

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Knox, David

    Renton, Tim

    Lamont, Norman

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lang, Ian

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Latham, Michael

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Lee, John

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Roper, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rossi, Hugh

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Rost, Peter

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Loveridge, John

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Luce, Richard

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Sandelson, Neville

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    830

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Trippier, David

    Shersby, Michael

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Silvester, Fred

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Sims, Roger

    Viggers, Peter

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Waddington, David

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Wakeham, John

    Smith, Dudley

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Walker, B. (Perth )

    Speed, Keith

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Speller, Tony

    Waller, Gary

    Spence, John

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Watson, John

    Squire, Robin

    Wellbeloved, James

    Stainton, Keith

    Wells, Bowen

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Stanley, John

    Wheeler, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Stevens, Martin

    Whitney, Raymond

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Wickenden, Keith

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stokes, John

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    Thompson, Donald

    Mr. Carol Mather.

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Dalyell, Tam

    Adams, Allen

    Davidson, Arthur

    Allaun, Frank

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)

    Anderson, Donald

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Deakins, Eric

    Ashton, Joe

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Dewar, Donald

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

    Dixon, Donald

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Dobson, Frank

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Dormand, Jack

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Douglas, Dick

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Dunnett, Jack

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

    Eadie, Alex

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Eastham, Ken

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

    Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

    Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    English, Michael

    Buchan, Norman

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Campbell, Ian

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Ewing, Harry

    Canavan, Dennis

    Faulds, Andrew

    Cant, R. B.

    Field, Frank

    Carmichael, Neil

    Fitch, Alan

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Fitt, Gerard

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

    Ford, Ben

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

    Forrester, John

    Cohen, Stanley

    Foster, Derek

    Coleman, Donald

    Foulkes, George

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Cook, Robin F.

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Cowans, Harry

    George, Bruce

    Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Golding, John

    Crowther, Stan

    Gourley, Harry

    Cryer, Bob

    Graham, Ted

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    831

    Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Hardy, Peter

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    McKelvey, William

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Haynes, Frank

    McMahon, Andrew

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Heffer, Eric S.

    McTaggart, Robert

    Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Home Robertson, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Homewood, William

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Hooley, Frank

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Maxton, John

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Huckfield, Les

    Meacher, Michael

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    John, Brynmor

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Morton, George

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Newens, Stanley

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    O'Neill, Martin

    Lambie, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Lamond, James

    Palmer, Arthur

    Leighton, Ronald

    Park, George

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Parker, John

    Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

    Parry, Robert

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Litherland, Robert

    Pendry, Tom

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Prescott, John

    832

    Race, Reg

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Radice, Giles

    Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Richardson, Jo

    Tilley, John

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Tinn, James

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Torney, Tom

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Robertson, George

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Wardell, Gareth

    Rooker, J. W.

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Watkins, David

    Ryman, John

    Weetch, Ken

    Sever, John

    Welsh, Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    White, Frank R.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Whitlock, William

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

    Soley, Clive

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Winnick, David

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Woodall, Alec

    Stallard, A. W.

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Wright, Sheila

    Stoddart, David

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Stott, Roger

    Strang, Gavin

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Straw, Jack

    Mr. Hugh McCartney and

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Mr. Edmund Marshall.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments nos.24 to 41 agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Homosexual Offences)
10.27 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to bring Northern Ireland law into line with the law in England and Wales where, as in Scotland, where the law differs in some detail, private homosexual acts between consenting adults have not been criminal offences since the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 or, in Scotland, since the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.
The House will wish me to say a few words about the developments that have led to the presentation of the order. In July 1976, the then the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House that he would consider whether to introduce legislation to bring Northern Ireland law more closely into harmony with the laws in other parts of the United Kingdom in areas such as divorce and homosexuality and ask the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to consider the desirability of doing this. The commission's report, which was published in 1967, recommended that legislation corresponding to the Sexual Offences Act 1967 should be introduced.
In July 1978, a proposal for a draft Homosexual Offences Order was published and an extended consultation period of three months was allowed. The response from the churches, politicians, religious and political organisations, professional bodies, voluntary organisations and individuals was extreme, both for and against changing the law. On one side was the view that homosexual acts were immoral and that the criminal law should prescribe standards of moral behaviour and, on the other, there was the view that adult homosexuals should not be prevented by law from exercising their private right of conscience among themselves. Although it was not possible to say whether either of those extreme views was that of a numerical majority, it was evident that a significant number of people were strongly opposed to reform. In the event, the previous Administration did not proceed with the order; and on taking office this Government decided to take no further action in relation to the draft order at that time.
In 1976, a homosexual living in Northern Ireland complained to the European Commission of Human Rights that the law on homosexual offences in Northern Ireland breached article 8, the right to respect for private life, and article 14, freedom from discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 1980, the commission reported its conclusion that this law breached article 8, but that it was unnecessary to examine the case under article 14.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend saying that it is six years since the European Commission ruled against us and before we are legislating?
Mr. Prior: I did not say that. I said that in 1980 the commission reported its conclusion that the law breached article 8 but that it was unnecessary to examine the case under article 14.
834
The case was then referred to the European Court which came to the same conclusion. On 22 October 1981—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) might be interested to know—the European Court issued its judgment to the effect that the law in Northern Ireland breaches article 8 of the convention. In its judgment the Court showed that it had given due weight to the argument put forward by the United Kingdom that the law in Northern Ireland was justified by the distinctively strong feelings there about the relevance of religious and moral factors to the law on social matters. Nevertheless, taking all that into account, it concluded that the interference with private life entailed by the present law was out of all proportion to the social need claimed for the law.
The United Kingdom has freely signed and ratified that convention and has thereby undertaken under article 53 to abide by the decision of the court in any case to which it is a party. The Government believe that they must stand by their international obligations and abide by the Court's judgment in this case. It was the will of Parliament that the United Kingdom should be a member of the Council of Europe; and our European connections, which Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom shares, require us to comply with the rulings of the Court in Strasbourg, the authority of which we have freely accepted.
Consequently, a further proposal for a draft homosexual offences order was published on 18 March 1982 and the normal consultation period of six weeks was allowed for comments. Representations were received from several bodies. The comments covered, inter alia, the age of consent, the gradation of the revised penalties, the time limit on prosecutions, the burden of proof and the provision that homosexual acts in the Services and between merchant seamen would still be unlawful. There were other comments which were outside the scope of the proposal.
However, in order to rectify the breach of article 8 of the convention the Government are concerned only to bring the law on homosexual offences in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. Therefore, there is no scope for accepting any of the changes suggested during the consultation period. To do so would either have made the law in Northern Ireland more restrictive than that in England and Wales or taken the law further than that obtaining in England and Wales, which would create new inconsistencies between Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend say how he assesses the views of the people of Northern Ireland in the light of the representations that he received? Why is he bringing the order forward now when he has just selected a new Assembly?
Mr. Prior: I could have read out the names of those from whom we received representations. I suspect that the weight of representations was against the change in the law but that that would have been the case in many other circumstances, going back to the Sexual Offences Bill in 1966. I deliberately did not want to detain the House by reading out the names of all the people who had written in.
The order was published in the House some weeks before the Summer Recess. As it was an order that was already in the House for discussion, I felt that it was right

835
that the House should discuss it and that the Assembly should start by discussing those matters which came afterwards. That is why we are discussing it tonight. It has now been on the Table of the House for a considerable time and I thought that it was the right time to discuss it.
Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State rightly says that the Government's action will bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, what consideration have the Government given to the position in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, on whose behalf they have signed the European Convention on Human Rights?
Mr. Prior: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that answer. If I may say so, I have enough troubles on my plate in dealing with Northern Ireland without getting too involved with the Channel Islands now. However, I shall try to find out the answer, if possible, during the debate.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The Northern Ireland Office, and particularly the Secretary of State, have made many comments on the European instructions. If those are the only reason for going ahead with the legislation, why did the right hon. Gentleman bother to have a consultation period?
Mr. Prior: There is a consultation period for every draft order. That is one of the ways in which the people of Northern Ireland have been able to become involved to some extent in legislation. For that reason alone, there would be a consultation period. I do not claim that the fact that article 8 was contravened was the only reason for going ahead, but it was the main reason.
I turn to the main provisions of the order. The main change to the present law is contained in article 3, which provides that a homosexual act, in private, between two consenting men aged 21 or over would cease to be an offence. Paragraph (4) of this article provides that Service men will still be liable to be punished under Service law for homosexual acts.
Paragraph (3) of article 3 provides that a mentally handicapped person cannot validly consent to a homosexual act; and article 4 amends the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 to provide protection for men receiving treatment for mental disorder in a hospital, whether as in-patients or out-patients, against homosexual acts by any male member of the hospital staff, and also to mentally disordered persons cared for under guardianship arrangements. Article 5 deals with homosexual acts on merchant ships.
Article 6 sets out revised penalties for those homosexual acts which will still be offences. In particular, it increases the existing penalty for gross indecency by a man over 21 with another man under 21. For buggery with or without consent with a person under 16 years, the maximum penalty will continue to be life imprisonment. For buggery without consent with another man between 16 and 21, the maximum penalty will be 10 years' imprisonment. In the case of consenting parties, the maximum penalty for buggery is qualified by the ages of the persons concerned—it will be five years' imprisonment where the accused is over 21 and the other man is under 21, and it will be two years in all other circumstances. Article 7 deals with procurement and
836
ensures that it will continue to be an offence to procure a man to commit a homosexual act with a third man, even though the act itself may be legal.
Article 8 provides that it will be illegal for anyone knowingly to live on the earnings of male prostitution
Article 9 covers premises used for lewd homosexual practices and provides that they shall be dealt with as brothels.
Articles 10 to 13 deal with the time limits for prosecutions, the procedure for prosecutions when an under 21-year-old is involved, the mode of trial and arrangements for prosecutions which may be pending. Article 10 will prevent proceedings from being commenced more than a year after the offence, except in the case of an offence with a boy under 16 or in the case of an assault. Article 11 will protect young people from needless exposure to court proceedings.
The Government recognise the very strong feelings held in Northern Ireland on issues pertaining to sexual morality. The Government defended the Northern Ireland law before the European Court in the Dudgeon case and argued that the differences between the law in Northern Ireland and the law in England and Wales were justified. However, the court did not accept these arguments. The Government therefore have to deal with the verdict of the court, which imposes an obligation on the Government to change the law. This Government believe in fulfilling their international obligations. The people of Northern Ireland, whether or not they approve of this particular change, will recognise that since Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom it is bound by the international obligations which apply to the United Kingdom. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.
10.40 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: The Secretary of State rightly drew the attention of the House to the strong feelings in Northern Ireland about the order. Any discussion about homosexuality at times raises, not only embarrassment but fear and anger. It is important to remember that that fear and anger is irrational. Often it mirrors society's ambivalent attitude to homosexuality.
As the Secretary of State said, there is no precise definition of a homosexual offence in Northern Ireland. It is worth bearing in mind that words of some existing laws. One reads:
"Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life."
If we think about that we can understand that society is capable of getting itself into a difficult position because of its ambivalent and contradictory attitude.
Those who have read the newspapers recently will be aware of the abominable crimes in Northern Ireland and here, and yet we do not use words such as "abominable" or "heinous" when speaking of murder, burglary or other crimes which cause disruption and agony to individuals and society.
We are talking not about a tiny minority of the community but about a significant proportion of the population. No society has been able to legislate homosexual behaviour away. We should not try to do so, not least because we cannot.
It is significant and interesting that prior to the gay rights movement there was a tendency to regard homosexuals as people who needed treatment. The forms

837
of treatment normally given were psychotherapy or psycho-analysis, behaviour therapy or behaviour modification. Many people in the medical and social professions know that one of the problems is that people, called patients, go for treatment because they are afraid of the social consequences of their behaviour, not because the behaviour itself causes them problems. That should make us think about society's contradictory attitude.
Regardless of the cause of homosexuality—and the House will be relieved to learn that I shall not go into detail about the four or five theories involved—one basic moral fact must be kept in mind. It is that homosexuals are people and deserve the same rights and protections as other people. Sometimes we talk about homosexuality as being abnormal behaviour. I am prepared to accept the definition of abnormal behaviour if it is based on statistics. I am prepared to concede that it is a minority behaviour and, therefore statistically less normal than usual. But a significant proportion of the population is involved.
Even such a definition causes difficulties because there is plenty of evidence that homosexual experiences are not rare to the average male at some stage in life, although the extent to which it is taken, of course, varies. If hon. Members wish to pursue that, they need to read not the Kinsey report but the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The Labour Party welcomes such an updating of the law. I acknowledge that many homosexuals will still feel, with logic on their side, that they are treated differently from heterosexuals. The logic is that the age of consent should be 18. After all, that is the age at which one is considered old enough to fight and die for one's country and deemed to be old enough to vote. It seems logical that they should be brought into line with the position of heterosexuals. The House should bear in mind the fact that the real problem with homosexuality, as with any sexual behaviour, is consent. If the act is done without consent, it is an assault in the same way that rape is an assault.
We should recognise the stand made by Mr. Dudgeon who went to the European Court of Human Rights. That man suffered a great deal of unreasonable persecution and allegations, and was subjected to a great many jokes about him and his behaviour. He and nine or ten others were threatened with prosecution, and were not told for at least 12 months whether that prosecution was going ahead. The prosecution was subsequently withdrawn.
Society often creates problems for the individual. Homosexual behaviour has been present to a considerable degree in almost all societies at all times. Let us not pretend that we are dealing with something new or something that we can in some way stop. It is not healthy to suggest that we can. Those who approach the subject from a moral or religious position have a duty to question their own behaviour and remember and think about the phrase:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
They also have a duty to respect and defend the principle of tolerance for minorities. Without that tolerance we may all find ourselves part of some minority. By some people's standards we may all find ourselves labelled "abnormal". That is a dangerous and difficult problem for society to face.
We welcome the order. It is a step in the right direction and the Secretary of State can rely upon our support.
10.46 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I oppose the order. I shall seek to divide the House so that it can put its decision on the record.
The Northern Ireland representatives have been lectured from time to time on the concept of widespread acceptability by all sections of the community. I am in the happy position of being able to make a statement that cannot be challenged by anyone in the House. There is widespread opposition to the order from all sections of the community.
Most Protestant Churches oppose the order and have declared their opposition. The Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland has also declared its opposition. The political parties have declared their opposition. More than 70 per cent. plus one are opposed to the order.
There are 26 councils in Northern Ireland, of which 23 are on record as opposing the order. That does not mean that the other three were not opposed to it, but they had a rule that they were not to accept resolutions for discussion from the other councils.
There is widespread opposition in Northern Ireland to the order. We are discussing this order because a European court, over which the House has no jurisdiction or authority, has decided that it is in the best interests of the Northern Ireland people that it should pass through the House. That remote body does not understand the widespread opposition felt in Northern Ireland, and that across the wide divide in Northern Ireland there is unity of opposition. I thought that the House would encourage such unity, because I have heard it said often "Why can you not get together? Why can you not agree on something?" Here is something on which they agree. They agree that this order should be opposed. There is a remote body sitting in Europe, and that remote body will dictate to what we are always told is this sovereign House.
Mr. Percy Grieve: The European Court of Human Rights, which the hon. Gentleman describes as a remote body, is one on which there is a British judge, and it is one which administers a convention to which this country is a party. It has decided that the law prevailing in Northern Ireland in this matter is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a party. If the hon. Gentleman adheres to the idea of a United Kingdom, how can he advocate a United Kingdom in which the criminal law is radically different in one part from that which it is in another?
Rev. Ian Paisley: That might be a nice case, but it is not so in fact. This House knows that there is a difference between laws in Scotland and laws in England and Wales. The House also knows that there is a difference between laws governing Northern Ireland and those governing other parts of the United Kingdom. Ministers at the Dispatch Box have told us of their resolve and dedication to protect the statute book of Northern Ireland and to keep it separate.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to have a uniformity in law, let us have a uniformity in passing those laws. Tonight we have one and a half hours in which to discuss the order. I cannot move an amendment to it. I can only vote against it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is putting the case that there should be uniformity of law. Then there should be uniformity in making those laws, so

839
that the representatives of Northern Ireland would have the same opportunity and the same rights to move amendments and have the matter discussed properly on the Floor of the House.
What do we find today? We suddenly find, although we were promised that there would be time for a full and proper discussion and that Northern Ireland Members would be able, without any limitation on time, to put their case, that at the end of this Session of Parliament the order comes before us at this late hour to subject us to the dictates of what I still maintain is a remote body and one over which this sovereign Parliament has no say.
I come closer now to the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised. The Government could have taken a different line of approach. First, the Government could have noted the decision. They could have said that, because of the almost total opposition to it in Northern Ireland, they wanted a derogation to the application of our signature to this part of the Court of Human Rights. That course was open to the Government. Why did not the Government take into consideration the widespread opposition of the people of Northern Ireland, and take that course?
Next, the Government could have said, in noting the decision, that they were about to set up an Assembly. According to some quarters, the Assembly may not have much to do, so why not refer this matter to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in that Assembly? Is not the reason that that Assembly would have had widespread unity in opposing this order? Having heard the strong opposition across the board and also from the elected representatives in an Assembly which was set up by this House, the Government would then have found themselves in more difficulty.
I, as a member of this United Kingdom Parliament, protest against a court sitting in Europe that does not understand Northern Ireland matters. I wonder how many members of that court ever were in Northern Ireland and how many know anything about the situation in Northern Ireland or anything about what is happening there. Why should they take a decision?
Mr. Keith Best: Does the hon. Gentleman entirely reject the European Convention on Human Rights?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not. I have referred cases to it. I make it clear that those cases are on basic rights, which anyone who believes in those rights would accept. However, we are now coming to something to which there is intense opposition in Northern Ireland.
If the nations of Europe go further and say that points must be given for homes for those who enter into a homosexual relationship on marriage, what will the House's attitude be to that? What if they go further and say that sex between children should be legalised? I remind the House that those who advocated the provisions in Northern Ireland in Gay Youth of October 1981 said that there needed to be a revision of the law, and that it was unjust to children that their sexuality should be outlawed. How far do we go down the road that the House is inviting the people of Northern Ireland to go down this evening?
That matter causes grave concern in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland. Hon. Members can voice their opposition and say, as they are entitled to, that they will vote on the order and compel the people of
840
Northern Ireland to accept it. Surely the House should be prepared to listen to the reasons why people in Northern Ireland are very concerned about what is happening on this matter.
Another matter needs to be considered by the House. There are some implications in the order. What concerns me in the order is the changing of the dates and the periods when the criminal offence charges can be brought and the court can adjudicate upon them. For most criminal offences the period of limitation dates either from the commission of the offence or from its detection, but under the order, which is significant, the limitation will relate only to the date of the commission of the offence. Therefore, if the offence is only discovered later, the law cannot take any charges against the person who has committed the offence. The House should pay attention to that matter.
If the time limit runs out before the offence is discovered, the order gives no power to the enforcing law officer to take action. Representations on that matter were made to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. One would have thought that when they were made, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State would have listened to them. They were strong representations for a change in the order on those matters.
Article 6(1)(a) states that the penalty is disproportionate to the nature of the offence and should be set at 10 years. Strong representations were made to the Secretary of State about that. As the threshold age is 21, it is illogical and inconsistent to differentiate between age and sentence. Under article 7, the offence of procurement to commit an act of gross indecency should be retained rather than abolished completely, as proposed in the order.
There are radical changes in this legislation. The 12 months' statutory limitation during which prosecutions can be brought could mean intense difficulty either because of evidential problems or because of a delay in the commission of an offence becoming known. The House is obliged to think carefully about the implications of the order. It is not as simple as it may seem. Those who are opposed to the order have considered it carefully. The Labour Administration first proposed the change in the law. Representations were made to Labour Ministers and to the present Ministers, but there has been no movement towards helping those who oppose the legislation. The Government should have been more flexible, because the European Court of Human Rights did not decree that such matters should be included in the order. The Government added them to the legislation.
When the order is passed, we shall have renewed demands for the lowering of the age of consent to 16 or 14. We shall have the risk of the homosexual corruption of young children. I have already quoted from a newspaper published by the section of the population that is agitating for the order. They say we must now remove the deterrent of the law in regard to sexual practices among children. Let no one believe that this matter is not serious. An across-the-board voice is saying to the House tonight "The people of Northern Ireland do not want this legislation, arid some provisions of the Order need not have been included if the Government were conforming only to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights."
I regret the fact that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State were not prepared to listen to the strong representations made to them by many deputations. Each person in Northern Ireland has a right to his own

841
conviction and some people there believe that homosexuality is not only a defiance of human law but a defiance of divine law. [Hon. Members: "Oh"!] I make no apology. I shall maintain in the House, no matter what point of view shouts, the right to say what I think needs to be said.
The things that have been brought into the order that need not have been are matters that the Secretary of State, when he heard these strong representations, could have given in to. Instead of that, he was prepared to go on and present this matter as it has been presented.
The House should know the strong feelings in Northern Ireland, and that those feelings do not come from one particular party or one particular religion, but from across the whole strata of Northern Ireland society. The one thing that binds society together is the family unit. Those who say that the family unit is ignorance, are welcome to that sort of belief. I believe that the family unit is the basic cement of society. This order, legalising homosexuality, attacks the very cement of society. It weakens not only the moral but the social fibre of society. Those of us who believe in the sanctity of the home and in the strength and moral power of the home must voice their opposition to the order.
I should like to speak at length, but I shall not. Perhaps if I talked the debate out the people of Northern Ireland would be better served, but I do not propose to do that. All hon. Members wish to put their point of view. It is unfair of the House to take up this controversial subject and tell the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland that they have an hour and a half to discuss it. If we include the Front Bench speeches, how much time is there left for the people of Northern Ireland to have their say on this order?
I am very pleased to see so many hon. Members in the House. It is a pity that they were not here when we were discussing the Assembly.
11.7 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has been the almost invariable practice since we have legislated for Northern Ireland by Order in Council that when an Order in Council embodies matters that are controversial and are felt to be of deep importance for the people to whom they apply that steps are taken by the House to extend the time available to debate beyond the minimum hour and a half. However short our time tonight, a protest should be registered at the fact that the requests for an extension in this case were not acceded to by the Government.
It was not worth the Government's while, simply for convenience on a day when the business was under guillotine or to take a decision on this order tonight rather than two or three weeks ahead, to depart from the practice that has been observed hitherto, when the House remembers that it is legislating for Northern Ireland without any other opportunities to consider the contents of the order or its application to those to whom it is to be applied.
Those of us who vote against the order tonight will do so not only on behalf of those whom we represent in the Province, but on behalf of the House and Parliament, to which this order, as I shall show, constitutes an affront.
It has been the practice of the House to legislate on matters of morality, on matters of morals and on matters
842
that are commonly regarded as matters of conscience, not upon Government motion, under the Whip which accompanies that which the Government put forward as the Government, but upon a free vote on the motion of a Private Member. It was upon the motion of a Private Member that the law on this subject in England and Wales was made in 1967, and that in 1980 the law made in 1967 for England and Wales was extended to Scotland. In each case it was not a Government motion. It was a free vote of the House. If it saves time later, I will say that in each case I voted for a change in the law. It has been thought right by this House down the years to deal with matters of this kind in that way and not to impose upon hon. Members the sanction of supporting a Government or opposing a Government.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is no Whip imposed on this side of the House on this matter tonight.
Mr. Powell: I am obliged for that information. We are dealing, however, with something put forward on the authority of the Government as a Government motion. It cannot be denied that this is contrary to our normal practice in dealing with matters of this kind. It is not the manner in which the law was made in this respect either for England and Wales or for Scotland.
It has also been normal within the United Kingdom for differences in law between the various parts of the United Kingdom in exactly this type of matter to be accepted. On marital laws, there are still differences—they have been retained to the most recent times—between the law in England and Wales, the law in Scotland and the law in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the existence of something as a major criminal offence is very different from matrimonal law? Does he not also consider it intolerable that within the United Kingdom a serious criminal offence in one part should be lawful in other parts?
Mr. Powell: I can only say that in matters of morality involving criminality it has been normal for us to accept, and even to cherish, differences in the law between the different parts of the United Kingdom. It would therefore be intolerable and unthinkable for the Government to seek by order, to impose upon one part of the kingdom law which, for the remainder of the kingdom, had been made not by Government motion but by a free vote of the House, with deliberate regard to the differing points of view held on the subject in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the vote in 1980, when the system applying in England and Wales was extended to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, who attended the debate, will be aware that one of the main reasons for the change was that the law in Scotland had become a dead letter, as indeed, it is in Ulster, where it is not enforced by the Government. It cannot serve the interests of the House to keep on the statute book a law which no Government are prepared to enforce.
Mr. Powell: I was dealing with the manner in which it has hitherto been thought right for the law to be made for different parts of the United Kingdom on this sort of subject and, indeed, on this particular subject. I take the point that uniformity could have been a consideration that

843
weighed with hon. Members taking part in those debates. If the Government had proceeded of their own motion to impose upon Northern Ireland as Government policy what in the rest of the kingdom had been decided only by free vote on the motion of a Private Member, that would have been an intolerable breach of the custom of the House, but that is not what we are confronted with tonight.
Tonight the Government are acting under compulsion. It is true that they had some variety of compliance with that compulsion, but they have decided to comply with it by applying to Northern Ireland exactly the same law as holds good in England and Wales—[Interruption.] and Scotland now. They are acting under an external compulsion which has been accepted by this country in acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. The result is that the Government find themselves not merely in breach of our own manner of legislation on these subjects but applying law which is strongly resented by a large body of opinion in the part of the kingdom to which it is to apply because they hold themselves to be under an external obligation to do so.
I believe that in the long run the House will find it impracticable and unacceptable to acknowledge that there can be an external court or legislature which can impose upon Parliament and upon the House of Commons a particular form of legislation. It is the more unacceptable because of the manner in which the obligation is formulated under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court.
We are not in the position of having acceded to a convention which laid down precise rules so that in advance we could have understood what it was that we were committing ourselves to accept. On the contrary, the human rights as defined in the convention are defined in such general terms that it is judge-made law that is being treated as mandatory upon this country.
The requirement which the Government plead for bringing in the Order in Council depends upon the interpretation of the right to the respect for privacy, from which only by a remote judicial reasoning could an obligation to introduce this legislation be argued. That is not the manner in which the House legislates.
This is not the manner in which law is made in this country. Law is made in this country by the utmost precision being sought by Parliament, and applied by judicial interpretation, carefully guarded, which remains within those limits. When we place ourselves under the obligation of the European Convention, all that is cast aside and our law stands to be made by a judicial interpretation, on the widest and most philosophical grounds, of provisions which are drawn in vague and general terms. So not only is the House legislating tonight under duress; the House is legislating to impose in this country judge-made law of a kind which it would not for a moment accept outside the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr. Best rose—
It is quite likely that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) wishes to put to me the same question that he put to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) .
Mr. Best indicated dissent.
Mr. Powell: I gather that that is not the case, but I will answer whatever new question he has.
Mr. Best: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for gibing way, especially as he anticipated a question that I was not intending to ask. The right hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that it is traditional in this House that matters of conscience are dealt with by way of matters brought forward by Private Members, and he makes the point that the present issue is brought before the House by an Order in Council from the Government. Perhaps he will inform the House how it would be possible for a Private Member to bring forward an Order in Council, bearing in mind that that is the way in which legislation presently pertains to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. A Private Member's Bill applying to Northern Ireland could be brought into the House and pass through all its stages. There is no particular difficulty in that. The provision could have been introduced by a Private Member's Bill equally with an Order in Council. That is the proper way in which it should and would have been done, if at al1, if we were not acting under duress.
That brings me back to the question that the hon. Member for Anglesey put to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He asked whether he accepted the European Convention on Human Rights and the obligation to give of the right of access to the European Court to obtain enforceable judgments in this country. My answer is an unqualified "No". I do not believe that it is workable or tolerable that we should assign to an external body, even though there is a minority representation of the United Kingdom upon it, the power to legislate for this country—the power to enforce obligations upon the Government of this country to legislate or to alter the law.
We made a great mistake—
Mr. Best: It is the present situation.
Mr. Powell: Of course it is the present situation. I am not denying that. I shall vote against the present situation. Sooner or later the House will come to its senses and understand that it is intended to be, and can only function properly as, the supreme legislature of this country and not the recipient of orders from elsewhere as to what laws it should or should not make.
It is therefore in the person, as it were, of Northern Ireland that the House is experiencing the consequence of having abandoned its rights and responsibilities to the external interpretation of a vague and generalised document—the European Convention on Human Rights—so that tonight it is the House as a whole that is affronted, as well as one part of the United Kingdom. It happens to be that small minority to which that duress is being applied by the House tonight. But the ignominy of legislating at the behest of others applies to the House as a whole. The time will come when we shall see the necessity—as in other contexts, so in that of the Convention on Human Rights—of resuming the untrammelled sovereignty of legislation of the House of Commons and of Parliament.
11.22 pm
Mr. Matthew Parris: I wish to speak only briefly. and not on those constitutional issues on which other hon. Members are more competent to speak than I.
The subject of the order is adult male homosexuality in the last major part of this Kingdom where it is still

845
outlawed. Seldom does so small a measure, debated in so short a time and brought at such a late hour, touch so deeply the lives of so many thousands of people in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that homosexuality is morally wrong or necessarily harmful, although I accept the fact that many hon. Members think of it as an affliction. But surely we can all agree that it is an impractical interference in the privacy of adult life to brand such people as criminals, as we still do in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members luckier than I may find that personal conviction gives wings to their argument—the more powerfully they feel about an issue, the more powerfully they can speak. Unfortunately, that is not so in my case. I can happily argue the toss, but where I feel as deeply, strongly and personally as I do on this issue, argument altogether fails me. I support the measure with all my heart.
11.24 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: Like my colleagues from Northern Ireland, I oppose the order. In answer to questions earlier, the Secretary of State said that it is being introduced now because, among other reasons, it was published a few months ago. The draft recreation order was also published a few months ago. The Northern Ireland Assembly is to be allowed to debate it. I should have thought that this matter is as important an issue to debate in that Assembly as the recreation order.
I am not satisfied with the explanations that have been given for bringing such an order before the House at this time of night.
I appreciate the fact that some hon. Members will profoundly disagree with me. Nevertheless, I and many other people are not happy that the House should change the laws that govern us at the behest of a European Court when we believe that that is contrary to the Judaeo-Christian ethic on which they have hitherto been based. We will suffer accordingly.
I share some of the views of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). I disagree with those who glibly speak of the problem as a sickness and often, in so doing, imply that there is no cure. We have only to remember that in the city port of Corinth, whence derives the name Corinthian, for those so listed, an obvious cure was provided. I refer the House to that lovely little passage in Corinthians I, chapter 6 verses 9 to 11. We have already been reminded
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…
It is when we face up to our basic weaknesses that we can find some hope in the grace of God.
We are told that the order is being introduced to bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The dubiety and ambiguity that is used in debates in the House when it suits hon. Members is fascinating. When they want to do something differently, we are told that we are different. But when it comes to rationalising, we are told that we should be the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. Time and again we have asked to be legislated for and to act at the same level as the rest of the United Kingdom. When dealing with a moral issue, the House would do well not to castigate us because we are arguing for and representing the people of Northern Ireland.
846
I shall not go to Northern Ireland for evidence to support my argument that perhaps the law that the House introduced in 1967 has not worked as well as some folk think. A writer from England has said:
"In an age of moral confusion and religious doubt, many people can only take their standards of right and wrong from the law itself. `If there is not a law against it, it must be alright'. Hence, when we removed criminal sanctions from homosexual acts between adults over 21 who consented in private, we were introducing, for many people a moral ambiguity, and a serious doubt. The result in England has been a vast growth of militant homosexual propagandists."
If hon. Members want evidence from within the confines of Parliament, I refer them to the Hansard of the House of Lords for 14 June 1977. It repays careful study.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what was said by his correspondent from England was also said by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Northern Ireland?
Rev. Martin Smyth: I was not aware of that specific link, but as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and many other people in the North of Ireland join most of the reformed Churches and the people of Northern Ireland in expressing concern about this matter. It is because of that concern that I oppose the order today.
I recognise that there is room for an amendment to be made to the 1861 Act. I recognise, too, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) has said, that the way in which one describes and treats offences may arouse fears and prejudices. Having said that, however, perhaps when it comes to murder in the North of Ireland this House may be culpable, too, because it has not been prepared to provide the sanctions of law in dealing with terrorism in this age, so that people just snap their fingers in the hope that in a year or two there will be an amnesty and those guilty of crimes most foul will be released on to the streets again. The House itself must therefore bear some responsibility for the way in which it creates a climate of public opinion with regard both to terrorism and to offences of homosexuality.
We are being asked to change our law to suit Europe and to suit others who, if given their head, will continue to indulge in practices against which some have already said "We will not go down that road". But can we guarantee that we shall not go down that road? It seems to me that the markers have already been moved somewhat. Only this morning before I left Northern Ireland I was speaking to a person involved in the whole concept of care within our social services. At one level in our social services we must provide help and understanding for those who have homosexual problems, but we must also provide for young people who may be victims of such people. We are establishing a pattern as we yield to the gay rights lobby and cry out for equal opportunities. It has already been suggested that people have been victimised because of their attitude to this. In this context, I should put it on the record that if the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North has heard of names being used against Mr. Dudgeon, I can only say that Mr. Dudgeon is a constituent of mine and at no time have I heard any names so used, but that may be because we move in different circles.
We must recognise that the markers that the House is setting and has already set in this area have repercussions in other areas, particularly in the treatment and care of

847
young people. There is no point in the House crying out with moral indignation about why this or that is allowed to happen, if we ourselves remove the sanctions that would at least remind people that there are standards that are unacceptable in our society.
I am not at all sure that imprisoning people with such inclinations is the best way to help them. Some judges already take the view that there should be fairly heavy monetary fines for the crime of soliciting. It seems to me that we might do better to change the law in that direction rather than simply say "It is all right if you do it in private". An attempt has been made to define privacy, but it is not easy to narrow the scope in that way, and it would be better to have the markers clearly laid down.
In an age when lifestyles, attitudes and values are changing, it might be worthwhile for the House to consider whether this is the lifestyle which we want to perpetuate in the United Kingdom, whether these are the attitudes which we want to develop and whether these are the values which we want to enshrine in our statute law. I believe that I speak for many in Northern Ireland when I say that these are not the values, this is not the lifestyle and these are not the attitudes that we wish the House to set for us. We want a better way for our children.
11.36 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: It is pleasing to see so many hon. Members present for a debate on a Northern Ireland order. I hope that those who will join me in voting for the order will think again about their refusal to be moved earlier this year by the arguments of those of us who said that Ulster should be legislated for in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom.
I shall divide my speech into two parts. I shall consider, first, the constitutional way in which the order is being brought forward and, secondly, I shall consider the merits of the order. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was introducing the order because of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. He said that the Government had defended the existing legislation, so presumably he would not have introduced the order if the European Court had not issued its judgment. I regard that as a failure on the part of my right hon. Friend. The order should have been brought forward on its merits and because there is an inconsistency between the law in Great Britain and that in Northern Ireland. I take the point of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on whether the change should be made in primary or secondary legislation, but the order should certainly not have been brought forward under duress.
It is intolerable that a person who is within the law in Britain is outside the law in Ulster and subject to prosecution.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who believe that, in general, Ulster should be ruled by the same laws as the rest of the United Kingdom should also be able to say that there may be regional variations, in the same way that, for example, licensing laws in Wales are different from those in the remainder of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Brown: There is a world of difference between drinking habits and the conduct of a person's private life. On the latter concept, I do not believe that there should be different laws in different parts of the United Kingdom.
848
I turn now to the merits of the order. It is not for politicians or churchmen to stand in the House, or anywhere else for that matter, and moralise about what people should or should not do within the privacy of their homes. The old-fashioned principle of personal liberty, which drove me into the Conservative Party as opposed to other political parties, should be paramount.
I ask all hon. Members, particularly those who have recently been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, to remember that homosexuals have votes. As candidates we are only too anxious to obtain the maximum number of votes, but we never question the personal character of anyone who casts those votes for us. There is an element of hypocrisy in the debate. We should consider whether this is the correct constitutional procedure to rectify the anomaly between England and Wales and Ulster. Nevertheless, that does not excuse us from considering the essential question as to whether it is fair that homosexuals in Northern Ireland should be discriminated against in a way that they would not be if they happened, by accident of birth, to be born in the rest of the Kingdom.
The good old-fashioned adage of "There but for the grace of God go I" should apply when a politician or Churchman seeks to moralise on this issue. We should recognise that on this issue politicians have no right to interfere in the personal life of an individual as long as that does not impinge on the individual rights of others.
Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
Mr. Brown: I am drawing to a conclusion, so I shall not give way.
I urge the House to take advantage of the free vote 'to vote according to its conscience. I hope that it will cast its vote in favour of the order.
11.42 pm
Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell) has presented the House with constitutional arguments which prompt him to vote against the order. I am aware, as he has frankly said, that he was a keen and urgent supporter of the efforts that I made consistently during the 1960s to bring in the measure which I finally steered through in 1967. The right hon. Gentleman is on record as having supported me as early as 1965.
Therefore, I find it somewhat strange that in his passion for constitutional proprieties he dismisses so easily that minority within his constituency and all Northern Ireland who must now be suffering severely, and have done so for years, the discrimination of the existing law of 1861. The weakness of the constitutional argument that he advanced surely has some relation to the pressures which clearly are being put upon him by the electorate in Northern Ireland, where we gather from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—whatever else we do not gather—there is great indignation about the order.
It is not correct, as the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested, that there is a pure doctrine that in matters of this kind it is always the Private Member who introduces the Bill. Historically that is not true. The Bill that I introduced was in collusion with the 1966–70 Labour Government, to their credit. It was done on the initiative of a Ten-Minute Bill when the House expressed its view, following which the Cabinet made the decision that full time should be given so that in accordance with the wishes of the House the Bill could reach the statute book.

849
The Home Secretary actively participated in every stage and there was full co-operation from the Government. The right hon. Member for Down, South has a notoriously manichaean frame of mind. Therefore, he would like to say that everything always depends on the initiative of a Private Member's Bill. That is not the position in relation to that Act. If he is relying on that to justify trying to vote down an attempt to give relief to a minority in Northern Ireland, he is allowing himself to be diminished.
The other argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South is that he must defy the European Convention on Human Rights. Such an infantile reaction to the whole weight of international law has naturally aroused on all sides a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman might be seeking a pretext to justify his actions to his constituents. We well understand his difficulties and the boundary changes touching his constituency, but he could have sought more stature on such an occasion instead of engaging in a sententious exercise that involved lecturing us on constitutional proprieties so that he could sweep his real reasons for opposing the order under the table.
We must face the fact that the order represents the end of a miserable saga of humbug and hypocrisy on the part of successive Governments and on the part of Northern Ireland Members. It is to the shame of the House that it is only after the stern admonition of the European Court of Human Rights that the Government feel that they have been left with no alternative but to enact an order that will stop the sword of Damocles dangling over the heads of thousands of our fellow citizens. Because, in their private lives, they do not share our sexual predilections, they find themselves threatened by an ancient statute that has, as a penalty, life imprisonment.
The Government sought in vain to persuade the civilised court in Strasbourg that the present barbaric law should remain. They pleaded:
"There were profound differences of attitudes between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in relation to questions of morality."
That argument was vigourously put forward in court; and no one could dispute it. Those in a position to end the appalling violence in Northern Ireland by being prepared to power share with a minority flamboyantly continue to refuse to do so and thus display an immoral intolerance that is, happily, alien to the mainland.
Tonight, 15 years after I sponsored the measure that this order follows, the same intolerance is being shamelessly displayed to another minority. Northern Ireland Members continue to resist according respect to the private lives of our fellow citizens and that for me yet again corroborates the fact that the continued subsidising of Ulster at more than £1 billion each year represents the foolish squandering of my constituents' money on a Province whose destiny can be determined only by its inhabitants.
Whatever the House does will be met by near paranoid reactions such as those displayed by the right hon. Member for Down, South. Last Thursday he extravagantly accused the Leader of the House and the Government of a cold and unremitting hostility towards the Province and its people because they had not provided more time for discussing this measure. This measure in fact has been discussed in the House for years. It was discussed in detail at every stage. The minutiae and the question raised by the hon.
850
Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) of not allowing stale offences to be prosecuted were exhaustively examined by hon. Members. Yet this is not a case of a measure without fault being presented. An old and out-of-date provision is now being presented to the House. It could not be otherwise. Grudgingly, because he has no alternative and is aware of opinion in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State has rightly said that he has followed what was done 15 years ago in an Act that had to concede to the prejudices of those days.
How absurd it is to say that the age of consent must be 21. How absurd it is that we should pass an order under which a ménage à trois can take place between a man and women but be outlawed when all men are involved. How absurd it is that the law should say that a man on a merchant ship can have a relationship with a passenger but that he cannot have such a relationship with a fellow sailor without an offence being committed. Absurdities are buried in the 1967 Act: that was the consensus of that time.
But to the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) I say that I do not believe that the men of Ulster are so diminished, so lacking in heterosexual drive and desire that ending the criminality of private, adult homosexual conduct will mean that Belfast will become a modern Sodom. I am sure that Ulster men have more robust and confident heterosexual appetites than their representatives in the House who seek so absurdly to persuade us that without criminal sanction Ulster men would prefer to go to bed with men than their beautiful and attractive women. Hon. Members do an unjustice both to the vigorous men of Ulster and to their delightful women.
I am sure that the House understands why the order is presented in such an unfortunate manner. It will understand, however, that, nevertheless, we are taking a step to ensure that a man who can live his life freely and privately in Wolverhampton cannot, as long as we control the destinies of Ulster, be metamorphosised into being a heinous criminal in Belfast. The right hon. Member for Down, South should have had the courage to express that view tonight, instead of dodging behind spurious constitutional niceties.
11.52 pm
Mr. Prior: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he considered that the House was acting under duress. I do not think that that is the mood of the House. We are asking the House to comply with an international obligation. That is a Government responsibility which we should not and cannot shirk. If the House wishes to change its mind about article 53, we must renounce it. The only alternative is to renounce article 25 which provides for the right of individual petition.
It is ironic that in 1980, when that came up for renewal and was renewed for five years, the only person who objected to it in the House was my Parliamentary Private Secretary. It was said that he objected because I wanted it objected to as it was that way that we would stop the railwaymen from going to court under the closed shop legislation. There is a curious irony about that. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had nothing to do with my hon. Friend's views on the subject, although they were attributed to me. I fully respected his views.
We have gone ahead because of the Government's responsibility, which we intend to fulfil.

851
It is uncorrect to say, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) did, that there were other orders on the Order Paper that we were not taking. The only other order on the Order Paper relates to planning. I have made it clear that any further orders will be put as draft orders to the Assembly in the normal course of events, and the Assembly can then discuss them in full. It is neither fair nor correct to say that that applies to this order, which has been on the order paper for some months.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that it is possible to derogate from the Treaty under Article 15, but, as he knows and has had explained to him, the only circumstances are in time of war or other public emergency, and I do not believe that that could be argued in this case.
He suggested that the European Court had not taken proper cognisance of the views of the people of Northern Ireland. In its submission to the Court the Government pointed out, and the Court accepted, that there was a strong body of opinion in Northern Ireland—stemming from a genuine conviction—that felt that a change in the law would be seriously damaging to the moral fabric of society. Nevertheless, the Court believed that the needs and rights of homosexuals had to be protected, and that was the decision that it reached. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) made a short speech that everyone will have admired for its courage and understanding.
I was present during the debates on the Sexual Offences Bill in 1966 when some courageous speeches were made. There are many people who believe that homosexual acts are wrong, but equally many of the same people have a feeling of justice and compassion for those who find themselves in that state. It is not a crime to be a homosexual in Northern Ireland. It is only a crime to commit homosexual acts. The House is right to fulfil not only its international obligations but to bring about the long overdue change in the law. I hope that the House will support the order.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 21.

Division No. 325]

[11.57 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Cope, John

Alexander, Richard

Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

Alton, David

Cryer, Bob

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Dalyell, Tam

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Deakins, Eric

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dorrell, Stephen

Beith, A. J.

Dover, Denshore

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dubs, Alfred

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Dykes, Hugh

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

English, Michael

Berry, Hon Anthony

Eyre, Reginald

Best, Keith

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Bevan, David Gilroy

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Field, Frank

Blaker, Peter

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Forman, Nigel

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Foulkes, George

Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Goodlad, Alastair

Cook, Robin F.

Gow, Ian

852

Grieve, Percy

Pawsey, James

Gummer, John Selwyn

Pendry, Tom

Hamilton, Hon A.

Penhaligon, David

Hannam, John

Pitt, William Henry

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Prescott, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Prior, Rt Hon James

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Proctor, K. Harvey

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hayhoe, Barney

Rathbone, Tim

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Hicks, Robert

Rhodes James, Robert

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Home Robertson, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Hooson, Tom

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Robertson, George

Hunt, John (Ravensboune)

Rooker, J. W.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Rossi, Hugh

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sandelson, Neville

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Scott, Nicholas

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Knox, David

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Lamont, Norman

Silvester, Fred

Lang, Ian

Sims, Roger

Latham, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lee, John

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Soley, Clive

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Speed, Keith

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stevens, Martin

Lyell, Nicholas

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

MacGregor, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Strang, Gavin

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Thompson, Donald

Major, John

Tilley, John

Marland, Paul

Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

Maxton, John

Trippier, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mayhew, Patrick

Waddington, David

Mellor, David

Wakeham, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Miscampbell, Norman

Waller, Gary

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Warren, Kenneth

Montgomery, Fergus

Watson, John

Morton, George

Wheeler, John

Murphy, Christopher

White, Frank R.

Nelson, Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Neubert, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Newens, Stanley

Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

Newton, Tony

Woolmer, Kenneth

O'Neill, Martin

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Parris, Matthew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Mr. Peter Brooke and

Patten, John (Oxford)

Mr. David Hunt.

NOES

Ancram, Michael

Porter, Barry

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Blackburn, John

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Brotherton, Michael

Skeet, T. H. H.

Budgen, Nick

Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

Stainton, Keith

Dunlop, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

McCusker, H.

Winterton, Nicholas

Marlow, Antony

Mawby, Ray

Tellers for the Noes:

Molyneaux, James

Mr. William Ross and

Morgan, Geraint

Mr. Peter Robinson.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Planning)
12.9 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The basic principles of planning law in Northern Ireland are the same as those for the rest of the United Kingdom. The main difference is in its application. In Great Britain, primary responsibility rests with the local authorities, whereas in Northern Ireland that responsibility is vested in the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. The Government believe that it is right to have that broad equivalence so that developers throughout the United Kingdom are not faced with significantly different sets of rules.
The draft order is designed to maintain those principles while allowing for adaptations and modifications that are necessary to reflect the circumstances and administrative arrangements in Northern Ireland. Some of the changes in the draft order are necessary to apply to Northern Ireland some of the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act 1981. Others are designed to provide more effective enforcement in Northern Ireland.
The main theme of the order is the enforcement of planning control and the improvement of enforcement procedures. The key problem is that, under existing Northern Ireland law, there were opportunities to delay the enforcement process through what has become known as the "dual appeal" system. The order provides for a single appeal system. At present, an enforcement notice can be suspended on two fronts in Northern Ireland, by the expedient of submitting a planning application as well as by appealing to the magistrates' court. The enforcement notice will not become effective until after the hearing of, first, the planning application, secondly, any subsequent appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission, and, thirdly, the court hearing. Those three stages of delay cause the present unsatisfactory position.
Articles 8 and 10 of the draft order provide for the transfer of responsibility for dealing with appeals against enforcement notices and listed building enforcement notices from the magistrates' courts to the Planning Appeals Commission. The commission is the independent body charged with determining appeals against planning decisions of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
The existing dual appeals system enables a developer to pursue unauthorised development for a considerable time. I know that several hon. Members have been worried about that. It may cause problems about time limits set for the initiation of prosecutions. There has also been confusion about the separate appellate bodies. In Great Britain there is now a single appeal in enforcement cases to the Secretary of State. We cannot do that in Northern Ireland, because the Department of the Environment is the planning authority and the Minister would be judge and jury in his own decisions. Under the new procedures in the draft order, appeals against enforcement notices will lie to the Planning Appeals Commission. The appeal will also be deemed to be a planning application for the unauthorised development. It means that the facts of the

855
case and the planning merits can be considered simultaneously by one body. The submission of a planning application will no longer stay the coming into effect of the enforcement notice.
At the same time as reducing the delay, the order provides for the introduction of greater flexibility into the enforcement system. Under article 7, an enforcement notice may include requirements for the alteration of unauthorised development to make it acceptable in planning terms. The present arrangements allow the Department only to require the restoration of the land to its state before the commencement of unauthorised development.
Article 11 gives the Department new powers to enforce conditions for the replacement of trees subject to a tree preservation order that have been felled by agreement and where in the past we could not insist on replanting.
Several important provisions relate to listed buildings. Article 4 provides some protection to developers who receive planning permission for development that involves the alteration, extension or demolition of a building by enabling a developer to seek a certificate from the Department stating that the building will not be listed for five years. Until now, a developer with such permission could find himself in difficulties if a building that he planned to develop was listed later but before he had begun work.
Article 5 provided that listed building consent may be sought after development has been carried out. This provision is already available to other types of development. It is only reasonable, if a person has carried out works to a listed building without consent, and those works are acceptable, to give a consent after the event. If the works are not acceptable, appropriate enforcement action would be taken.
Article 6 introduces time limits on the operation of listed building consents in the same way as time limits are imposed on planning permissions. It also introduces a new consideration whereby the Department is able to take into account not only the listed building itself but also its setting.
Hon. Members will wish to know that articles 12 to 19 of the draft order deal with a number of miscellaneous planning matters. Article 12 deals with a technical point about purchase notices.
Article 13 makes the changes necessary to charge planning fees for enforcement appeals made to the Planning Appeals Commission as if they were deemed applications, otherwise, hon. Members will realise, a new loophole would be opened up with people seeking to carry out development not paying planning fees and not being caught when the enforcement notice was served on them. They will be caught within the catchment of article 13.
Article 14 requires that a condition of planning consent that a building should be demolished must be registered on the Statutory Charges Register so any prospective purchaser will be on notice that there is a requirement that it can be demolished.
Article 15 enables the Department to take out a summons within three years of the commission of certain enforcement offences instead of six months at present. It can happen in an enforcement case that attempts to reach a compromise become protracted and the six-months time limit expires. This extension allows more flexibility when that happens.
856
Article 18 will close a loophole to prevent planning compensation from being claimed twice in respect of a second refusal for a similar development.
Finally, article 3 extends the right of appeal of an individual against certain planning decisions. It is not uncommon for a planning permission to include a condition to the effect that a particular element in the development is subject to further agreement with the Department. Up to now there has been no right of appeal against such a condition and article 3 now gives such a right.
The draft order, hon. Members will realise, has taken some time to appear, but it was thought necessary to ensure that any amending legislation for Northern Ireland should take full account of changes to legislation in Great Britain.
The provision of the draft order will be invaluable to the Department of the Environment in enforcing planning controls and will help developers by clarifying their responsibilities.
12.17 am
Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall not keep the House long at this late hour. I thank the Minister for going through the order The consultation process has been thorough and I have received no objections. All the groups in Northern Ireland with an interest in the order have let me know that they welcome it.
With those few remarks, wish the order godspeed.
12.18 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was certain understatement on the part of the Minister when he said that the order had taken some time to appear. Its gestation, if we trace it far enough back, has been a long one, and the compliments arid thanks that I shall eventually direct to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) will need to be shared by a former hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield Mr. R. Carter—as well as by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart).
Although there a T a few provisions in the order that are not concerned directly or indirectly with enforcement, substantially this is an order to improve the efficiency of planning enforcement in Northern Ireland. For anyone coming to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the extent to which planning control appeared to be evaded came as a shock. A good deal of suspicion of contumacy, not to say collusion, entered into the minds of some of us who have surveyed this scene over past years.
All the reasons for that difference, apparent or real, in the efficiency of enforcement between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom will, I believe, be removed by the order, which is very much welcomed. Indeed, it would have been welcomed had it been produced earlier. In all circumstances, it is very undesirable that there should be a public impression that it is possible for certain individuals or possibly for people generally to get away with a breach of planning control simply by going ahead with development and hoping for the best or in more flagrant cases openly defying planning controls and hoping that enforcement procedures will not be taken.
It weakens respect for law in general. It weakens respect for planning law in particular. It is especially undesirable in Northern Ireland where every breach or apparent breach of the law is given by members of the

857
public a certain interpretation. One is liable to hear it said, "He got away with it because he is of this religious persuasion. Of course, he would not have got away with it if he had been of another religious persuasion". I doubt if that has often, if ever, been the case. It is, however, that kind of suspicion that fastens and feeds upon weakness in enforcement procedures. I am glad that this will be removed—I hope that it will be removed—by the legislation.
The investigation of this whole problem has not been brief. It turned out, upon examination, that there were no fewer than three causes to which the weakness of planning control had been attributable. The first, with which the Minister dealt, was the distinction between the ultimate arbiter on planning decisions and the ultimate arbiter on enforcement. The ultimate arbiter on planning decisions is the Planning Appeals Commission in Northern Ireland and the ultimate arbiter on enforcement the magistrates' court.
It would not be quite accurate to say that a would-be breaker of planning control could play one off against the other. But the alternatives that were open to a would-be developer in contravention or contempt of planning control did make it possible for grave delays to supervene which, in some cases, finally prevented breaches of planning ever being dealt with. I wince at certain points in my constituency when I pass the site of events of the type that I have modestly indicated.
The second reason why planning control has been defective is that the magistrates' court which was the arbiter of enforcement appeals was also the court that dealt with prosecutions for failure to comply with an enforcement order. Under the general rules applying in those courts, it could only deal with cases that were brought within six months of the last date for compliance specified in the enforcement order. Those who were wise of this business were fertile of means for playing out the six months' time. This prevented the enforcement order, even if made, actually being put into effect. I might perhaps pause at this stage to rub in the point that, if the public see that an order is made but not enforced, the public will come to the wrong conclusion. It is true that they will come to the right conclusion, namely, that there is something amiss, but they are liable to think that the enforcement order was not put into effect due to some favouritism or other consideration. What was amiss was the powers open to the magistrates' court to deal with prosecutions following failure to comply with enforcement orders.
The third reason for the weakness of planning control was the limitation of the power of enforcement to reversing the breach which had occurred. There are instances where to insist upon a total 100 per cent. reversal of breach of planning control or planning consent is manifestly not only onerous to the offender but also unreasonable in itself, and the very fact that the Department knew that it could not make a modified enforcement order and that it could not oblige the contravenor of planning to put right in a different way what he had done wrong, by reinstating in an acceptable but not a 100 per cent. fashion, must have been a deterrent to engaging in enforcement action.
In fact, there were so many difficulties in the way of enforcement that one tended to send up a cheer when
858
eventually one got the Department, in the most flagrant breaches of planning control, to agree that there should be an enforcement order. One hopes that that dispensation is at an end.
The three causes which I have outlined are remedied by the order. The first—having different courts of appeal on planning and enforcement—is removed by combining both functions in the planning commission. As the Minister said, if we enjoyed the blessings of democratic local government in Northern Ireland it would be possible for him, as Minister, to be, as he would be correspondingly in Great Britain, the arbiter on planning and on enforcement, but clearly, since he is the planning authority of first instance, he cannot be the judge of appeal on second instance. Therefore, it was inevitable and right to give to the planning commission the duty of dealing with enforcement cases in a planning context. I think that we have gained something on the side there, because the effect is that the appeals procedure will no longer, as it did in the magistrates' court, lead to a simple "Yes" or "No" from the court; it can lead to a genuine planning decision taken in the light of planning circumstances.
The second remedy which has been applied is to extend the six months period in the magistrates' court to three years. I only hope that the three years will be enough. It is beyond question that six months for this purpose was absurdly short, but some experiences which one has had lead one to wonder whether it is beyond human ingenuity to find excuses or devices which can be played out for a period as long as three years. I would have been happier if it had been possible to take it to an even longer period than three years, but at any rate three years will give us far more protection than we enjoy at the moment. Indeed, it will create the possibility of effective prosecution, which at the moment hardly exists.
The third obstacle is removed by the provision of flexibility in planning control and enforcement, so that the planning authority will no longer be deterred from proceeding with enforcement by the evident unreasonableness of the only requirements that it can attempt to impose.
There is genuine ground for rejoicing over the order. It will inaugurate a period in which gradually people in Northern Ireland will accustom themselves to the position that once planning control has been applied or a planning decision has been taken that decision will sooner or later, but no doubt, be applied.
I hope, too, that the order will result in a greater respect for planning law and control and consequently in less development taking place on spec without planning permission having been applied for. It is not in itself an offence to develop without planning permission; it is only a risk. But the order inevitably makes the risk much higher. It will therefore, greatly reduce the number of cases in which, without breaking the law, developers have gone ahead, pretty secure in some cases, in the judgment that in the event of planning control going against them they would in some way get away with it.
Those of us who believe that planning control has much to contribute positively to development in Northern Ireland welcome the order and congratulate the present Minister—the last of a series who have had their hands to this plough—on having been the Minister eventually to bring it to fruition and get it on to the Northern Ireland statute book.
12.31 pm
Mr. William Ross: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I welcome the order in general, but I have a number of questions for the Minister. The more one looks at the order, the more one becomes anxious about certain of its implications. A number of planning and development matters are not yet fully satisfactory, not least the old chestnut of the problem of development land that becomes landlocked. I have discussed the problem in my constituency with the Minister.
In article 3 a new right of appeal is created where the Department refuses consent, agreement or approval. As the Department of the Environment is in charge of planning, the planning officials should know when permission will be refused by Departments with responsibility for roads, water or sewerage, and act accordingly. One is left with the suspicion that the left hand does not know what the right is doing at the Department of the Environment. Can the Minister assure us that the planning authority takes account of all the possibilities when a planning application comes forward?
The Minister seemed to say that article 4 would help those who wished to develop property, especially where a listed building might have to be demolished or altered. I wonder whether it is designed to help the developer. Is it not rather designed to help planners and those who might have an interest in the conservation of buildings that have acquired a special interest?
It is clear from experience that when buildings of a particular type are plentiful, one such building's historical or architectural interest is not so great. However, if many such buildings are demolished, the remaining ones become much more valuable.
In those circumstances, it would appear that the developer is merely drawing the attention of planners and those who are interested in such buildings to the fact that he owns such a structure. In that sense, he may be harming himself. If the planning authorities did not know about that building, it could disappear and it would not be missed. I wonder, therefore, whether the order will be as helpful to the developer as the Minister seemed to think.
When an owner of a building, usually an old one, considers knocking it down, he needs clearer guidelines than those that are supplied at present. How is the ordinary individual to know whether he owns an example of architecture that is scarce in Northern Ireland and should be preserved? When will there be a comprehensive survey, when will it be completed and when will owners be informed that their buildings are of interest to the community in general?
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not a full answer, but the work of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society has gone a considerable way towards answering my hon. Friend's question. It has produced for various parts of the Province admirable lists of buildings which are of historical interest, irrespective of whether they might eventually be listed. This must be of help to owners who are in the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry mentions.
Mr. Ross: I assure my right hon. Friend that I am aware of that survey, but how far has it got, and are all the owners of such buildings informed that the buildings are of interest to the general public?
The useful explanatory document says that article 6 provides that there must be a contract for redevelopment
860
before a building can be demolished. Whenever a contract or an application for demolition is being considered, everything, including the siting of the building, is taken into account. I should like the implications of that for the developer to be spelt out.
Does it mean that if the developer is demolishing a building in a terrace of the kind that we have in some parts of Londonderry, he must create a building with a similar facade to that in existence to preserve the whole, or does it mean something else? If such re-creation involves greatly increased costs to the developer, will he receive any assistance or will he have to pay the full cost up to the standard that can be demanded by the order?
Article 7 deals with the enforcement of planning controls. Every Northern Ireland Member has come across many examples of planning law being flouted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South mentioned a number of examples in his constituency and I believe that there are many more in my own constituency that have not yet come to light, 1 all the rumours that I hear are true.
I am extremely worried about the enormous amount of unauthorised development that has taken place throughout Northern Ireland. I wonder whether article 7 will really redress the balance and lead to the enforcement of the law or whether it will simply provide a loophole for the lawbreakers, who have got away with constructing all kinds of buildings over the years. Is this a way out of the responsibilities that planners bear to the whole community, or is it a serious attempt to make some sense of the miserable episode in planning law through which we have lived and which the order seeks to correct?
I understand that law-breaking has been taking place at least since 1974 and that most of the problems have arisen since then. I hope :hat a serious effort will be made to enforce the law and to minimise the worst effects of the law breaking that has taken place over the years.
Article 9 enables the Department to require remedial works to be done to listed buildings, but refers to the. impracticability of complete restoration where a building has been demolished or altered without consent. Who is to judge what is impracticable? Will the matter go to a tribunal of some kind, or will the Minister make the decision? Who is to judge the practicability or impracticability of complete restoration of a building that has been demolished or altered out of all recognition? People need to know how the legislation will apply in practice before they will be satisfied that it will really achieve what we are told that it seeks to do.
Article 11 provides for the replacement of trees that are the subject of tree preservation orders. There are many ways of getting rid of a tree. One does not actually have to cut it down. It cart be killed by many of the numerous chemicals on the market so that it becomes a danger and has to be chopped down. It can simply be barked all the way round and it will quickly die. In any of those circumstances, the order makes provision for the replacement of the tree by replanting. A tree does not grow to its full size overnight, however. It takes a very long time.
Have the Minister and his Department given full thought to what they are taking on in this article? If a person is told to replant a tree, he will naturally replant a small tree, which will take many years to grow into something that is recognisable as a tree in any true sense.

861
What are the Department's powers for the protection of the tree while it is growing? How will its survival be ensured? If we cannot do that, the article is nonsense.
Anyone who wishes to avoid having a tree growing in front of his house can do so. I should like to know how the Department intends to enforce the provision and to ensure that in 50 years time there will be a tree growing where the old one was cut down last week. It is an impossible task and it is glossed over in the order.
Article 13 deals with planning fees, which are increased annually. Many people in Northern Ireland, especially councillors, would like an explanation of the thinking behind the level of fees. Are they intended to cover the full cost of processing planning applications? If they are meant to cover part of the cost, what proportion is covered? How is the level of fees arrived at? I understand that the level is increased in line with inflation, but what was the original thinking behind the fee levels? Should the money raised be regarded as taxation for a specific purpose? I oppose that, because the principle has never worked. I hope that the Minister will tell us by now much it is intended fees should be increased and what the money is used for.
Article 14 deals with the demolition or cessation of use as a dwelling of a house on land on which the building of a replacement house has been authorised. Is it intended to stop the practice of worn-out dwellings that are supposed to be replaced by new houses being improved and still used as dwellings?
Has the Minister any figures on how often planning permission has been given for a new dwelling on condition that the existing dwelling on or near the site would be demolished? On how many occasions when the old house was not demolished was the owner able to get a grant from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to improve that property, so that he ended up with two virtually new houses where only one existed before? I believe that that has happened far more often than the Department may realise.
Article 18 appears to be tied to article 14, but with a small addition in subsection (3A), which states that compensation for the refusal of planning permission
"shall not be payable under this section on more than one occasion in relation to any estate in land."
Has compensation been paid on more than one occasion in respect of the same land? If so, has that compensation been paid to the same owner, or to a different one? I should have thought that if planning permission were refused, especially on a green field site, the land would remain or revert to agriculture only.
That is all very well so long as the planners' view of that portion of land remains the same as when the compensation was paid. However, what will the position be if in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years the planning authorities decide that such land can be developed? Compensation may have been paid on the basis that the land would not be developed, and all at once the planners change their minds. That could lead to great personal loss to the former owners of such property if it were sold on the basis that it could not and would not be developed.
As the Minister is well aware, the Prehen golf course in Londonderry is an outstanding example of that. A constituent of mine tried for many years to get planning permission for houses there and, because he was unable to get it, sold the land to the golf course, which eventually
862
received planning permission for the construction of a considerable number of houses there. That is a case that has caused much disquiet in my constituency. I wonder how such a case can be avoided in future, because it does no good to the Northern Ireland Office or to the Minister.
There are still considerable gaps in planning law. I welcome the order, because it will close some of the loopholes. Above all, it will close that loophole, which has been dealt with at some length, where enforcement is delayed for six months and the person breaking the law has appeared to get away with it with impunity.
12.52 am
Mr. David Mitchell: Several important points have been raised. At the start, the order was welcomed by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. He wished it godspeed, and I am grateful to him for that. I have come today from visiting Enniskillen and after seeing the sheer beauty of the countryside in Fermanagh and over the weekend walking part of the Ulster Way through the Mourne mountains I can say that it is not in the least a matter of surprise that Ulster Members should be speaking in the House today in an anxiety to ensure that there is adequate protection for the Province's beauty and to ensure that, when necessary, enforcement proceedings are carried through effectively.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke of the suspicions that can so easily run like fire through Northern Ireland society if there appears to be any disparity between the treatment meted out to one applicant as compared with another. I wholly agree that that underlines the need to ensure absolute fairness in the application of the planning system.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the scope for delay and mentioned some cases in his constituency where he felt concern every time he saw some buildings. One case that I came across recently involved the erection of a non-agricultural building in an agricultural area. That was spun out for four years by the use of the procedures under the dual appeal system. In another case, the erection of a repair depot for lorries in a residential area was spun out for four years. In both cases there were significant objections from the neighbours about what was being done. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the opportunity that existed in the previous legislation to delay the application of an enforcement case. However, he should not assume that the existing law has no teeth. Hon. Members may have given the impression that the existing enforcement arrangements have no bite.
Since 1 January 1980, 148 enforcement notices were served. Of those, 23 resulted in prosecutions. In addition, in the past month two people have been fined £500 each and another person has been fined £1,200. Therefore, there are some teeth in the existing operation, but, because of unduly long delays, we have introduced this order. Some hon. Members may have noticed that there has been some administrative speeding up. Previously, legal proceedings were dealt with through the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, he has other matters on his hands and other priorities and as a result, this subject has not perhaps been given top priority.
In February this year I had the legal proceedings transferred to the legal department of the Department of the Environment. As a result, there has been some speeding up. That, together with the changes introduced

863
by the order, will give our provisions effective teeth. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised several technical points, which I shall deal with as expeditiously as possible. He asked, in particular, about article 3, which provides a new right of appeal. Where the Department has refused any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition imposed on a planning permission, the applicant will be able to appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission, the independent authority with responsibility for deciding appeals against the Department's decision. At present, there is no appeal against a refusal on a consent required by a planning condition. Such consents normally relate to matters such as the layout of a housing development, the use of premises at unsocial hours and so on.
I have also been asked about article 4. Paragraph (1) of article 31A helps the developer by enabling him to get a certificate that it is not intended to list a building for five years. Therefore, I can give the assurance that is being sought. The provision has been designed to help the developer to know exactly where he stands. I shall write to the hon. Member for Londonderry about the programme for listing historic buildings. However, I have been asked for some statistics that I do not happen to have to hand.
I have also been asked about article 6 and the reconstruction of listed buildings. Each proposal must be considered on its architectural merits. The Department will seek the best advice available. Grants are, of course, available for the repair and maintenance of listed buildings. A point was raised about repeated refusals and subsequent consent being given. Examples in Londonderry were cited. We are all aware of such things in our constituencies.
Two factors are involved. First, as a town's natural growth occurs, land which was not right for development becomes the next appropriate place for development. In 10
864
or 15 years, population changes take place along with changes in pressure and demand. Our planning system should not be so inflexible that it cannot take account of human needs. If it were so inflexible we should be the servants of planning rather than it being the servant of the community.
Secondly, changes in policy occur. I announced a change of policy 15 months ago. It changed policy in relation to small businesses and isolated developments in rural areas. I am anxious to encourage the maintenance of life in small villages and hamlets. If one or two extra houses are not built, the community will die and serve no purpose. Many villages were created because people worked on the land and blacksmiths and associated trades were established. Today, unless small business opportunities are created and a few additional houses are built small communities will decay.
Policy must be changed from time to time. The changes that I introduced were welcomed, but a necessary concomitant of the changes is that decisions taken against the previous criteria will be changed because of the new criteria. I accept the anxiety, but in some circumstances that is right.
I shall reply in writing about the technicalities. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
PROCEDURE (FINANCE)
Resolved,
That the Standing Order of 22nd January relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) be amended by leaving out Mr. W. W. Hamilton.—[Mr. Lang.]

Hazardous Materials (Storage)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
1.2 am
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: A number of incidents in recent years have involved fires and explosions at warehouses or transport depots, causing enormous damage and distress in the neighbourhoods concerned. A feature of the incidents is the involvement of stores of chemicals. Examination reveals alarming inadequacies in the law and regulations controlling the use of such premises.
The fire and explosion at the Braehead container depot at Renfrew on 4 January 1977 damaged shops and houses up to a mile away and total damage was estimated at £6 million. The incident led to a special investigation and report by the Factory Inspectorate. That, I have no doubt, was partly responsible for a review of notification procedures for hazardous substances and the new regulations laid before Parliament on 4 October this year.
By an ironic coincidence, another major explosion had then just occurred at a transport depot in Salford. It happened on 25 September and again involved chemicals, possibly sodium chlorate, which was also involved at Braehead.
The night explosion woke people in over 500 square miles of the North-West. It broke hundreds of windows in homes and shops and involved the evacuation of 700 people from their homes. Sixty residents were overcome by toxic fumes and the total damage was estimated at £1·5 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that it was horrifying that dangerous chemicals were stored in the heart of one of the most thickly populated areas of Europe.
On 13 February of this year a fire involving chemicals occurred at a warehouse in Woodkirk in my constituency. It was described in a report by the West Yorkshire county council:
"As a fire the Woodkirk incident was not exceptional …As a pollution incident, however, Woodkirk was disastrous."
As a result of that incident 150 homes were without tap water for several days, as the supply was turned off in case of poisonous pollution. A local beck and the River Calder were contaminated for many miles. That led to danger warnings to residents, farmers, power stations and industrialists. Local plant and vegetable life was damaged for several weeks. Serious danger from toxic fumes was avoided only by the good fortune of the wind direction. The House will understand the tremendous anxiety that that incident caused my constituents in Woodkirk, and which the other incidents caused to the residents of Renfrew and Salford.
There have been moves over the years to improve safety requirements within and without chemical plants considered to be a major hazard. A major hazard was defined in section 5 of the Department of the Environment's circular 1/72 as where:
"There might be a substantial loss of life or serious injury outside the confines of the workplace."
The circular continued:
"The preparation of this list called for some arbitrary assumptions to be made about the materials likely to be concerned and the quantities of them which would constitute a major hazard.…both materials and quantities may have to be amended.…in the light of new information becoming available."
866
Such an amended list was issued in the new regulations for the notification of installations handling hazardous substances which are due to come into effect on 1 January 1982. That new list is inadequate with regard to quantities, coverage and mixtures of chemicals.
The Woodkirk incident shows clearly the weakness of present controls and the inadequacy of the latest regulations, which would have had no impact on that incident. The chemicals involved at Woodkirk were diquat, paraquat and octyl-phenol, none of which is on the new list. It was the combination of the chemicals, the method of storage and the position of the warehouse in relation to houses and a water course that provided the mix that brought an environmental and almost human disaster to Woodkirk.
Chemicals are being moved along our roads and railways, and through and into residential areas, for warehousing in changing and diverse quantities and mixtures. It is inadequate to approach the problems of control on a major national-hazard basis. The three cases that I have outlined would not have been classified as major hazards by current legislation or regulations. They were gravely serious, and by a miracle only were not a total disaster.
A recognition of the hazards to local residential areas from the storage of chemicals in warehouses and transport depots must go far beyond concern only with national disasters. It is surely wrong that planning permission can relate only to warehousing and offer no control over the danger arising from what is stored in the warehouses. There is virtually no planning control over this problem.
There is frequently much debate about and planning control power over the change of use of a shop into a fish and chip shop, yet a local community has no means of knowing—nor does it have any power to control—the dangerous chemicals or combinations of chemicals that are stored in the anonymous-faced warehouses in its midst.
I wish to make some positive suggestions for improvements. First, the problems arising from the storage of chemicals in warehouses and depots need to be considered as seriously as those arising from the actual production of chemicals in factories.
Secondly, the use of premises for storage of chemicals should require specific planning permission. Presumably that would require a change in the law, so that such a use becomes "development" and/or a change of use within the meaning of planning law.
Thirdly, consideration needs to be given to dealing with existing warehouses within a changed approach to planning law. Where the use of premises can reasonably be shown to pose a potential danger to a community, I suggest that it is unreasonable to face a local council with the choice between public safety and large financial compensation to warehouse operators.
Fourthly, as an aid to my first three suggestions, or as a partial substitute, consideration should be given to permitting the storage of chemicals only where a specific licence has been granted for that purpose. Surely it is not unreasonable to require the operators of a warehouse to obtain specific permission for the storage of named chemicals in specified maximum quantities in agreed conditions. After all, the object is to provide for the safety and peace of mind of the residents in the neighbourhood of that warehouse.

867
Fifthly, a fresh look needs to be taken at how best to detail the types, quantities and mixtures of chemicals that can be stored safely in warehouses and transport depots.
Sixthly, responsibility for the ultimate authority to authorise and control the storage of chemicals needs to be much simpler and clearer. The present mass of bodies involved—local councils, counties and districts, fire authorities, water authorities, and health and safety executives—bewilders the public and makes accessibility and accountability to local people exceptionally difficult.
Lastly, section 31(4) and (5) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 should be brought into effect and applied by the Secretary of State for the Environment to provide extra safeguards against the pollution of water supplies.
I have sought tonight to bring to the attention of the House a problem of genuine concern and real importance to local communities, not only in Woodkirk and Salford, but throughout the country. We should not wait for disasters to make action unavoidable. There are no perfect solutions, and I accept that there is none without problems. However, action is required, and I hope that my suggestion will receive careful consideration by the Ministers concerned.
1.14 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): No one would doubt the importance of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). The most careful consideration will be given to the various points that he raised and the suggestions that he made. The Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 have been laid before Parliament. That might afford the opportunity for a debate on those matters which are involved. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me in a quarter of an hour to reply to the important points that he has made.
I appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman felt about the serious fire that occurred in a warehouse in his constituency last February. His concern and that of everyone else was heightened by the recent explosions and fires in the constituencies of the hon. Members representing Salford and Ipswich. I sympathise with those who suffered injuries. Fortunately, the injuries that occurred were not serious. However, by saying that, I do not underestimate for one moment the stress and inconvenience that were also caused to those living nearby. The incident at Salford must have been terrifying and the incident that occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency caused great worry and inconvenience to the people affected. It is right that I should take this opportunity to say a little about those incidents.
The fire at Salford began on 25 September at 11.30 pm in a transit warehouse. It was followed by explosions that damaged windows and roofs in adjacent property. Sixty people received hospital treatment, most of them suffering from the effect of smoke and fumes and some from cuts from flying glass.
The Health and Safety Commission has directed the Health and Safety Executive to investigate and make a special report on the incident under section 14(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I am satisfied that that is the proper and quick way of establishing the facts behind the incident. The report of the inquiry will be made public.
868
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that other connected matters should be considered by the investigators, particularly the planning history of the site. I assured the hon. Gentleman by letter that that matter would be considered.
The incident at Ipswich happened at 10.30 in the morning of 14 October at a shipping warehouse in Ipswich. Welding was being undertaken on a metal-framed window shortly before the fire was discovered, but the cause of the fire has not been established. The HSE Is carrying out investigations. The House will be interested to know that the fire occurred where fertiliser ammonium nitrate was being stored together with some charcoal, potassium nitrate, wicker furniture, and other materials. Dense fumes were given off, which caused inconvenience to local residents.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley also referred to the incident at Woodkirk. He referred in particular to the major pollution that occurred.
Those incidents illustrate the new problems that have arisen as a result of the increased use of hazardous materials. Those incidents would not have happened 50 years ago. If the we of those materials were forbidden, there would be the most drastic effect on British industry. They are of the utmost importance to British industry. That must not be forgotten.
It must also be remembered that measures already exist that can help to minimise the risks, although it is easy to argue that more should be done. All those incidents occurred at places cf work and are therefore covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Act places duties on the employer to ensure the safety not only of his employees but of others who may be affected thereby. The Act is enforced by the HSE and in certain premises by local authority officers.
This matter was touched on by the hon. Gentleman. Since 1972, and because of the risk of an incident on a site affecting people outside the site, local planning authorities have been advised by the Department of the Environment to consult the Health and Safety Executive when they have been considering planning applications for developments handling substantial quantities of potentially hazardous materials or for developments nearby that might be affected by such hazardous installations. At the back of the circular issued in 1972 the hazardous materials are listed.
Unfortunately, planning controls do not necessarily prevent people from setting up new hazardous installations without planning consent. There is no obligation on occupiers to notify the Health and Safety Executive what they are storing, so that neither the local authority nor the Health and Safety Executive may be aware that hazardous activities are taking place. Therefore, one must not underestimate the importance of the new regulations. For the first time, a notification requirement will be placed on those who use hazardous materials.
The new regulations will come into force on 1 January 1983. They will require the notification to the Health and Safety Executive of the presence at any site or in any pipeline of specified quantities of certain hazardous substances. Under the regulations, the person in control of a warehouse holding the threshold quantity or more of a hazardous substance will be required to make notification thereof to the Health and Safety Executive, which will pass the information to the local planning authority and emergency services. I understand that the premises in Salford would have been covered by the regulations. If,

869
as it is believed, there were 27 tonnes of sodium chlorate on site at the time—the threshold in the new regulations is 25 tonnes—the regulations would have bitten there, although they would not have bitten in Ipswich or Morley. The difficulty is that, if one must have regulations providing for notification, one must have a threshold somewhere. It is a matter of judgment as to where the threshold should be placed, bearing in mind the danger involved and the need to ensure adequate enforcement and a reasonable expectation that the regulations will be observed.
The application of the regulations to transport depots presents a problem. It depends on the extent of the associated storage, because the regulations exclude specifically hazardous substances that are being transported. The Advisory Committee on Major Hazards believed it to be right to concentrate its initial work on static hazards, so that railway marshalling yards and overnight depots are effectively excluded. But many transport depots involve storage, pending re-distribution, and in such cases notification requirements would apply.
The regulations stem from the work of the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards, which has now almost completed a preliminary review of major hazards in transport and made a report to the Health and Safety Commission. The Commission accepted the report and began further work on the matter. One area identified by the advisory committee as requiring closer consideration was transport depots.
The second report of the advisory committee, published in 1979, suggested changes in planning legislation for hazardous developments, and earlier this year the Health and Safety Commission submitted a series of recommendations to planning Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment produced proposals for amending planning controls over hazardous developent so as to remove hazardous developments from the benefits conferred by the General Development or the Use Classes Order. Those proposals, which would mean more occasions on which planning authorities could exercise specific planning control over such development, are currently subject to public consultation following the publication of the consultative document on 26 August.
I am sure that many organisations and individuals will make their contributions and that by 19 November, the closing date, it will be possible to hear a large number of informed views on this matter. In the light of the comments received, my right hon. Friend will be considering as a matter of urgency what changes should be made.
This touches on the most important part of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley. It is a matter of great concern to many of us as to how best we should deal with the planning aspect of this problem. The hon. Member is right in saying that, if one were to say that there had to be specific planning permission for the storage of chemicals, there would have to be primary legislation and a change in the town and
870
country planning legislation. That is not to say that eventually that might not be thought necessary, but it would be a large step.
Finally, the HSE is drawing up further regulations to implement, by January 1984, the provisions of the EC (Seveso) directive on major accident hazards in certain industrial activities. This directive requires further controls on establishments handling many highly toxic chemicals, or larger inventories of other hazardous substances. The main provisions include a duty on the manufacturers to carry out a hazard survey and make a report to the HSE; the preparation of emergency plans by the manufacturer within the site and by a competent authority outside the site; and dissemination of certain information to members of the public who might be affected by an accident.
These provisions will greatly strengthen the controls over many installations where processes take place involving hazardous chemicals. However, they will not greatly affect control over warehouses, as the directive contains significant relaxations for isolated storage of such materials.
Quite clearly, when resources are not unlimited—they never are—priority must be given to larger sites, the places where larger quantities of materials are being stored. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the threshold levels so far as the obligation to notify is concerned are not very low, as is obvious from the impact that they would have on these incidents.
This means that even when the new regulations are in force there may be incidents causing public alarm which do not come within their scope. The premises at Salford would have been notifiable and, in any event, wherever there is a place of work the general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act will continue to apply, together with other duties required by other regulations made under the Act.
For instance, the Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1978, as amended in 1981, prescribe simple rules for labelling over 1,000 pure chemical substances, and this can help to achieve safer storage and transportation. In fact, the 1978 regulations are being revised and greatly expanded to cover all dangerous substances and to provide information for those involved in the storage and use of substances including the emergency services. The revisions should be completed by next year. The importance of this, of course, is that they apply to small as well as large quantities and in circumstances where the new controls for major hazards do not apply.
While I very much regret the incidents that have occurred recently, I hope that hon. Members will be reassured that, while all eventualities can never be catered for, the Government are continuing to devise means to reduce the risks from hazardous substances. Real progress is being made in a number of ways.
Question put and agree to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock.

ENERGY
  Opencast Coalmining
  Opencast Coalmining
  Standing Charges
  Standing Charges
  Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme
  Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Computerisation)
  Income Tax (Computerisation)
  HMSO (Edinburgh)
  HMSO (Edinburgh)
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Value Added Tax (Voluntary Registration)
  Value Added Tax (Voluntary Registration)
  Income Tax (Earned Income)
  Income Tax (Earned Income)
  Value Added Tax (Charities)
  Value Added Tax (Charities)
  Public Borrowing
  Public Borrowing
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  European Community (Contributions)
  European Community (Contributions)
PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Military Honours
  Military Honours
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Vessels (Surveillance)
  Fishing Vessels (Surveillance)
  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme
  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme
  Food Additives (Report)
  Food Additives (Report)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Police (Assault Prosecutions)
  Police (Assault Prosecutions)
  Court Witnesses (Photographs)
  Court Witnesses (Photographs)
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Northern Ireland (Under Sheriff)
  Northern Ireland (Under Sheriff)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United Kingdom Citizens (Repatriation)
  United Kingdom Citizens (Repatriation)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Guyana (Territorial Violations)
  Guyana (Territorial Violations)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Information Service
  Departmental Information Service
  Advanced Courses (Statistics)
  Advanced Courses (Statistics)
  Anti-asthma Drugs (Research)
  Anti-asthma Drugs (Research)
  Human Protein Body Map
  Human Protein Body Map
  Hypertension
  Hypertension
  De La Salle College, Middleton
  De La Salle College, Middleton
  Dependant Co-habitees
  Dependant Co-habitees
  Caravan Sites (Schoolchildren)
  Caravan Sites (Schoolchildren)
  School Transport (Suffolk)
  School Transport (Suffolk)
  Building Insulation
  Building Insulation
TRADE
  Commissioners of Irish Lights (Flags)
  Commissioners of Irish Lights (Flags)
  Taiwan
  Taiwan
  Exclusive Purchasing Agreements
  Exclusive Purchasing Agreements
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Defective Electric Plugs
  Defective Electric Plugs
  Table Wine (Measures)
  Table Wine (Measures)
  Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958
  Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  British Tourist Authority and English Tourist Board
  British Tourist Authority and English Tourist Board
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Bophuthatswana
  Bophuthatswana
  Siberian Pipeline Project
  Siberian Pipeline Project
  Freeports
  Freeports
  South America (Ministerial Visit)
  South America (Ministerial Visit)
SCOTLAND
  Hamilton College of Education
  Hamilton College of Education
  Dental Practitioners (Salaries)
  Dental Practitioners (Salaries)
  Torness Power Station
  Torness Power Station
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Housing Associations (Sales)
DEFENCE
  Type 23 Frigate
  Type 23 Frigate
  Operations Centre, High Wycombe
  Operations Centre, High Wycombe
  Crest Nicholson Group (Contracts)
  Crest Nicholson Group (Contracts)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  RFA "Stromness"
  RFA "Stromness"
  Ship Replacements
  Ship Replacements
  Rapid Fire Gun Systems
  Rapid Fire Gun Systems
  HMS "Ark Royal"
  HMS "Ark Royal"
  Briefings (Party Groups)
  Briefings (Party Groups)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Deportation (Detainees)
  Deportation (Detainees)
  Nuclear Attack (Scientific Evidence)
  Nuclear Attack (Scientific Evidence)
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Criminal Law Act 1977
  Criminal Law Act 1977
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Police Training
  Police Training
  Prisoners (Outside Employment)
  Prisoners (Outside Employment)
  Foreign Government Officials
  Foreign Government Officials
  Cultural Visits
  Cultural Visits
  Democratic Republic of Korea
  Democratic Republic of Korea
  Black Vigilante Groups (Thornton Heath)
  Black Vigilante Groups (Thornton Heath)
  Toxteth (Incidents)
  Toxteth (Incidents)
  Metropolitan Police (Instructions to Officers)
  Metropolitan Police (Instructions to Officers)
  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill
  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill
  Disabled Persons (Parking)
  Disabled Persons (Parking)
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
INDUSTRY
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Industrial Situation
  Industrial Situation
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Humber Ports
  Humber Ports
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Public Sector Industries (Women Appointees)
  Public Sector Industries (Women Appointees)
  Output and Investment
  Output and Investment
  Worker Co-operatives
  Worker Co-operatives
  Inmos Ltd.
  Inmos Ltd.
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Cabling (ITAP Report)
  Cabling (ITAP Report)
  Assisted Areas
  Assisted Areas
  Industry (Grants)
  Industry (Grants)
  Primary Aluminium
  Primary Aluminium
  Manufacturing Production
  Manufacturing Production
  BL (Profitability)
  BL (Profitability)
  Nationalised Industries (Commercial Vehicle Purchasing)
  Nationalised Industries (Commercial Vehicle Purchasing)
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons (Job Splitting)
  Disabled Persons (Job Splitting)
  Printing and Publishing Industries Training Board
  Printing and Publishing Industries Training Board
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Youth Training Scheme (Equal Opportunities)
  Youth Training Scheme (Equal Opportunities)
  European Community Social Fund (Training of Women)
  European Community Social Fund (Training of Women)
  Unemployed Women
  Unemployed Women
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Manpower Services Commission (Community Programme)
  Manpower Services Commission (Community Programme)
  North-West (Unemployment Statistics)
  North-West (Unemployment Statistics)
  Kirkby and Ormskirk (Jobcentre Placings)
  Kirkby and Ormskirk (Jobcentre Placings)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Employment Services Department (Merseyside)
  Employment Services Department (Merseyside)
  Jobcentre Services
  Jobcentre Services
  High-Cost Jobcentres
  High-Cost Jobcentres
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Chrysoidine Dye
  Chrysoidine Dye
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  London Weighting Index
  London Weighting Index
  Closed Shop (Code of Practice)
  Closed Shop (Code of Practice)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  Home Help Services
  Home Help Services
  Marple Dale Hospital
  Marple Dale Hospital
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Nicotine Chewing Gum
  Nicotine Chewing Gum
  Auditors
  Auditors
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Attendance Allowance Board
  Attendance Allowance Board
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Bladder Cancer
  Bladder Cancer
  Walsall
  Walsall
  Maternity Services Advisory Committee (Report)
  Maternity Services Advisory Committee (Report)
  Blood Supplies
  Blood Supplies
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Offices
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Tax Rates
  Tax Rates
  Fluoridation Society
  Fluoridation Society
TRANSPORT
  Passenger Coaches (Speed Limits)
  Passenger Coaches (Speed Limits)
  Itinerants (Vehicle Excise Duty Avoidance)
  Itinerants (Vehicle Excise Duty Avoidance)
  Pavements (Obstruction)
  Pavements (Obstruction)
  Defective Tyres
  Defective Tyres
  British Transport Hotels (Purchase)
  British Transport Hotels (Purchase)
  Liquid Petroleum Gas (Vehicle Conversion)
  Liquid Petroleum Gas (Vehicle Conversion)
  Motorway Repairs (West Midlands)
  Motorway Repairs (West Midlands)
  Trunk Road Programme
  Trunk Road Programme
  Serpell Report
  Serpell Report
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Low-cost Home Ownership Scheme
  Low-cost Home Ownership Scheme
  Fire Safety
  Fire Safety
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Disabled Persons (Housing Adaptation)
  Disabled Persons (Housing Adaptation)
  Manpower Services Commission (Representations)
  Manpower Services Commission (Representations)
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Hazardous Installations (Planning Control)
  Hazardous Installations (Planning Control)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Building Insulation
  Building Insulation
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Home Ownership (Statistics)
  Home Ownership (Statistics)
  Canal Improvement Schemes
  Canal Improvement Schemes
WALES
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Sheep (Transportation)
  Sheep (Transportation)
  Ysbyty Gwynedd General Hospital, Bangor
  Ysbyty Gwynedd General Hospital, Bangor
  Agricultural Land (Status)
  Agricultural Land (Status)
  Llangwyfan Hospital (Sale)
  Llangwyfan Hospital (Sale)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Employment Services (Gwynedd and Clwyd)
  Employment Services (Gwynedd and Clwyd)
  Health Service Resources
  Health Service Resources
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Juvenile Offenders (Alcohol)
  Juvenile Offenders (Alcohol)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Black Economy
  Black Economy
  De Lorean Motor Company
  De Lorean Motor Company
  Government Property (Insurance)
  Government Property (Insurance)

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

Military Strengths of East and West
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the conflict in evidence on the respective military strengths of East and West, they would propose to the United Nations Security Council the appointment of a commission of unaligned experts to reach conclusions for the benefit of the START and Vienna negotiations and the United Nations Committee on Disarmament.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is for the parties concerned to resolve any differences. In the START talks this means the United States and the Soviet Union. As far as the MBFR negotiations are concerned, the NATO allies have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to discuss force strengths co-operatively with the other parties. It is up to the East to show a similar willingness.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I went on a peace mission to Moscow we had to listen for one hour to a Minister in the Kremlin trying to prove that Soviet forces were not greater than the American forces, and I retorted that we would have heard exactly the same in reverse if we had gone to the Pentagon? Does this not illustrate the problem that, while there is this difference of opinion about the strength of forces, negotiations for arms reductions are bound to be prejudiced? Would not an uncommitted examination he useful to resolve this problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, after answering a Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, on Thursday, how could I possibly forget that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, went to Moscow recently on a peace mission? All proposals for neutralising blockages should be examined carefully and on their merits, but I am afraid I am bound to say that I see this as a well-intentioned idea but a non-starter. It is very difficult to see how a group could be assembled which was both genuinely independent and sufficiently experienced to resolve an inevitably complex matter. Furthermore, it is difficult to see that the Eastern bloc would be any more willing to co-operate in a constructive manner with some sort of independent arbitrator. The bugbear, as I and my noble friends have said on numerous occasions, is verification. We are perfectly open on this side of the Urals as to what is going on, but would that the Eastern bloc were the same!
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minster agree that, so far as land-based warfare in Europe is concerned, the balance has shifted decisively in favour of defence with the advent of light and accurate infantry borne anti-tank weapons? Does this not mean that arguments about the exact strength of forces on either side of the Iron Curtain have become irrelevant and that we should settle down to negotiations to dismantle the theatre nuclear weapons on either side, because so far as the West is concerned they are unnecessary to repel an attack by the Warsaw Pact?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not think these things are irrelevant at all. What I would say, however, is that the more the numbers of conventional forces are in balance the less likelihood and the less need there would be for nuclear forces.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as the noble Lord has mentioned the Question I put to him the other day, may I respectfully ask him if he has not misunderstood the purport of my noble friend's Question? He is not suggesting that the function of negotiation on policy should be usurped. The proposal, as I understand it, is that a factual attempt should be made to establish what are the real nuclear strengths on both sides. Is the noble Lord not aware that my noble friend has pointed out that each side is saying that the other side is stronger, and he is suggesting an attempt to establish the facts? Would the noble Lord not agree that this is a good idea?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not think I misunderstood the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. What I was saying is that this is not the right way to go about resolving the difficulty.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, what is an "unaligned expert"? Is it somebody suffering from a disability?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not quite sure, but I note that Cuba is currently at the head of the non-aligned nations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to be rather more precise in his replies to the questions put to him? Is he aware that the average man is dismayed and confused by what is said about the various disarmament conferences that are taking place—Vienna, Geneva, the United Nations initiative? All these are taking place. Will the noble Lord recall that his noble friend Lord Trenchard—I think it was last December—said that the Geneva talks had got off to a good start? What the man in the street wants to know is whether they are likely to get off to a good finish. Will the noble Lord be good enough to say whether verification is the only problem? While the House realises that there is a limit to what Her Majesty's Government can do, and that the matter is primarily one between the great powers, nevertheless on several occasions it has been said from the Front Bench opposite that we do have an influence in the matter. Will the noble Lord be good enough to ensure that Her Majesty's Government now exercise their influence to ensure at least that there is more clarity in the situation than exists at present?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry if I have caused confusion to the man in the street, or indeed to noble Lords; it certainly was not my intention so to do. There are, of course, three main negotiations going on: one is the START talks which are about nuclear forces; another is the MBFR talks which are specifically about non-nuclear forces; and the third is the INF, so-called, which is a NATO allies nuclear talk.
What I was trying to say was that START and MBFR, the two negotiations asked about in the Question on the Order Paper, were only appropriate to the parties involved: in other words, for START, the United States and Soviet Russia, and for MBFR the NATO allies and the Warsaw Pact countries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the quintessential of the submission in the original Question of my noble friend Lord Brockway is probably the most vital issue facing mankind and is too great an issue to depend on even the most erudite civil servant's brief or on fifth rate jokes? Does the noble Lord also agree that if there is one nation in the United Nations Security Council that could command support because of its experience and loyalty to that organisation, it is the United Kingdom? No proposal whatever regarding the future of mankind should be ruled out, as the noble Lord ruled out this proposal, as a non-starter. Will the noble Lord reconsider that and also seriously consider the points that I have submitted?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that the United Kindom could be possibly involved in this discussion - this committee of experts - simply because by the very nature of our geographical position and our nuclear forces we are an involved party. I apologise for using the expression, "non-starter", which may or may not he a parliamentary expression, but none the less it is a symptom of what I feel in this instance.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is there not something to be said for probing the possibility that a committee of - non-aligned is unattractive - non-committed experts could be invited to consider this matter? There is total conflict on each side of the fence on this issue. It would be an interesting probe to see the good faith of one side or the other if this idea was launched to see what the response would be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord, but the great problem is to find these experts who are non-aligned. If they could be agreed by both sides as being non-aligned experts we would be a great deal further forward, I agree.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has been trying to rise for some time. I think I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the clock is running six minutes early and that we have been 10 minutes on this Question. Perhaps after the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has asked his question and my noble friend has answered it we can go on to the next Question.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in his original reply the Minister referred to the difficulty of finding nonaligned experts. Does he remember that, on the instruction of the United Nations General Assembly, the Secretary-General found 12 scientific experts to discuss the question of nuclear weapons, headed by a scientist from Sweden? Could not that example be followed?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, it could well be, but, as I have sought to say throughout, these nonaligned experts must be acceptable to both sides.

Helicopter Safety: North Sea Oil Rigs
2.46 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I should first like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the grief which we feel, and which is shared by all sides of the House, at the accident which occurred yesterday on an oil rig in the North Sea, and that we should send a message of sympathy to the bereaved families?
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 the interest of the operational safety of crews and passengers flying to and from North Sea oil rigs, they will enforce those provisions of the Air Navigation Order 1980 which lay down the requirement to carry a cabin attendant in all helicopters with 20 or more passengers but for fewer than 20 leave the decision to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first, I am sure the whole House will wish to be associated with my noble friend's expression of sympathy on the tragic accident that occurred on one of the rigs in the North Sea yesterday.
In answer to my noble friend's Question, statutory responsibility for air safety rests with the Civil Aviation Authority, and I am advised that the authority does enforce those provisions of the Air Navigation Order 1980 which require all helicopters on a flight for the purpose of public transport and carrying 20 or more passengers to include a cabin attendant in the crew. Furthermore, where it appears to be desirable to do so in the interests of safety, the authority will direct operators of helicopters carrying fewer than 20 passengers to include a cabin attendant in the crew.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but it does not go quite far enough. Will the noble Lord envisage a dark night in the North Sea, an emergency landing, strong seas running, a 35-knot wind, and the need for a crew member to leave his post and come aft, but a trained cabin attendant is not on hoard? Are these dispensations sufficient, even, when there are fewer than 20 passengers? Should not the authorities review them with a view to doing away with dispensations, on the ground of safety precautions? These dispensations are prepared by worthy civil servants and officials who are desk-borne and do not actually fly aircraft. Those people who do fly aircraft are determined that

319
operational safety is increased by the carriage always of a cabin attendant.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that all your Lordships would be in very safe hands in the conditions envisaged by my noble friend, since I understand that my noble friend, in his early youth, was a pilot. Alas, your Lordships will note that the Government Front Bench is not full of pilots, but certainly there is one here today. I would not necessarily care to envisage all the circumstances which have been detailed by my noble friend, but I assure him and your Lordships that we believe that the existing provisions covering safety are more than adequate. I would stress to my noble friend the outstanding safety records of the main helicopters which are used in the North Sea. Indeed, I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to know that so far there has been no fatal accident involving the carnage of passengers to and from the rigs in the North Sea concerning this one major helicopter, the S.61, in approximately 500,000 hours of flight; whereas the average as regards the worldwide use of S.61s in these conditions is in the region of six fatal accidents so far. I understand that the North Sea has an outstanding safety record.
I would also stress to my noble friend and the House that all operations are carried out according to the operations manuals agreed by representatives of pilots and the department. I hope that my noble friend and the House will not believe that they are all deskhound—most of them are very active. Moreover, at all times the safety of the aircraft and the passengers is the sole responsibility of the pilot.

Drugs: Price Differences
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why some drugs which are sold to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom can be purchased for under one-quarter of the price in other countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, such large differences in price are exceptional. I do accept that some medicines in some countries are cheaper than they are here. But others are more expensive. The differences are due to different economic and fiscal policies, local price control schemes, exchange rate fluctuations, effectiveness of patent protection, and market forces. Price differences from country to country are not of course peculiar to medicines. On the whole the prices of medicines in this country compare well with those in Western Europe.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, is it not true that in some cases they are 10 times more expensive here than they are there? If we could do something about that, would it not save the National Health Service £80 million a year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend may be referring to a case that attracted some publicity recently—namely, the case of a drug called Zyloric which is apparently available in Spain at about a quarter of the price at which it is available in this country. It was a special case. That drug has been available in Spain for about 12 years and it was introduced into that country in 1970, at which time it was more expensive in Spain than it was here. But since that time price controls in Spain have prevented any price increases apart from two recent ones, and the sale of that drug in that country is now unprofitable for the manufacturer.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question of the cost of drugs is one that needs thorough investigation so far as the Health Service is concerned, because it is a field where there could be considerable savings without affecting patient care? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that I can give some slight evidence to support the noble Baroness? I use a proprietary medicine occasionally, and recently in Malta I bought a small tube for the equivalent of 30p; it is an item manufactured in Great Britain and it costs me in the United Kingdom 59p.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry to hear about the noble Lord's unfortunate experience, but our own method of controlling price and profit levels is, of course, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. It does not control the price of individual drugs which are fixed by companies, but it ensures that excessive profits are not made. British pharmaceutical companies make a very large contribution to our exports—the balance of payments in our favour in pharmaceuticals is about £600 million per annum—they invest heavily in research and development and employ about 70,000 people. It is important that they should be given a proper return on their investment, and, of course, we take these benefits into account in operating the scheme.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord about the basis of the comparison upon which he states that the prices of drugs here compare favourably with those in western countries. Is he comparing drug with drug, or is he taking an average?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am looking at the cost of drugs right across the spectrum. Some drugs in this country are more expensive than they are elsewhere; some drugs in this country are less expensive than they are elsewhere. I was taking a broad look at the position when I made the general assertion which I did just now. Perhaps I should add that, of course, in some of the countries of Europe—not all of them—they do not have the large pharmaceutical manufacturing industry which we have in this country and we have to take the interests of that industry into account when operating our scheme.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, should we not also bear in mind that pirating drugs without spending any money on research at all is very simple in many cases and that, as my noble friend indicated in his second reply, most pharmaceutical companies spend up to 10 per cent. of their annual sales on research, which is the only source of new products?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that the source of funds for research purposes in the pharmaceutical companies is from the margins they make from the sales of their products. It is also the case that, without the necessary controls upon the manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals, one cannot he certain where the drugs come from, whether they are counterfeit, whether they are contaminated or, indeed, whether they are the product they say they are.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared to examine the possibility of perhaps establishing a guidance council from the British Pharmaceutical Society to aid the Government and the National Health Service in such matters as we have been discussing this afternoon?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on what I believe is a very important point. I wonder whether he has seen the work done by Professor Turner at Bart's Hospital where he has prepared what is called a formulary to give advice to doctors and others about the best and most economical drugs to prescribe in any particular case.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to consider the question that arose over agricultural chemicals, which I think has some bearing on the question of the noble Baroness? When we went abroad to buy these chemicals we found that sometimes we could buy them at a price up to 50 per cent. less than the price at which they were sold in this country. Since then the price in this country has been brought down by 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or 40 per cent. in many cases. If the same happened with drugs, we would find them cheaper in this country.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect that goes slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but, speaking from personal experience as regards my own cat which had to go to the vet recently, we found it very expensive.

NHS and Personal Social Services
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 the total expenditure on health and personal social services represents an increase in real terms compared with 1978–79.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, In 1978–79 total Goverment expenditure on the National Health Service in England was £61 billion. Last year we spent over £11 billion. This represents growth in services of about 5 per cent. in real terms and there will be further growth this year. Over the same period net current expenditure on personal social services grew by some 7 per cent. in real terms.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reassuring reply, may I ask him to
322
confirm that, under this Government, more is being spent in real terms on the National Health Service than in any year of the previous Labour Government or, indeed, of any previous Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. If I may underline what I said just now, we are spending more now in real terms on the National Health Service than ever before.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, following the very helpful supplementary question to the Government by the noble Baroness, which almost reminded me of a planted question, I should like to ask the noble Lord what "real terms" means? "Real terms" to me means an expansion of services, yet the Government say that they are spending more and the services are getting less and less. The noble Lord should have a look at the South-East Metropolitan Regional Health Authority's proposals to reduce services by millions, and the proposals of other metropolitan authorities as well. So "real terms" in the sense that we regard it is a meaningless term when the Government use it in the way in which the noble Lord has used it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no region in the country which, in real terms, is suffering a cut in the funds which we are making available to it. By "real terms", I mean that we are providing more money than just the increase in inflation would necessarily require. That is what I mean by "real terms", and the increase in real terms over the time during which we have been in office is about 5 per cent.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend give comparable figures for Scotland? Does he have them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I confess that I have been asked that question before in your Lordships' House and I do not think that I have been able to give a satisfactory reply. The figures for Scotland are separately collated. I do not have them in front of me, but I shall write to my noble friend.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, although the noble Lord has given us total figures, will he not agree that there are more old people and, sadly, very many more unemployed people, and that, therefore, the benefit per head is, if anything, reduced, especially in view of the Government's failure to reinstate the 5 per cent. abatement, which was imposed on benefits in 1980?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether the question of unemployed people is particularly relevant, but I take the point about the question of elderly people. Certainly in some areas, there are more elderly people as a percentage of the population than there were before, and the distributions of funds that we make take that into account.
Lord Banks: My Lords, can the noble Lord say by what percentage the real value must increase in order to provide the same services for the increasing number of people? Can he say how much the increase per annum must be in order for us to stay where we are?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the demographic changes, as they are called in the jargon of health service economics, are taken into account in the allocation of resources to the various regions. As for the increase in elderly people, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred and which I think is at the back of the mind of the noble Lord. I believe that would account for about 2½ per cent. of the 5 per cent. increase in real allocations to which I have referred.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, for the benefit of the many of us on all sides of this House who care deeply about conditions of work for nurses, will my noble friend confirm that 1980 to 1981 saw a reduction in the working week from 40 hours to 37½ hours for nurses and midwives in normal circumstances, giving scope for earning more for unsocial hours?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right when she refers to the reduction in the nurses' working week, which took place about the time she mentioned. That was, of course, one of the reasons, but not the only reason, why the number of staff in the health service—and particularly of nurses—has increased since that time.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is it not a fact that there are considerably more doctors unemployed now than there were three years ago?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have seen figures which purport that, but there is no shortage of doctors in the health service.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question of unemployment that was raised by my noble friend Lady Jeger is, of course, very relevant to the items that he has been quoting? Is it not a fact that, owing to increased unemployment and generally to the increased poverty and deprivation which has now come upon us since the Government have been in office, the demands on the social services have become much greater and are much greater than the percentage increase of the expenditure in real terms, to which the noble Lord referred?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is right in that. I was replying earlier to the particular question of the health service and the relation of unemployed people to demands on the social services. But, of course, I agree that unemployed people very often find themselves in need of what the social services can provide. That is why we have seen an increase in the demands upon the social services and why we have responded to that increase with increased funds is real terms of about 7 per cent.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what matters to the ordinary patient is not the amount of money that is spent on the National Health Service, but the ease with which he can get access to treatment and the length of time it takes him to get an out-patient consultation or to have an operation for a condition which is uncomfortable or painful, such as hernia or varicose veins? Can the noble Lord say whether the increase in the level of resources, which he
324
say has been provided, has led to a reduction or an increase in the length of time that people wait for treatment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to say that the lengths of the waiting lists prior to the commencement of the present industrial action have been significantly reduced since we came to office. Unhappily, it is the case that since the recent industrial action started, the lists have lengthened again, but that, of course, is one of the inevitable consequences of this action.

The De Lorean Company
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the affairs of the De Lorean Motor Company in Northern Ireland".
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am arranging for my noble friend Lord Gowrie, who is on his way from Northern Ireland, to answer this Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after half-past four this afternoon.

British Transport Docks Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper are similar to those that I moved last week and are simply to enable private Bills to continue their way through Parliament in the next Session. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that the promotors of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid:
That, if any of the Bills are brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages: That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to desire their concurrence.

London Transport (Liverpool Street) Bill
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of Wednesday last.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them thereof.

Code of Guidance Concerning Sites of Special Scientific Interest
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon rose to move, That the Code of Guidance laid before the House on 5th July be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Code of Guidance for sites of special scientific interest, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved. The code is the joint responsibility of my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It has been prepared in accordance with Section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and is intended to assist all those who exercise functions under Sections 28 to 32 of the Act or who are affected by the exercise of those functions. The code will apply to England, Scotland and Wales, and will be published in Welsh as well as in English.
The idea of publishing such a code of practice, conduct or guidance, as it was variously called, first arose at a stage during the debates on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill when it was envisaged that notification by landowners of intended operations should he voluntary. The code was to make it clear exactly what sort of co-operation was desired.
As a result of later changes in the Bill, including obligations on landowners, the function of the code was extended to include, first, an explanation of the various statutory provisions relating to SSSIs embodied in the Act as well as giving guidance on procedures; secondly, on the way in which voluntary co-operation would still be very valuable over and above compliance with the legal obligations: and, thirdly, on the importance of conservation of special habitats. The consultation draft of the code was prepared in collaboration with the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and Timber Growers (Great Britain) Limited, and perhaps I may take this opportunity to repeat the expression of the Government's gratitude, which was made by my honourable friend in another place last week, to these from outside Government who gave their time so readily in putting the document together. The public consultation exercise on the basis of this draft took place from February to April this year. About 150 organisations were consulted and as a result of it we received a number of helpful and constructive suggestions which enabled us to produce the improved text now before the House, which was finally laid on 5th July. The Government regret that pressure of other
326
parliamentary business prevented this debate from taking place before the summer Recess as we had originally hoped.
The content of the code follows closely the indication given during the Committee debates on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, particularly by my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. He then said:
"The code will govern procedure. It will stress the importance of SSSIs and the need for conservation and outline the consultation procedures that owners and occupiers will be urged to respect…. The code would govern NCC's duty to notify sites of special scientific interest, the ways in which sites of special scientific interest are selected, the relationship between the code and existing consultation procedures, agricultural and forestry activities, agricultural and horticultural capital grant schemes, forestry grants, stressing the presumption that grants are put at risk if prior consultation and agreement with the NCC is not reached before work is started, and the financial advantage that might accrue from SSSI ownership and management."
The result is, I am afraid, not easy reading. While we have done our best to avoid unnecessary complexity, the inescapable fact is that the statutory provisions in the Act and the various related grant arrangements are themselves complex and it was essential to explain them comprehensively. I believe that the text we now have is as concise and as straightforward as is consistent with this requirement, and I trust that all those who use it will find that the effort of concentration it will call for is repaid by a clear understanding of the role they are expected to play.
The code begins by emphasising the importance of SSSIs and the fact that their conservation and proper management is vital to the maintenance of Britain's diverse wildlife. Government departments have been specifically mentioned at this point because the private sector co-operation with the voluntary spirit which is essential to the proper working of the SSSI provisions in the Act cannot be expected if Government do not set the example.
The code goes on to set out the procedure by which the NCC notifies SSSIs to all those concerned. It deals separately with the provisions which apply to SSSIs already in existence before the passing of the Act and those which apply to "new" SSSIs. SSSIs notified before the passing of the Act—of which there are about 4,000—remain extant, but as a basis for the new requirements on notification by owners and occupiers of intended operations the NCC is now required to inform every owner and occupier of the whole or a part of an SSSI of its location, the nature of its scientific interest and the operations which could cause damage to it and may not, therefore, be carried out without prior notice. This exercise of re-notification has already begun but it involves a great deal of detailed work and will take some time to complete. I understand that most notifications should be made during the course of this financial year, but in some cases where survey work cannot be carried out before the spring, it will take somewhat longer. The code contains advice to owners and occupiers on how to proceed in the period before they receive formal notification.
In the case of new SSSIs, the Act requires the NCC to give notice of its intention to notify a site and to consider any representations or objections before making a final decision. This is the essential difference between "old" and "new" SSSIs. The code tells

327
owners and occupiers that they should not carry out any potentially damaging operation during the proposal period without consulting the NCC.
The code then describes how the NCC will go about listing potentially damaging operations, the registration of SSSIs as a land charge and the procedures to be adopted where owners and occupiers cannot be traced and when SSSI status is to be removed. A separate paragraph is devoted to statutory undertakers, whom the NCC will inform of all SSSI details that may concern their operations.
Once the NCC has notified an owner or occupier of the particulars of a site, he is then obliged to consult the council if he wishes to carry out any operation that has been specified in the notification. Section III of the code sets out the procedures for such consultation and also those which apply when farm capital grant or forestry grant is to be claimed. The farm capital grant procedures dovetail with the arrangements which have been successfully operated by the agriculture departments since October 1980 and which have resulted in a large number of cases being satisfactorily resolved at the local level without the need for formal objection.
Two aspects of this part of the code deserve special mention. First, the Act specifies, in Section 32, that the NCC must offer to enter into a management agreement where agricultural grants made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 are refused in consequence of their objection. The point to be made on this is that there are other similar farm capital grants (for example, under EEC arrangements) not covered by that Act; and that because the essential features of grant applications to which there is a conservation objection are the same whatever type of grant is involved, the NCC have agreed that they will offer a management agreement where any kind of farm capital grant is refused in consequence of their objection. The same applies to crofting grants and, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield explained to the House last Wednesday, to grants that may be applied for under the integrated development programme for the Western Isles of Scotland.
Secondly, the procedures reflect a greater involvement for the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) in the process, which is in line with their commitment to further conservation. The ADAS service has regular contacts with farmers, whose confidence it enjoys, and its co-operation with the NCC will he of very great assistance. In forestry cases also, although under no legal obligation to do so, the NCC has said that it will normally offer to enter into a management agreement where forestry grant and/or felling permission is refused on conservation grounds. The next section of the code, on information helpful to the NCC, has been included to encourage owners and occupiers to assist in the NCC's need to have up-to-date information on the scientific interest of a site, on ownership details or on operations undertaken by third parties.
Section 5 deals with conservation options. It explains the purpose of management agreements and the circumstances in which the NCC will offer them. The Act also requires Ministers to prepare financial guidelines on which the compensation provided by management agreements must be based in certain
328
circumstances. A public consultation exercise has been undertaken on a draft of these financial guidelines. The closing date for receipt of comments was last Friday. We have received a number of important comments, which we shall need to consider carefully. However, we recognise the need to finalise the guidelines as speedily as possible. When this has been done Sections 32 and 41 of the Act will be brought into force. For any management agreements that may be made in the period before the guidelines are settled the NCC is including appropriate provision for the financial terms to be reviewed when the final version is available.
The last section of the code deals with the provisions for special protection for certain areas. Section 29 of the Act provides in specified circumstances for my right honourable friend to make orders, which we are calling Nature Conservation Orders. These orders, which come into operation immediately they are made, prolong the period during which specified operations may not be carried out without the consent of the NCC. The House will be interested to know that my right honourable friend has just made the first such order, on the recommendation of the Nature Conservancy Council, to safeguard a heathland SSSI at Baddesley Common in Hampshire, which contains a unique combination of plants and related fauna. The code explains the procedures related to such orders and to the compensation to which they may give rise. It also covers the circumstances in which compulsory purchase may be used—very much a last resort—and the matter of offences and penalties.
That then, in brief, is what the code is about. It is a comprehensive procedural guide to that part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act which deals with SSSIs, to the various associated administrative processes and to the role for voluntary co-operation. Once it is approved the code will be printed and distributed free to all owners and occupiers of SSSIs by the NCC as part of their re-notification exercise. It will also be available through HMSO at a price of about £2.
Perhaps I may at this point refer to a matter which goes beyond the text of the code, but which is doubtless in the minds of many noble Lords today. That is the question of the resources, both of money and of staff, which are required by the NCC to ensure that its functions under the new Act and under the code are carried out. These are not easy questions. We live in times when it is imperative to scrutinise very closely all claims on the public purse and to ensure the maximum economy and efficiency in the use of resources. Decisions as to future years remain to be made and I cannot anticipate them today. Nevertheless, there are a few comments which it may be useful for me to make.
First, reference has often been made to a figure of £600,000 which is said to have been allocated to the NCC this year for the consequences of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is rather misleading. It is true that this year's allocation to the NCC, at £11¼ million, was some £600,000 more than last year's in real terms. But the Government have not said that £600,000 is the maximum that can be spent by the NCC on matters arising from the Act. It is up to the council to deploy its total allocation as it thinks best; and it is worth noting that it already had an ongoing programme of site protection.
The extent of financial commitments arising from the Act is notably difficult to predict. Reference has been made to the fact that 8,700 hectares of SSSIs were damaged in 1980—about half of that was agricultural—but there are indications that the situation has greatly improved. Much of what was done was doubtless due to ignorance, which it is the purpose of the Act and of this code to remove. Nevertheless, the best estimates possible must be made and these estimates and all available evidence will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend when he determines the council's allocation for the coming year.
The staff of the NCC is also heavily involved in implementing the Act. In that connection I should like to remove the impression, which seems to have gained some currency, that the recently announced Rayner review of the NCC is aimed at cutting its staff. The terms of reference require the staff needs of the NCC to be examined but they in no way prejudge whether the number of staff should be cut or increased. The review is in fact aimed at increasing efficiency and it is particularly apposite at this time that such a review should be made to ensure that the staff resources of the council are used to the best possible effect.
To conclude, and to come back to the Code of Guidance, the willingness of owners and occupiers of SSSIs to operate the voluntary arrangements set out in the code, as well as to comply with the legal obligations which it explains, is critical to the protection of our national heritage of wildlife sites. I am sure that most of those who have such a site on their land and who are clearly told of its importance will feel privileged and will be readily disposed to co-operate in preserving it from harm. Failure to do so, whether deliberately or by inadvertence will, I hope, be rare and should certainly be minimised by the code, which I commend to the House, as well as to all those whom it will concern. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Code of Guidance laid before the House on 5th July be approved.—(The Earl of Avon.)
3.22 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for his explanation of the code and its provision—somewhat shorter and clearer than the code itself, I think it is fair to say—and I wish to raise a number of points with him, in particular the question of resources, which he mentioned in some detail. At the outset I would like to comment briefly on the Wildlife and Countryside Act itself. Your Lordships will not need reminding, any more than the Minister will, that it was a controversial measure; it was controversial when we debated it in this House at great length and it is continuing to be so now that it is passed into law. I have been concerned, as I am sure some other noble Lords have, about attempts, as I see them, to some extent to rewrite the history of the Act.
It is common for Ministers, once they leave office, to rewrite the history of what they did when they were in office, and I am sure all of us are guilty of that. But it seems a little soon to start rewriting the history of this Act. By "rewriting its history" what I mean is that the Government and some other interest groups have been
330
attempting to say that, because it was so thoroughly debated—because 1,200 amendments to it were tabled in your Lordships' House and because it took so long to go through Parliament—therefore it is a thoroughly agreed measure and nobody should subject it to any further criticism. In fact, of course, the reverse is the case. It was subject to so many amendments, it took so long to go through Parliament and it was changed to such a great extent in both Houses, because there was so much all-party disagreement to its provisions; and that all-party opposition to the measure's provisions continued right up to the very last votes in your Lordships' House.
I suggest that many of the criticisms—I shall touch on a few of them—that were made in all parts of the House when the measure was going through are already proving amply justified. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that people should attempt, so soon after that very controversial series of debates, to suggest that the Act should be considered as being quite beyond and above party controversy simply because it is the law of the land and that those who hold different views about what provisions are needed to protect wildlife sites, as certainly noble Lords on this side do, should in some way not express that opinion. Indeed, it has even been suggested that to express the opinion that greater controls are needed—as the Labour Party believes; we have said in our party policy that greater controls are necessary to protect wildlife sites—in some way puts the whole Act in jeopardy. That seems almost to amount to saying that any other political party which expresses a contrary view to the Government, just by expressing that view, will wreck the Government's legislation. If their legislation is that fragile, it is hardly worth having. A number of us—as I say, certainly in the Labour Party—believe that quite different legislation is needed to protect the countryside heritage, and we shall continue to press to see that legislation implemented.
Having said that, we welcome the arrival of this voluntary code. As the Minister himself suggested, it is a little legalistic and rather late, which we very much regret, and it is certainly not firm enough in places. But I hope very much that the House will approve it today.
Like the voluntary conservation organisations, who also opposed many of the provisions in the Act when it was proceeding through Parliament, the Opposition want the code of practice to work. But whether or not it does is largely in the Governments's hands, because the key to the success of the Government's system, although it is referred to by the Government—the noble Earl used the word several times—as a voluntary system, is that it is in fact a system based on the payment of large sums of money. It is voluntary in the sense that at the end of the day, unless the Nature Conservancy Council uses its powers of compulsory purchase—which it has had for a great many years, since well before the Act—a landowner or farmer is still free to destroy a site of special scientific interest. But if the "voluntary" system works, they will be given very expensive payments worked out by a very complicated system, to which the noble Earl referred in relation to the financial guidelines which are still under consideration. I hope he will impress on all his colleagues in the Government who are involved in the

331
mattter the importance of getting those guidelines completed and finalised in the very near future.
Before returning to the question of resources, I wish to consider one other problem which is covered by the code and which the Minister also touched on, and that is the question of new sites of special scientific interest where the Wildlife and Countryside Act introduced the new procedure of a three months' consultation or warning period, as it has been called, and owners and occupiers are given a notice by the NCC that they intend to designate their land as an SSSI. In another place the Minister, at column 303 on 19th October, said that the code "urged" owners and occupiers not to carry out any potentially damaging operation during the proposal period. In fact, the code is a great deal weaker than that, and paragraph 7 of it says:
"Owners and occupiers who have received notice of a proposed notification should not, in advance of the NCC's final decision, carry out any operation specified in it without consulting the NCC".
"Should not" does not seem to me to amount to a very strong urging. The code adds insult to injury by at least leaving the door open for somebody actually receiving a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture after destroying a proposed SSSI during this three-month period, and it seems to me to he a scandal that the code does not make it perfectly clear that no grant aid will be available if a site is destroyed during this three-month period. As some noble Lords will remember, this matter was raised in the debates on the Act. In another place the Minister, Mr. King, spoke on 13th July last year, at column 922, to an amendment which attempted to close the loophole by ensuring that in the three-month consultation period operations on the site were banned, so that things were frozen. He said that the amendment,
"seeks to prevent a situation whereby the moment the NCC even hints that it is thinking of having an SSSI, out come the bulldozers and the drainage equipment and away we go".
The Minister went on:
"there is no evidence that immediately any farmer or landowner is approached his worst instincts are aroused".
I think that it is worth looking at what has actually happened at a number of sites since July last year. I refer first to West Sedgemoor, in Somerset, an area of a proposed SSSI which has received considerable publicity, and which a number of noble Lords, including some who are to speak today, have visited and taken a personal interest in. In the spring of this year under the new procedures in the Act the NCC notified the area as a proposed SSSI, and the three months' consultation period came into effect. Well, contrary to what the Minister said would not happen, out did come the drainage equipment, and away they went. At least away went three landowners, who started a damaging pump drainage scheme, affecting 40 to 50 acres in the heart of the moor. It was not illegal, because of the loophole. Nevertheless away they went.
Next, I refer to a site in Dyfed, in Wales. A valley mire with old grazing meadows, rich in wild flowers, including orchids, was identified by the NCC before the Wildlife and Countryside Act came into force, but notification awaited the new procedures under the Act. The owner of the land had actually agreed with the NCC that it should be a SSSI. But unfortunately he died, and his heirs called in the Farmers' Union of
332
Wales. Quite sensibly, a meeting was arranged between the various parties, including the Farmers' Union of Wales and the NCC. However, the Farmers' Union of Wales subsequently cancelled the meeting. Contrary to the Minister's assurances, somebody's worst instincts had in fact become thoroughly aroused, because the NCC discovered that most of the 26-acre site had been ploughed and harrowed.
Another site, also in Wales, comprising an area of acid heath and marsh, was notified, using the new procedures, on 31st July this year, without any consultation. Again during the three-month warning period the landowner burnt and rotivated an area of three to four acres. That was at the end of August, and just before the three-month consultation period had elapsed.
It may be that the noble Earl can reassure me that those three cases are simply 0.1 per cent of all the new SSSIs notified under the Act, that I am talking about the tip of an iceberg, and that in fact the vast majority of new SSSIs have gone through without any problems of this kind arising. In fact I think the reverse is the case, and the problem has arisen on nearly all the new SSSIs that have been notified. It really is a scandal: and I should like to give your Lordships an example of some of the "nearly missed" cases. There is a proposed SSSI which was on the market in Shropshire—an important area—and after the local county naturalists' trust had managed to buy it, it was discovered that a solicitor, acting for another potential owner, apparently had given them legal advice that the sensible thing to do, if they managed to buy it—as they could well have done—would be to spray off the whole area immediately to avoid what were called complications regarding SSSI status.
It is clear to me and, after what I have said. I hope to the noble Earl and to your Lordships generally, that an amending Bill is needed to close this loophole. It is an absurdity, and it will bring the procedures under the Act into total disrepute if the NCC finds itself unable to create any new SSSIs without sites being destroyed in the three-month period. I really think it regrettable that the Minister should have been quite so ready 12 months ago to dismiss as a fantasy what in fact has since happened all too frequently.
Turning to the question of finance and staff for the NCC, I move into an area—if I have not already been in one—where there is very widespread agreement. I dare say that the NFU has provided a number of your Lordships with a brief, and the union as well as a number of conservation organisations all agree that the NCC is seriously under-financed and needs more money if the Wildlife and Countryside Act is to have any chance of working.
I should like to give your Lordships an example of what I have in mind. The noble Earl mentioned the £600,000 that the Nature Conservancy Council received for the current financial year. I do not think that he mentioned that the NCC actually asked for an additional sum of between £950,000 and £1,130,000. It received from the Government £600,000—around half of the maximum extra that it had asked for. The noble Earl says that that is not the total sum that the NCC can spend on the Act. I assume he means that it can switch resources from other operations to which it does not have to give the same kind of priority. It is of course also true that the Wildlife and Countryside Act

333
does not give the NCC new duties only so far as SSSIs are concerned. Your Lordships had a particular interest in marine nature reserves, which exist only due to a vote moved by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, which put into the Bill a provision, which was then accepted somewhat reluctantly by the Government in another place, that there should be such things as marine nature reserves.
The other day I discovered that the NCC is unable to finance a survey to find out where along areas of the coast there should be marine nature reserves, and without such a survey there is really no chance of our having a sensible network of marine nature reserves. A few might be created in sites that are already well known. But the NCC is actually unable to start such a survey for two years. The noble Earl may think that the NCC has swilling around plenty of money, which it can simply transfer from one place to another, but here is a new statutory obligation for which it cannot do the basic survey work for a further two years. To suggest that there is lots of money for use on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill is, frankly, a fantasy.
An extra £600,000 might sound quite a lot. But there is one voluntary agreement, a solitary one, which covers one quarter of one SSSI in the North Kent marshes, and that will cost one-sixth of the £600,000–4100,000 a year. So to save a quarter of one SSSI will take a sixth of the total extra income that the NCC has been given this year.
The NCC staff has already been cut by about 10 per cent. in the last two to three years. It has lost 55 members of staff, and now a review is being conducted by Sir Derek Rayner. The noble Earl introduced the interesting concept which I must say had not previously struck me, that Sir Derek Rayner had been appointed by the Prime Minister to go around lavishly distributing new civil servants, to increase numbers of staff available to quangos such as the NCC in order to carry out their tasks. I have really no evidence whatsoever of that. As I understand it, Sir Derek Rayner has been appointed by the Prime Minister to cut staff, and every review that he has conducted has had that consequence. If the noble Earl can point to precedents where Sir Derek has actually substantially increased the staff of quangos, I am sure that the NCC, among others, would be very relieved to hear of it. But that really is stretching a point, if the noble Earl does not mind my saying so. Sir Derek Rayner's review team has been set up to cut staff, and that is what it is going into the NCC to do.
For the noble Earl to say, "Well, the terms of reference leave it open", really is disingenuous, because he knows as well as I do that the terms of reference leave it open due only to an extremely stiff fight put up by the NCC and its chairman, to insist that the terms of reference were changed from the original ones which the Government intended to impose. From the original terms of reference imposed by the Government, it is clear that they had absolutely no intention of the review doing anything other than cut staff, and I hope that the noble Earl will have the honesty to admit that when he replies to the debate.
In another place the Minister, in discussing the Rayner review, said, again on 19th October, as reported at col. 333 of the Official Report:
334
"The NCC's morale and determination to implement urgently and competently the vital work for our countryside and inheritage is impressive".
Morale in the NCC is at rock bottom as a result of the Government's decision to institute this Rayner review, and that is not surprising. They have lost 10 per cent. of their staff in the last couple of years: they have had a host anew obligations and duties placed upon them: and now they are obviously going to lose more staff. For a Government Minister to suggest that the morale is good is an absurdity, and it just shows, if the Government believe that, how out of touch with the NCC they really are.
The fact of the matter is that the NCC already have no money left this year, and they are already desperately short of staff where it is most important. They have no money left for land purchase. There are a number of cases where voluntary bodies need to buy land which has come on the market, sites of special scientific interest, because of the programme of renotification. The county naturalist trusts need to buy, to save them, 10 sites which have a total value of about £200,000. The RSPB has been offered between about 100 and 150 acres in West Sedgemoor, which I mentioned earlier. Again, the total cost might he around £200,000. In both these cases the Nature Conservancy Council, as I understand it, is unable to offer grant aid to the voluntary movement to help them make these purchases because the NCC has run out of money for land purchase—and that halfway through the current financial year.
For the noble Earl to say that he cannot give any commitment for next year is all very well, but what are the Government going to do about this year? The NCC are already out of money, and they are also out of staff in many areas, as I have said. They do not have people on the ground in a number of counties—in Warwickshire and Cheshire (in Cheshire, the nearest member of staff, an assistant regional officer, is in Shrewsbury). Lincolnshire, Kent and Norfolk are all short of assistant regional officers. These are the people without whom, on the ground, the Nature Conservancy Council have no chance of making personal contact with farmers and landowners, and without that personal contact everybody agrees—the NFU have confirmed this, and I think quite rightly—the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the procedures in the voluntary code and so on have really no chance whatsoever of working.
It is not just that the NCC cannot do the job on marine nature reserves, that they have run out of money for land purchase and that they are desperately short of staff on the ground. One of the most important aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act was the renotification of SSSIs: that everyone would be told again that they had an SSSI on their land, and they would be given details of operations which might damage it. We were assured in Parliament that this would be done quickly, within 12 months of the Act becoming law, and, obviously, this was a major factor in the debates that we had and the way that the votes went, indeed, on different amendments. If everyone was going to he renotified reasonably quickly and given the information, one of the criticisms, which came particularly from the farming and landowning side, would be answered.

335
Far from that being the case, the NCC are actually going to take 2½ years to renotify these sites. The noble Earl said that most of them were going to be renotified in this financial year. That is six months longer than we were told would be the case; and "most of them", as I understand it, is actually 60 per cent.—slightly over half. Forty per cent. will not be renotified in this financial year; and at current estimates—and estimates have already proved to be grossly over-optimistic—the last of them will not be renotified until March 1984. The Minister in another place appeared to contradict this when it was raised by one of his own supporters, Sir Hector Monro, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to correct what seems to me to be a rather misleading impression and confirm that with the current numbers of staff and resources that the NCC have renotification will in fact not be completed until March 1984.
There was a unanimous view expressed in another place that the NCC needed more resources, both in staff and in cash, to make this work, and I very much hope that that will he the unanimous view of those of your Lordships who are going to speak today. I hope that, even if the noble Earl cannot this afternoon commit his department or the Treasury to more money, the Government will go away with a very clear message that unless they do come up with the goods nobody can seriously expect their legislation to work in the way that they hope it will.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl for the speedy and clear way in which he expounded the code of practice; and I should also like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, because by covering the ground as thoroughly as he did I think he earned your Lordships' gratitude, if only for the fact that it will enable me to keep my speech down to a very short one indeed.
The bodies which are mainly concerned with nature conservation in this country—and at this stage I think I ought to emphasise that when we are talking about such bodies we are not just talking about the organisations which organise lobbies here, which issue pieces of paper and which bombard us with letters—in fact represent a very large proportion of the population of this country. Indeed, the membership of some of these bodies is quite enormous in itself; but the people of this country as a whole, I am quite sure, are on the side of the efforts to try to retain the beauty of our countryside and the treasures of nature which otherwise might disappear. One of the troubles that we face is that in so many cases we are dealing with problems which, if there is abuse by the people who are in charge of the countryside, will lead not just to damage but, in fact, to permanent harm. Damage is done to these sites which cannot be put into reverse, and day by day and year by year we lose some of the glories of our countryside.
There seems to be fairly general agreement about the problems which will arise from the Act and, therefore, to a certain extent, from the code of practice. There is first of all the loophole whereby owners and occupiers can, if they so wish, damage a site proposed as a new SSSI during the three-month
336
consultation period without committing an offence. We have had a number of examples of such sites, some of them given by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I do not propose to go over them. I would merely say that there have been a sufficient number of them to show that any complacency about this field has no place at all.
Then, secondly, there is the problem of whether Section 29 can be used to deal with the loophole I have just mentioned. Section 29, dealing with the nature conservancy orders, is something for which we must be very grateful; and it is very timely for today's debate that only in the last few days, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said, there has been a Section 29 order put on Baddesley Common. But I think we need to know—and here we seek an assurance from the noble Earl which I hope he will he able to give us at the end of this debate—that Section 29 orders will be used promptly in a wide variety of situations; that is, not merely in the case of the so-called super sites, but anywhere where there obviously appears to be a real threat to an SSSI.
Thirdly, there is the matter of further funds for the Nature Conservancy Council, which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, went into in some detail. The NCC, as he made clear, is short of staff; and, indeeed, it has had to employ expensive contract staff over the last few months in order to supplement numbers. There is no real saving in the ceiling which is at the moment applying to the staff which the NCC can employ. The additional work which they are being given by this Act and by this code of practice will mean a hump of visits to 13,000 owners and occupiers over the next year or so. Then, after that, there is a grey area over the next few years when they start to receive responses to the notifications of changes on SSSIs.
The only people qualified to deal with these are the land agents, of whom there are about a dozen at the moment, which figure is already under strength. The NCC estimate that they will need double the number of land agents within two years. There will probably be four or five times the present number of management agreements which need to be drawn up and, as a result of all this, if we keep to the staff who are at present employed by the NCC it is quite clear that a growing number will be tied to desk work because there will be so much of it to be done. There will be a shortage of officers out in the field—which is a thing that none of us would like to see.
These are matters which are very disturbing and worrying to everyone on both sides of the House and in all the various camps connected with the countryside who want to see this Bill work and, particularly, to those who want to see it work by voluntary means. To those of us who have been dubious as to whether it ever would work by voluntary means it unfortunately fulfils our worst fears.
There is a basic flaw in this Bill and it is a flaw which is not in any way cured by this present code of practice. The fact remains that greed is a vice from which we all suffer to some extent. There is no gift of God which means that living a life in the open air, living a useful life and being a farmer ensures that you cannot suffer from that kind of greed. It is not farmers alone, it is all of us who have to be restrained from the danger that we can do to the environment that surrounds us.
But that environment is being damaged, and it is

337
being damaged because we have not got the enforcement that is needed to make certain that what Parliament wants and what the great majority of people in this country want is enforced. I think that at the moment it is clear that we are not in a situation on which we can change. We are lumbered with this Bill and we are lumbered with this code of practice. But there are things that the Government can do. They can enforce the Bill as we have it; they can produce the resources and, having really willed this particular end, they must, it seems to me, furnish this particular means. I hope that this afternoon they will say that they can do so.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I would like to express my welcome for this code of practice, but for reasons very different from either of the two previous speakers. I would like, nevertheless, to share with them my admiration for the thoroughness and the painstaking way in which the departments involved and the voluntary bodies consulted have co-operated together to produce this code, and I would like to thank my noble friend for his comprehensive yet succinct explanation of it. I welcome it for two limited reasons. First, because it corrects the absurd defect in the 1949 legislation, for which Parliament must take the blame, of not requiring the Nature Conservancy Council to notify anybody other than the local planning authorities of their designation; and it rectifies the mistake which the NCC have compounded and continued ever since of not having the sense to see that if designated SSSIs were not notified to the land owners and occupiers of the land they can hardly expect the system to work. Both those defects are rectified in this legislation and, to that extent, it is a step forward.
I must say I was intrigued by the strenuous efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to try and sustain, to continue or even to intensify the party political differences which he apprehends in this area. I believe he will be totally unsuccessful in that, for reasons which I will come to in a moment. But underlying those reasons is my hope that nothing like Section 29 will be used except on the rarest occasions, because what matters much more than this or any other legislation, and more than any other code—this code or the subsequent codes coming along on financial guidelines—is a voluntary approach, a commonsense approach through personal and local dialogue over the issues that are involved. I base my hope on this approach on the success that this approach is having and has had over the past two years or 18 months in the national parks where one might expect the conflict between access and conservation, on the one hand, and agriculture, on the other, to be at its most intense, and in the area of the administration of capital grants where the incentives to farmers to improve their land and engage in potentially damaging activities is at its strongest.
This system for the administration of capital grants in the national parks and the SSSIs is a system which was introduced before the Wildlife and Countryside Act and it is also the system which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did his best to urge your Lordships to resist and to throw out. I quote now from the Annual Report of the Peak National Park as to the way this is
338
all working. Last week, when we were discussing the integrated development plan in the Highlands I quoted Dartmoor. The report reads:
"The end of the year marked 18 months of dealing with notifications of proposals for which farm grant will be claimed from the Ministry of Agriculture. During the year [the year of the report) about one third of the notification proposals"—
and there were 534 in all—
"were modified by agreement"—
not by management agreement but by verbal agreement—
"with the farmers to meet National Park interests".
That is what has been known as an ADAS tea party—just ordinary, verbal, local, personal discussions.
"One of the most significant agreements was with a farmer whose original proposal was to fence across the middle of a moorland block to separate his flock from his neighbour's. The fence would have enabled him to increase his stocking to the probable detriment of a site of special scientific interest. Following long negotiations with the farmer, his landlord and the neighbouring farmer, it was agreed to complete a stock-proof boundary around the entire moorland block. Within this boundary both farmers would limit their stocking to an agreed level, consistent with maintaining the diverse and rich moorland flora. A small area of largely abandoned old inbye land would he improved allowing the farmer to keep the same number of animals as he had originally proposed, but managed in a different way.
"The events of the past year show how well co-operation with agriculture can work. Where necessary, most farm grant notifications were modified by agreement to meet National Park interests. No proposal has so far gone the full course of objection to the Minister of Agriculture."—
that is with 18 months' experience, 534 proposals in the current year—
"Of the three objections raised in the 18 months since the new procedures came into effect, two were withdrawn by the farmer pending further discussions, while the third is currently with Ministry staff who are attempting to find a solution acceptable to all concerned."
All that is before this legislation has come into force in the light of the farm grants administration system introduced for the national parks. Now we have this code of guidance to back it up, and we also have coming into force at the same time Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
There are two paragraphs in this report indicating reasons for doubt as to whether this works. It then goes on:
"However, Section 41 also requires the Ministry of Agriculture to use their farm capital grant scheme to further, so far as is consistent with agriculture, the conservation of the countryside and the promotion of its enjoyment. This offers [yet] greater scope. The next step will be the introduction by the Government of a 'Code of Practice' for these compulsory agreements. Its contents will determine the extent to which the board's fears are realised."
This is the stage that we are now in, my Lords.
The Ministry of Agriculture's new duty under Section 41 which comes into force following the introduction of these guidelines, is to advise on conservation and diversification. Those are two aspects which have to be borne in mind, side by side with the main purpose of agriculture, food production, and on which the Ministry of Agriculture has now new duties.
This is satisfactory so far as it goes, but we have to pay a lot of attention in Parliament—at least as much as we do to the starting of the NCC, and I would say more—to the degree to which the Ministry of Agriculture develops its capability to exercise this statutory duty. I believe more depends on that than depends on

339
the starting of the NCC, because the Ministry of Agriculture's new responsibilities cover the whole of conservation, not just nature conservation—landscape conservation and all sorts of other conservation, field monuments, and also diversification by farmers on their farms. At the present moment, the staff within ADAS for the discharge of this duty consists of six regional socio-economic advisers. There are only six officers who have a full-time responsibility in this field. It is true that there is the whole of the rest of ADAS, some of whom can and will exercise functions in this field.
My question to my noble friend is: What can he tell us at this stage about the Ministry's plans for developing this capability? It is not good enough to say: "Yes, ADAS will take this on hand. ADAS are doing it". They certainly are, but they have to do very much more, and one wants to have some idea at this stage of what more they have in mind in the way of organising themselves, girding up their loins, to get on with this matter.
I think that they need three things: they need some additional assistance, some more staff to concentrate on this field of activity. They need some more leverage—that is to say, other bodies and organisations through which to work—and they need to have a local framework in which to operate. One of the reasons why the administration of farm capital grants and its reconciliation of conservation has gone so well so far, is that most of it has happened in national parks where there is a national park authority with staff of its own, there is a national park plan with a conservation policy spelt out, and a satisfactory framework.
The staff of ADAS can use the agricultural colleges. If they do, that brings in a responsibility for the counties. They can use local planning areas and local planning staff to co-operate with them. That will bring in the districts. They can—and I hope that they will—use the county secretaries of the NFU and the CLA. I hope that noble Lords who will speak later will have something to say about that. They can and are using the farming press. It is now quite customary for farmers to refer to wildlife habitat where in the past they would have been talking about rough shooting.
It is possible to use the farming and wildlife advisory group. This is a voluntary organisation and there may be limits to the amount of weight that you can put on a body which does not have statutory foundations. Another alternative is to use the rural equivalent of local enterprise trusts, groupings of the private sector and the local authority, which are already being very successful in urban areas in promoting new jobs and generating fresh life into the local economy.
These are the questions which I should like my noble friend to deal with, perhaps in outline or summary, when he comes to wind up. They are the questions to which we must all be giving attention in the ensuing months. Meanwhile, I wish this admirable code, so far as it has something to contribute to this matter, every success when it is in force.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, combined with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has raised all the
340
possible objections not so much to the code, as to the Act itself, so I shall not go through these again. I am concerned over one or two small points, but chiefly over the big ones. I think that we all share this concern. I think Rule 3 of the Prison Rules says that prison authorities shall turn their prisoners into better citizens as a result of prison. I have a feeling that paragraph 2 of the draft code, which is a very full and admirable paragraph, may end in the same disastrous way as Rule 3 of the Prison Rules has ended. It says:
"The conservation and proper management of SSSIs is vital to the maintenance of Britain's wildlife in all its forms"—
it says "vital"—
"and owners, occupiers, Government Departments, statutory undertakers and others concerned are urged to co-operate by following the guidance contained in this code, in addition to complying with the legal obligations which it outlines."
My Lords, one could not possibly ask for more. What is entirely absent is the machinery for monitoring this, for seeing that it is done. This point has been made repeatedly and I shall not make it again. If the code is to be operated as it is stated the Government intend it should be operated, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was very grudging in his praise, because it will he a splendid result. The truth is that it is pretty clear that it is not going to be operated for a good long time.
If a responsible body, which is a quango of the most responsible kind, asks for £1,200,000 and is offered £600,000 and if, having cut its staff by 55, which is 10 per cent., it then has a further Rayner review, one only hopes that we shall not get recommendations of the kind that we had for the theatre museum which were rejected by everybody with any sense in this country. So one is left a little uncomfortable about the Government's real intention here. However, they have said everything for which anybody could ask in paragraph 2. I can assure the noble Earl that we shall hold him to that week by week as things go on. He will find himself apologising more and more often.
I am much less worried than some other colleagues about the voluntary principle. My own feeling is this. When I used to farm years ago, before many of the younger Members here were born, the National Agricultural Advisory Service—as ADAS was then known—was very much disliked by farmers and many farmers refused to have them on the farm, and the situation was very difficult. It is now perfectly all right; they are generally recognised as people who are there to help the farmers. It is very good, as the noble Earl has told us, that ADAS is going to be brought in closely with the NCC to help with monitoring and looking after the results of this Act.
A couple of small points. The NFU have asked—and I think that they are absolutely right—that not only should the notification, which is obligatory under this code, be made but also there should be personal visits. This, of course, depends on staff. However, this is probably as important a way of making sure something happens as any other, and if the Nature Conservancy Council have not enough staff to accompany their notifications by personal visits they are going to meet far more resistance than there is any reason for them to have.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised the question of Section 29, concerning a year's compulsory delay. We are a bit worried, because it has

341
been said that the Department of the Environment still holds the view that Section 29 orders should be used in only a small number of cases. I think Section 29 orders should be used in those cases where things are going wrong. One hopes that the number will be small but it is very important that there should not be a general ukase of this kind, saying, "You must be very careful about how you use it." We all know why that is—it costs a lot of money, and that is part of the old problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned the subject of the agricultural grant and the failure to obey an order. We say, as indeed I think most people concerned with this say, that in such a case the agricultural grant should be withdrawn. I should like to know what the noble Earl has to say about that, but I do not feel as gloomy as my quondam political and present social friend, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the possibilities here. I think it can be made to work and I do not see why it should not go very well. Subject to the paragraph I have read out, which is in every way admirable, I think, we will do what we can to help the noble Lord enforce this.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I very much welcome this code and its encouragement of the voluntary approach, particularly in relation to landowners and farmers, as stated in paragraph 22 of the code. I have one question. My noble friend said that the Nature Conservancy Council is bound, under Section 32 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to offer a management agreement when the agriculture grant is denied. My noble friend also confirmed that paragraph 17 of the code means that it is the intention of the Nature Conservancy Council to offer management agreements when the capital grants originate elsewhere, and particularly in the EEC. What I want to know is: What is the position of the National Park Authority? Will my noble friend encourage that authority to take a similar view to that of the Nature Conservancy Council?
There is also the vexed question of money. I hope and believe that the Government will do all in their power to make sufficient funds available for management agreements, but, as has been said before, I doubt whether enough can be made available to satisfy all demands for all sites of special scientific interest and particularly enough to satisfy—and here perhaps I tread on dangerous ground—the arch-conservationists. After all, the Government have to make a decision on priorities for spending their money. If it comes to a question between seagulls and old age pensioners, I have a feeling that most of us would come down on the side of the old age pensioner, although I am not quite so sure that some—and particularly perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—feel quite so strongly. So we come back to the hub of the matter that 90 per cent. of conservation must be done by voluntary help from farmers and landowners. Perhaps, in this context, my noble friend would say that he hopes that orders made under Section 29 will be few and far between, because I personally believe that the voluntary system will work perfectly satisfactorily in the very great majority of cases and the number of failures will be in direct proportion to the
342
financial state of the individual farmer concerned and also to the amount of stupid and, indeed, irrational criticism thrown at the industry by the irresponsible.
There will be mistakes; there have been mistakes; there always will be in any matter—I believe even the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, must have made a mistake at some time or other in his life—but the farming industry is determined to make the Act work through the voluntary approach.
The first essential to enable this to happen—this was brought out by my noble friend Lord Sandford—is that there must be these informal get-togethers or "tea parties" between the Nature Conservancy Council, ADAS and the farmers.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, must be so old as to remember when there was this criticism of NAAS, as I think it was then. As he probably tried to point out, he must be much older than I am, because, as he also pointed out, that certainly is not the case today. I cannot stress too much that the "clipboard approach", followed by statutory notices appearing on the farmer's desk is the worst possible thing that could happen. The best way, as I have said, is to get together informally so that this need never arise or arise only in very occasional circumstances. Therefore, I very much hope that we will have an absolute minimum of Section 29 orders.
Secondly, and almost as important, is a will and a determination on the part of not just farmers but all those who are engaged in the countryside to make sure that the Act will work. Nothing induces failure more than believing that it will fail, and I am sorry to say that this does seem to be the view of certain people and organisations (though I may have misinterpreted them) who have been trying to do this during the last year or two. Therefore, for the sake of our countryside, I ask that those who criticise would be occasionally a little more constructive. If they are as determined as we are in the farming industry to make the voluntary approach work, it will; and the nation will get reasonable conservation—even comparatively cheaply, dare I say. If the voluntary approach breaks down because of the incessant sniping by certain people and certain organisations—yes, even the media and even certain noble Lords—the result will be the expensive destruction of our countryside.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, 18 months ago we debated at length Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and this is not the time to repeat the arguments. I am glad that this is the view of noble Lords today. Broadly speaking, however, as my noble friend Lord Stanley has just reminded us, owners and farmers agreed with the Government that cooperation rather than coercion would be more effective in achieving good conservation. After the enactment of the Bill the CLA was acutely aware that responsiblity for conservation lies, as it always has done, squarely on the shoulders of owners and occupiers. It has therefore addressed itself in the past year to informing its members and reminding them of their continuing responsibilities. My organisation was privileged to serve on the informal working party on this code of guidance and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for his kind remarks about this

343
participation. We hope that, having been laid before Parliament, it will be a helpful contribution towards making the Act effective.
I welcome the intention of the Government to issue the code to owners and occupiers of SSSIs. The document, although perfectly clear to those who are familiar with Sections 28 to 32, is rather long and may not be in a form which is easily read; so the CLA have produced an advisory paper giving guidance to their members on the provisions of the Act. They are also preparing a short and simple document for wider distribution, giving the key points concerning SSSIs.
In addition to spreading the written word, I myself have taken every opportunity, in speaking to landowners, to remind them of their duty to make the Act work. I have visited some sites where difficulties have arisen or were envisaged. I know perfectly well, from these visits and from what I have heard, that there are a small number of cases which could be cited by opponents of the voluntary principle as evidence that it is failing.
It is quite like old times to hear the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in such good voice. Only three weeks ago, he astonished the North of England by his performance in the role of the Macheath of the public highway network. Last Wednesday, he played Lammermuir, or, if it was not Lammermuir, it was some other uncultivable part of western Scotland, and today he returns in a part which he played with much ability 18 months ago. When it comes to the conservation of a special site, such as we are now discussing, I thought that the song he sang today was reasonable and helpful. It was agreeable to hear his constructive remarks, despite his disagreement about the basic principles of the Bill.
Noble Lords will remember that this disagreement was robustly expressed during the passage of the Bill, when he and the critics of voluntary conservation said that tampering with sites by farming and forestry operations was inevitable because the provisions in the Bill were not tough enough. They feared, too—and this has been reiterated today—that there would not be sufficient money to support the NCC and to finance management contracts. This criticism is being voiced over and over again in the press and through the medium of broadcasts and television programmes. The article on 17th October in the Sunday Times headed "Fiasco of the Wildlife Law" was typical. This kind of criticism is strident, it is unceasing and I believe it is also premature and defeatist.
I believe it is wrong to pass judgment on the Act before it has had a chance to prove itself, and I do so for the following reasons. First, for all that was said in last year's debate about the Act having no teeth, I believe that, if persuasion has not been successful, the escalating powers of the NCC to impose a conservation order and, in the last resort, to make a compulsory purchase order are sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to destructive operations carried out during the three months' consultation period and I find myself in some sympathy with him about what he said. But let us not forget that Section 29 was brought into force only last month. If Section 29 could have been used—and here I do not seem to be on quite the same track as my noble friend Lord Stanley—as a deterrent against the odd instance of
344
what I might call pre-designation activity, which I think we agree is deplorable and against the spirit of the Act, then those who said that the section was not made effective soon enough may have been right.
Secondly, it is said with justification that none of the statutory powers to which I referred, and which are available to the NCC, can be used unless they have adequate financial support from Government. I am not aware that up to now the Secretary of State for the Environment has been asked for, and has refused, sufficient means to work the Act. It seems to me that a Government which set up an elaborate framework for voluntary conservation depending upon agreements and management contracts and which then refused to provide the finance to operate the system would be running into trouble. That, I do not believe is the intention of this Government. There is a widespread public concern about conservation which no politician can ignore.
Thirdly, I believe that the Nature Conservancy Council are becoming more aware that the new duties laid upon them by the Act demand a new expertise. I remember saying to your Lordships that you could lead a farmer in a sensible direction, but you could never push him anywhere, and the worst way to start to tell a farmer that his farming operations, and indeed his livelihood, possibly, may be restricted in the interests of conservation is to send the kind of daunting letter that I have seen. The NCC's duty to notify, which I remember demanding and which was embodied in the Act, must be performed sensibly. Where it is not, it seems that it is where the NCC's officers are under pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, voiced his misgivings—and rightly—on this point.
Reference has been made this afternoon to NCC staff numbers. There are, I believe, no less than 535 on the NCC's staff and I sometimes wonder whether a reallocation to permit the employment of a few people who are used to talking to farmers, such as retired ADAS officers, might be worth considering. I welcome the code of guidance. As the document in front of us says on its front page, "Goodwill is necessary". Organisations such as the CLA will be untiring in ensuring the goodwill of farmers and owners. This is a good Act. It can work and it must be made to work. Its critics should give it a chance.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken. I, too, welcome the appearance of this Code of Guidance on SSSI's, with its detailed advice on ways in which the conservation of our natural heritage can be reconciled with the other legitimate interests of land ownership, management and good husbandry. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Stanley regards me as an arch-conservationist. I do not think I really am one. But I certainly see no reason at all why there should be any fundamental clash between those who take a special interest in conservation and those who own or occupy SSSIs, with a little give and take on both sides.
Much has already been said in this Chamber and elsewhere about the new conservation responsibilities under the Act of owners and occupiers, agricultural departments and water authorities, and about the need

345
for adherence to the letter of the statutory provisions to be matched by an equal commitment to their spirit. This, surely, is what the code is all about. As we all know, the Act itself is far from perfect; of course it is. There are, naturally, loopholes and opportunities for exploitation by the unscrupulous and, unless this code is widely followed, I fear that more stringent controls on activities in SSSIs will surely need to be introduced. But I, for one, very much hope that that can be avoided and that the pessimists can be proved wrong.
My noble friend Lord Middleton said a word about the complexities of the code which we are discussing today, and which we shall no doubt pass, and I was very glad to hear that the CLA has already taken on the job of producing a simplified version of some of the more complicated parts of it. I strongly welcome that. My noble friend Lord Avon himself said that the code was not easy reading.
Some noble Lords already know that I am a member of the council of the NCC and, of course, the NCC bears the main brunt of the workload arising out of the new SSSI provisions in the Act. So I should like to draw the attention of the House to one very important area where the code is less than expansive. As the largest single landowner, the Government have the responsibility and the opportunity to set a good example in the way in which they manage their land. I welcome the fact that the Minister speaking in another place touched on this question and made some very helpful remarks about it. Nonetheless, I think that the code itself is less than forthright. For example, the absence from the code of a clear directive to public authorities on the conservation of SSSIs is disappointing and is surely an omission. And what is the reason for the lack of a positive response from the Forestry Commission to the NCC's extra-statutory commitment to the extension of the Sections 32 and 41 principles governing agricultural grants to forestry operations? This, I think, is disappointing, particularly when it is viewed in the light of the new and very constructive dimension to the relationship between the council's staff and those of the Ministry of Agriculture. That is something which I have noted and greatly welcomed.
May I say a brief word about something which has not been touched on; namely, what I might call the other side of the coin. Farmers who are prepared to forgo increased agricultural production in the national interest have certain advantages, of which very little has been said. That is what I mean by the other side of the coin. I am thinking of the capital transfer tax and capital gains tax concessions which are already available to the owners of land of high scientific, scenic or historic value. So far as scientifically important land is concerned, the main incentive at present is exemption from capital transfer tax on land notified by the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest or declared a national nature reserve, provided that certain management conditions are met. In addition, sales of such land to approved bodies such as the National Trust and the Nature Conservancy Council benefit from the capital gains tax concession. Land can be accepted in lieu of capital transfer tax, and maintenance funds created for the purpose of managing the land properly are now also exemptable.
346
Welcome as these incentives are, they do not go far enough. I think many noble Lords will agree with me. To date, only a very small number of owners of sites of special scientific interest have applied for capital transfer tax exemption. Perhaps many of them do not know about it. The more obviously attractive provisions for management agreements with the Nature Conservancy Council in the 1981 Act might well reduce the flow or stop it altogether.
The Nature Conservancy Council have recommended to the Treasury that improvements should include an increase in the capital gains tax concession—usually called the douceur—on land sales. This is only 10 per cent. at present, as opposed to 25 per cent. for works of art. They also recommend the expansion of the list of approved recipients of land to include the voluntary conservation bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the County Naturalists' Trusts. These are sensible suggestions which would be very inexpensive and very helpful. I do hope therefore that my noble friend will have a chance to comment on this, at least to the extent of saying that urgent thought is being given to it, and that, with luck, we may hear something about it in the next Budget.
Finally, I must, like everyone else who has spoken, say a word about the Nature Conservancy Council's resources. Here I express my own personal views. In seeing the Wildlife and Countryside Act through Parliament and accepting many of the changes proposed from all sides of the House, the Government have quite clearly demonstrated their absolute commitment to nature conservation. I recognise that. But the Act and the code together represent a commitment to the offer of funds to the Nature Conservancy Council which must be honoured if there is to be any hope for the future of a voluntary system based on the principles of co-operation and consent in the countryside.
These facts came out forcefully in another place—on all sides of the House and from almost everybody who spoke—when the code was being debated. The Government were criticised on all sides for their equivocal attitude towards the funding of the Nature Conservancy Council—as, indeed, they were in both Houses during the passage through Parliament of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. Not an extra penny piece has been made available to the Nature Conservancy Council to pay for staff shortages in the field, which are very serious indeed, or to cover the cost of management agreements into which we are hound by law to enter—beyond, that is, the £600,000 provided for in the Bill which is now an Act. This sum of £600,000 could take no account, of course, of the cost of all the extra duties imposed on the Nature Conservancy Council during the passage of the Bill through both Houses as a result of its amendment, yet the sum was not increased. This is very disappointing indeed and I think that it is already beginning to create quite serious problems for the Nature Conservancy Council, which is the subject of a great deal of criticism—some of it I think quite well justified.
I am glad none the less to note that in another place Mr. Neil Macfarlane stated that the Rayner exercise through which we are now going and to which I do not object in principle is not necessarily a cost-cutting exercise but would also review the Nature Conser

347

vancy Council's complement in the light of their present workload. It is surely just as important to find out whether the Nature Conservancy Council's present and anticipated resources match their statutory duties as to find out whether we can improve our efficiency and cut certain overheads.
So I say in conclusion that I hope my noble friend can give a positive assurance—a more positive one than he has been able to give yet—that the necessary funds will be made available to enable the Nature Conservancy Council to carry out their duties effectively and so avoid the present risk of destroying a national asset that can never he replaced.

The De Lorean Company
4.36 p.m.
"The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Cowrie): My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if at this point I repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer to a Private Notice Question given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the subject of the De Lorean Motor Company Limited. My right honourable friend said:
"As I announced on 19th October, because no investor had come forward to take over De Lorean Motor Company Limited, the Receivers were proceeding to a final rundown of the company's Dunmurry plant. I greatly regret the loss of many jobs to Northern Ireland. I understand that since then a number of interests in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America have been in touch with the joint Receivers to explore the possibilities either of purchasing the stock of cars held in Belfast or of acquiring the entire business as a going concern. No detailed proposals have yet been referred by the Receivers to the Government. Any such proposals would be considered on their merits".
My Lords, that ends my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for reading that Statement to the House. It tells us rather less than we understood from the Daily Telegraph, but we prefer a little accurate information to a lot which is not. So I am grateful for what little we have been told. The Statement says that a number of interests are exploring the possibilities of acquiring the entire business as a going concern. May I ask the noble Earl whether that means that liquidation can be stopped and that it is not an absolute certainty? I think we should all like to know the answer to that question, because the worry now in this House, as everywhere else, is more about unemployment in Northern Ireland than even about terrorism.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the holding statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. I am sure all noble Lords hope that detailed proposals will result from the present discussions. I think noble Lords should remember that
348
we are speaking not just about jobs at De Lorean but about jobs in a number of other factories and enterprises in Northern Ireland. Therefore the complete collapse of the De Lorean Motor Company would be a calamity for Northern Ireland. I need hardly add that jobs are desperately needed in West Belfast.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. We, too, regret that the noble Earl is not able to give us better news than the morning press suggested might be imminent. We must hope that an offer of the kind reported in the press may in fact be forthcoming. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in asking the noble Earl whether he can give any indication of how much time is left for such an offer to be made. Clearly such an offer would be welcome because of the economic situation in Northern Ireland and the considerable amount of Government money invested in the project.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that it would be irresponsible for the Government to raise expectations at this juncture which might in the event not be fulfilled. Therefore I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to the House that the process of the running down and liquidation of the company (the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, also asked me about this) will continue. However, should any realistic possibilities open up of new investors coming along, then of course the Government would consider every proposal on its merits. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, about how badly jobs are needed in Belfast generally and perhaps in West Belfast particularly. I would like to pay the Government's tribute to the very great achievement of the people of this part of a beleaguered city in moving very rapidly from having no tradition of motor manufacturing to a tradition of motor manufacturing whose failure was not much to do with them, if I may put it that way.
We must, of course, live in hope but at the same time it would be quite wrong for the Government not to recognise the realities or not to put, as it were, any time extension on the procedure. It may be that the fact that the sands are running out so quickly will concentrate the minds of those who may still be interested in the project.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will welcome the rather warmer words which the noble Earl used in his supplementary answer, as compared with the original Statement. It is, of course, absolutely essential to consider any proposals on their merits, but it would be encouraging if the noble Earl could say that they will be considered at any rate, with a degree of sympathy. Also, may I ask the noble Earl if he is aware how much his words will be appreciated, when he said that the effort—although not creditable in certain ways—was no discredit to the great effort put into it by the people of Northern Ireland?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. Again, I must repeat that I

349
did not want to give any false prospectus or any bogus encouragement. The Government will have to look at proposals on their merits, as I said. I must reiterate, however, that the Government have decided—rightly in my view—not to put any more public money into a fund which has absorbed a very great deal of public money, unfortunately without visible dividends for the public and without any real job security for those who were engaged in the manufacture of the cars. We can always live in hope that private investment will note the achievements of the people at the Dunmurry plant, note the excellence of the equipment and the rest of it, and will make decisions on a commercial basis—which will be very welcome in Northern Ireland.

Code of Guidance Concerning Sites of Special Scientific Interest
Debate continued on the Motion.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, if we have now finished with the Statement I will with the permission of your Lordships' House make my contribution for about three minutes to this very important little debate concerning sites of special scientific interest. I find it interesting that the National Farmers' Union, in the brief that it has sent out to many of us, states:
"The National Farmers' Union believes that the new system promises to be successful in protecting the nature conservation interests of the SSSIs whilst at the same time giving a fair deal to the farmers concerned. However, much will depend on the patience, goodwill and co-operation of all parties and the provision of adequate resources by Government."
The approval of the code, the NFU says, is recommended. The noble Lords, Lord Middleton and Lord Chelwood, to whom the House owes quite a bit for the effort they have made and their assiduity in attending to the NCC meetings and helping to produce this code (and some of us are grateful to them for that) said that attention has been drawn to the need for the farming fraternity not merely to have peremptory notices by post but that they should be visited by people who are trained to understand the farming industry and even to understand landowners in some cases. We want to get rid of bureaucracy. There are no more telegrams, unfortunately, in rural Wales or rural Scotland and although intimation may be given by post, I believe this should be thought out in depth. Visits are necessary to create goodwill.
In the minute or so that is left I want to draw attention to paragraph 13 of the code on Section 28, which deals with the removal of SSSI status. It states:
"The NCC may decide that an SSSI or part of an SSSI, no longer merits that status because of a reduction in the scientific value of the land due to natural or other causes. In such cases the NCC will inform all owners and occupiers, the local planning authority, the Secretary of State and other relevant bodies that the land in question is no longer an SSSI and arrange for cancellation of the entry in the local land charges registry."
That is an important caveat. We want to make sure that it is used fairly and squarely. We have not spoken about this, but the mining industry—it is open-castmining—and the new oil and gas pipelines going through Britain, Scotland and even Europe, could very well influence the application of this code and its
350
practices to places of special scientific interest. I do not want to elaborate because this House understands very well. I could speak for 10 minutes on that one point, but having made the point, the House will see that there is a reality about this; when does the need for natural gas or the need for open-cast coal overwhelm the demand for places of special scientific interest? It is not an easy question to answer but it is a question about which the House could be alerted.
I will now sit down with just this tribute. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in different little mountainous parts of Wales. I want to pay tribute to the small landowner and small farmer who, over the years, by hedging, by ditching, and by cleaning streams which sing over the pebbles and the hills, have kept those places beautiful. It has created—particularly in parts of Wales, Scotland and the Pennines—places of beauty which have brought balance of payments money to this country. Much of the beauty of Britain today is due to the rough hands of the farmers of the past who have kept it beautiful.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
4.48 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this has been a wide ranging debate on a document that will exercise a strong influence over the way in which the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act for the protection of habitats are implemented. I am grateful for the various kind remarks by noble Lords on my introduction. I believe I am right in concluding that so far as concerns the formal question of the approval of the draft Code of Guidance (while some noble Lords might have preferred to see something shorter or easier to understand, and I have already touched on the reasons for its complexity), I gather there is general agreement that the document should be approved. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, did suggest that we have been "lumbered"with it, which I thought was, perhaps, less than generous. I also noted that Lord Middleton's organisationation has already produced a simpler guide, which may be of use to us all later.
In the course of the debate we have listened to a number of matters of concern to noble Lords about the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Cases have been mentioned in which despite these provisions, a site has been damaged—and concern has very rightly been voiced over these cases. I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that I agree absolutely there is absolutely no case at the moment for complacency. Indeed, it is a matter for great regret that some people, although acting within their legal rights, should refuse to extend the voluntary co-operation which underlies the provisions of the Act. Examples have been given, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and seen where, after the NCC has given notice of its intention to notify an SSSI, harmful work has been carried out on the land within the three-month period which must elapse before the formal notification can take place.
The code, as noble Lords will be aware, comes out firmly against such action, and I hope that its publication will help to stamp it out. Paragraph 7 of the code states that owners and occupiers should not carry out any specified operations during this period without

351
consulting the NCC. Both the NFU and the CLA have pledged their support for the code and the voluntary principle and have a vested interest in seeing that the Act works, since they do not want even stricter controls. Both my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, touched on this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned West Sedgemoor. Perhaps I may just say that although three farmers in West Sedgemoor have indeed damaged 40 to 50 acres, some 70 owners and occupiers are involved altogether in some 2,500 acres. While, of course, we much regret the damage, it is clear that the great majority of those concerned have voluntarily cooperated. In Wales, notice of over 20 new sites has been given and only in two cases has there been any trouble.
So far as grant is concerned, the only sanction an agriculture minister has is the right to refuse grant. The Minister of Agriculture has made it clear in the context of West Sedgemoor that if a claim is received for works carried out in this period he will carry out the agreed consultation procedure with the NCC and consult the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Agriculture Minister's decision will be based on the situation before the work was carried out. I agree that the sort of action of which we have given examples does need to be most vigorously discouraged, and I am sure that the Government can look to all responsible organisations to support the plea for voluntary restraint in such situations.
But we should not he too alarmed, nor conclude too readily that the Act is failing. The number of such cases is small and, what is more, very few cases of damage to existing SSSIs have been reported since the Act came into force. The NCC advised during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill that in 1980 some 15 per cent. of all SSSIs—and that was several hundred sites—were damaged, although it amounted to only 0.7 per cent. of the total land area which was affected. While we have no comparable study for the past year, the number of cases reported has been no more than a handful. Maybe there are some which have not come to light, but there are many people on the lookout for damage to SSSIs, and unless I am much mistaken the position is already greatly improved. This is no doubt due in large measure to the greater awareness which already exists as a consequence of the Act; it will be further increased by the publication of the code. I do also know that a number of cases are being resolved satisfactorily at the local level.
A different kind of situation which has also caused anxiety is that in which after consideration by Ministers a conservation objection is not sustained. I do not believe that this is the time to discuss individual cases, but I want to make it clear that, in all cases where such an objection is raised by the NCC, my noble and honourable friends in the Department of the Environment and the Agriculture Department do consult together and give the fullest consideration to the Council's views. I will not undertake that the conservation case will invariably predominate over all other interests, since that would be to prejudge the ministerial consideration of the merits of individual cases; and it so happens that in two recent cases the objection has not been upheld. But there has already
352
been one decision the other way, and there will surely be others; each case will be very carefully considered on its merits.
The question of finance for the NCC has also been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I made some remarks on this subject in my opening speech. May I now repeat that my right honourable friends will consider carefully all available evidence and information and the best estimates that can be made of the likely scale of activity under the Wildlife and Countryside Act in reaching a decision on the financial allocation for the coming year, and in particular we will take note of the points that have been made in this connection in today's debate by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, with his great knowledge of this particular matter. So far in this financial year, the NCC have not had to withdraw any objection to a damaging proposal on resource grounds. Although the NCC's funds for this financial year are now fully committed, this is, I am led to believe, a normal state of affairs, because it is by this time of year the only way in which the NCC can ensure that they spend the available monies. However, they are willing to consider further cases as they arise and if necessary to approach Ministers for funds. As my colleague Mr. Macfarlane said in another place, we are always willing to consider approaches from the NCC. This, of course, still holds. We shall look forward to the bid, which should be coming forward any moment now, for the next financial year from the Nature Conservancy Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned the Rayner Review. It is true that the original draft of the terms of reference would have required the scope of staff reduction to be considered. However, these terms were put to the NCC for consideration and were changed in the light of their comments. I must reject the imputation that although the Government agreed to make this change they intend to proceed as if they had not done so. The Rayner studies have, indeed, resulted in staff cuts where inefficiences and scope for economies have been found, but it is not right to assume in advance that this will be the case with the NCC. Not even the original terms of reference made that assumption.
May I say a word here on renotification? The NCC hope to complete the exercise as soon as possible after the start of the next field season, when the remaining surveys will be completed. The NCC had to strike a balance between immediate impersonal renotification, with the possibility of misconceptions and unnecessary anxiety, and full consultation with all owners and occupiers. To draw up meaningful lists of potentially damaging operations the NCC has had to take a personal contact in most cases. This, I know, will please the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. This has proved to be a very time-consuming operation, and I am led to understand has no doubt taken a lot more work than the NCC originally envisaged. I am told that the NCC are slightly below complement in the assistant regional officer and land agent cadres. The problem cannot be resolved overnight, since most of the work arising out of the Act demands experience and knowledge of the sites. In making their bid for additional resources, the NCC will be taking into account a probable increase in workload, but the level of response to the SSSI notification exercise is still an unknown factor. I am sure that the current review of

353
NCC staffing will suggest ways in which their problems may be eased.
My noble friend Lord Sandford talked about the role of ADAS. Over the past two years there has been a great commitment of ADAS resources on conservation and an increase in training in conservation matters. This has been reflected in the farming community by greatly increased requests for advice on habitat management and other conservation matters, including socio-economic advice. There is good liaison between ADAS and NCC officers on the ground, and ADAS plays a major role in the farming and wildlife advisory groups. The MAFF advisory literature increasingly includes conservation advice and some booklets are entirely devoted to this subject. Their wildlife and countryside conservation committee meets under ADAS chairmanship. The committee, which consists of representatives of Government departments and conservation bodies, meets about twice a year to discuss subjects of mutual interest.
My noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned the six socio-economic advisers. These are specialists in this type of advice on which a front line officer can fall. There are also other specialists in a variety of conservation, landscape and other matters who are responsible for training and for responding to requests for guidance. This advice is available not only to other Ministry officers but also to any local government or other body which seeks advice or guidance.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked about the national park authorities. It is a condition of the farm capital grant schemes that a farmer in a national park must seek the agreement of the NPA before starting work. This applies whether or not the grant is sought under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 or Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. The consultation procedure therefore applies to all capital grants. It is for the national park authority to decide whether it will apply Section 41(4) of the Wildlife arid Countryside Act to grants other than those sought under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970. I am sure that if they listened to my noble friend they would be encouraged so to do. I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Sandford that I will of course read with care his other comments and see that they are brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
A word on capital grants. It should be remembered that eligibility for a management agreement for an SSSI does not depend on a refusal of proposals which will be eligible for capital grant. As is made clear in paragraph 25 of the Code of Guidance, owners or occupiers may seek an agreement at any time. Most capital works eligible for grant have no implication for damage to SSSIs. Only about 4 per cent. of agricultural holdings have an SSSI on any part of the land.
I am advised that since October 1980, in the few cases where the NCC has had reservations about capital grant proposals, there has been a willingness by the farmers concerned to discuss the issues involved and as a rule, either to drop the proposals which could cause significant damage or to accept NCC suggestions for modifications of the agricultural works to avoid damage without recourse to management agreement. I hope, as do many other noble Lords, that this spirit of co-operation will continue.
354
There were some comments made about Section 29. I believe that the way forward on the use of Section 29 is being developed in consultation with the NCC in the light of recent discussions. It is likely to stress the fact that on very many SSSIs no threats will arise, but where they do they should normally be dealt with on a voluntarily agreed basis, and that consideration of the use of Section 29 will be a last resort. It is expected to avoid specifying any category of SSSI for which Section 29 will, or will not, he considered appropriate or giving any generalised commitment in advance of individual proposals from the NCC, which in each case will be considered on its merits.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood raised a point on taxes. I can assure him that my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the position. I believe that the Wildlife and Countryside Act is a good Act and that the protection of SSSIs is a fundamental part of that Act. I recommend this Code of Guidance to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order 1982
5.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order which is before the House today forms the last part of a package designed to meet the requirements of the European Community directive on roadworthiness tests. Your Lordships may not be very familiar with this directive, so perhaps I could quickly run through the main points in it, before explaining why the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order is needed, and how it affects testing arrangements in this country.
The purpose of the roadworthiness directive is to harmonise the arrangements in all the counties of the European Community for testing goods and passenger vehicles. It covers all motor vehicles with more than eight seats, excluding the driver's seat, used for the carriage of' passengers. It covers, motor vehicles and trailers used for the carriage of goods with a maximum weight exceeding 3,500 kg; and taxis and ambulances. The directive goes on to require that tests on these categories of vehicles should be carried out one year after the date on which the vehicle was first used, and then after that on an annual basis. It also lists the items which should be tested, but leaves member states to decide how tests are to be carried out, and by whom. In other words, the directive lays down certain minimum standards; it is quite modest in its scope, and is, I think, a useful road safety measure for the Community as a whole.
We are fortunate in this country, that we already have extensive testing arrangements for the vehicles covered by the directive and, in the main, these arrangements already meet, or in some cases even exceed, the requirements of the directive. However, we have had to make two significant changes, in order to comply with what the directive lays down. The first was the introduction of a formal annual testing scheme

355
for public service vehicles, which replaced the old informal inspection system. Your Lordships may remember that the legislative foundations for this were laid in the Transport Act, 1980. The detailed arrangements for the new scheme were laid down in the Motor Vehicle (Tests) Regulations 1981, which came into operation at the very end of last year. They were subject to the usual negative resolution procedure.
The second change which we are obliged to make concerns the age at which vehicles have to be tested for the first time, and that is the reason for this extension order. In order to comply with the directive, we have to ensure that from 1st January 1983 all taxis, ambulances, and large passenger vehicles, as well as public service vehicles, have their first test by the time of their first birthday. This order introduces that new requirement. Goods vehicles are not included in the scope of the order, because their annual test already starts at one year old, and no change is needed.
The form of the order is governed by the provisions of the 1972 Road Traffic Act. Section 44 deals with compulsory test certificates for certain specified classes of vehicles and provides the foundation for the MOT tests. It makes it an offence to use a vehicle on the road without a valid test certificate, if it comes within the MOT test scheme and if it is over a certain age. When Section 44 was written, the age specified was 10 years, but the Act provides that a shorter period can be substituted by statutory instrument. As noble Lords will know, this power has been used several times, and the age for the first test under the MOT scheme has been gradually reduced to its present three years.
The last Motor Vehicle (Extension) Order was made in 1966. This new order revokes the 1966 one, and brings down the age of the first test from three years to one year for the roadworthiness directive vehicles. The House will note, however, that paragraph 5 of the order provides for the three-year period to continue in force for all vehicles except taxis, ambulances and passenger vehicles with more than eight passenger seats. This means that the testing of private cars, motorcycles and light vans is not affected in any way by the order.
I imagine that some of your Lordships may feel some concern about the apparently rather short deadline. The effect of the order is that from 1st January 1983, any vehicle which falls within one of the specified categories and is more than one year old on that date must possess a test certificate. I can, however, reassure the House on this point. The intention to bring in the order was widely publicised a year ago and the new arrangements for testing vehicles have been operating throughout the year.
Generally speaking, there is very little change at all, with vehicles being tested at the same places, by the same people and to the same standards. Apart from the new testing arrangements for public service vehicles, and the difference in the age at which some vehicles must be presented for their test for the first time little else has been necessary. I am sure, however, these two changes are very worthy ones and will encourage an improvement in the maintenance standards for the vehicles affected. There is no radical revision to the testing systems already operating in this country, and on that basis I commend the order for approval by this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order 1982 laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
5.8 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that your Lordships will wish to thank the Minister for so clearly explaining the points in this order. Anything that will assist safety standards should be encouraged. I am almost tempted to join in the discussion in the light of what the noble Lord said that national States will be free to determine how the testing shall be done and by whom, but that will be trespassing on your Lordships' time. However, in view of the Government's decision in the recent Bill to transfer the testing from our very efficient arrangements, I am tempted to do so. As the Minister said, in effect the order makes no change to the arrangements this country already has for heavy goods and public service vehicles. It extends them to other classes and this will add in general to safety conditions.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, William Shakespeare was no doubt right when he said that:
"All's well that ends well".
The department certainly chose for itself a hard and stony road to travel over to get this order. That may be gleaned from the last paragraph of the explanatory notes to the order, which state that the order of 1981, with a similar title, not having been approved by Parliament, was never registered.
The 1981 order came before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments who questioned the vires of it. They invited the department to submit a memorandum. The memorandum stated four grounds upon which the department contended that the order was intra tires, none of which grounds appealed to the joint committee. The committee invited the department to come and give oral evidence. I shall not weary your Lordships with all four grounds that were contended for, but with only one.
An assistant solicitor in the department giving evidence before the joint committee said that one could see that the order was intra tires when one looked at what the Minister had said in the Committee stage of the enabling Act. When confronted with the proposition that it is well known that the courts in interpreting legislation may not look at Hansard, the witness relied upon half a sentence of the judgment of Lord Reid in a House of Lords case of 1969 called Regina v. Warner. The words which the witness quoted were as follows:
"I am bound to say that this case seems to show that there is room for an exception where examining the proceedings in Parliament would almost certainly settle the matter immediately one way or the other".
Those words, taken by themselves, certainly seem to support what the witness was contending for, but when one looks up the case to see what Lord Reid really said on this point one finds that Lord Reid was saying the exact opposite. I shall tell your Lordships what Lord Reid did say. It is not very long and it reads as follows:
"...the layman may well wonder why we do not consult the Parliamentary Debates, for we are much more likely to find the intention of Parliament there than anywhere else. The rule is firmly

357
established that we may not look at Hansard and in general I agree with it, for reasons which I gave last year in Beswick v. Beswick… This is not a suitable case in which to reopen the matter, but",
and he then says the words quoted by the witness. At the beginning of the next paragraph Lord Reid makes the situation perfectly plain when he says:
"As things are we must do our best with the material available to us".
It is a sorry day when a witness from a Government department quotes a snippet of a judgment of a judge who, in fact, one finds when one looks up the case, is saying the exact opposite to what the witness is relying upon. That is why I say that the department have chosen a very stony path, but they have got here in the end.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1982
5.14 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these draft regulations have been the subject of a report by the Joint Scrutiny Committee, which commented that their purport calls for elucidation, and that the necessary elucidation is supplied by the memoranda submitted by the Department of Transport.
I am conscious, therefore, that this instrument is rather technical in its drafting. This is probably inevitable in a draft which uses the powers in Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act to amend existing main legislation—the 1972 Road Traffic Act—as distinct from the more radical approach of rewriting this main legislation, which would necessarily have taken up more parliamentary time.
However, I owe it to the House to explain both the impact of these regulations, and the European obligations to which they give effect. Essentially, the regulations make it possible for a person who has lived and held a licence to drive in one country of the Community to move to another member state and obtain a driving licence there without first taking a driving test. This is the central provision of the directive on driving licences which was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 4th December 1980 and which comes into effect on 1st January 1983. A further provision of the directive, the issue of new licences in common format, will be introduced in this country on 1st January 1986.
The directive was many years under negotiation. I should like briefly to recount this background because I think it will make clear why the directive does what it does in the way it does, and why it does not do some other things which people have suggested it should do. The initial proposal in the early 1970s was that all member states should issue the same driving licence. This remains the very long-term object which is stated in the directive, and accounts for its title:
"on the introduction of a Community driving licence".
But the title has caused confusion because the actual provisions fall far short of this. In fact it emerged in the course of negotiations that there were major discrepancies among national practices in regard to driver
358
licensing which militated against achievement of the most ambitious aim.
After prolonged negotiations the Community finally got down to the essential question: how to remove undue obstacles to the freedom of movement of workers, as guaranteed by the Treaty of Rome, without compromising the essential aims of national driver licensing. The Community identified driving competence and medical fitness as the key areas where harmonisation of minimum standards was both desirable and realistic. That is what the directive of December 1980 sets out to achieve. However, it was accepted that, for the future, there must be adequate minimum medical and driving test standards. The directive did not rule out individual states maintaining their own higher medical standards, and indeed expressly provided in Article 8 that they might be imposed on applicants for exchange licences. In fact, neither the driving test nor the medical standards affect practice in Britain, because in essentials our standards are at least as high as the directive prescribes. The other member states must adopt these minimum standards not later than 1st January 1983, if they have not already done so.
Another reason why negotiations on the draft directive were long drawn out was that the United Kingdom had special supplementary licences for heavy goods vehicles in several classes for which there is an exacting driving test, and similar vocational licensing for public service vehicles. These schemes set high standards of competence in the interests of road safety, on account of the known hazards presented by large, heavy vehicles with complex controls and in some cases special handling characteristics. We insisted—rightly—on maintaining stringent safeguards on access to these licences. Our partners however were able to point out that the directive's contribution to freedom of movement of workers would be incomplete if it did not extend to vocational driving. This roadblock, if I may so call it, was finally removed by the device which has been used in this and in other countries when a new licensing scheme is introduced and it is not practical to test all of those who are currently driving. In 1970 when the heavy goods vehicle driving licence was introduced, it was granted to many thousand drivers on the basis of certificates of recent driving experience. I should like to stress this, because it means that in fact many of our HGV licence-holders entered the scheme without taking the British HGV test. This does not remove the quite legitimate grounds for concern about admitting drivers from other Community countries to the scheme, but it does, I hope, place the matter in perspective. We are talking of at most a couple of hundred drivers a year coming without equivalent tests into a scheme which contains about a million and for which tens of thousands of tests are conducted annually.
Moreover, what was negotiated in the directive was an arrangement which provides more stringent safeguards than were possible when many thousands were admitted to the new HGV scheme in 1970. It has been agreed that the applicant must first obtain the British ordinary licence by surrendering his current Community licence. He must then apply to the independent licensing authority in the local traffic area and satisfy him on three counts. First, the licence he

359
surrendered must be valid for heavy goods vehicles in the country of issue. Second, he must produce a certificate from former employers showing exactly what types of vehicle he has driven in the last three years, and for what periods within that time. And third, except for passing a British test, he must meet the same requirements as other applicants by providing a British medical certificate and declaring any driving convictions. He must satisfy the licensing authority on these matters. If he has been a self-employed driver he must produce evidence comparable to an employer's certificate which like that certificate can if necessary be checked. If he cannot satisfy the licensing authority about his experience or on any other count laid down in this or other legislation, he will not get the licence without a test. Exactly the same applies to applicants for exchange who want public service vehicle drivers' licences.
I will not conceal that this is a quite novel task for the licencing authorities, though one for which their experience with the road traffic industry well qualifies them. The Secretary of State was therefore interested to hear from the Transport and General Workers' Union, which had some misgivings whether the exchanges could be conducted with due regard to the need to maintain standards. The union has been invited to provide any information to which they have access which would help the licensing authorities to consider and verify these applications. I am glad to be able to extend this invitation publicly to other representative organisations on both sides of the industry.
I have given your Lordships an account both of the background to the directive and the present regulations, and of the way the exchanges will work in the most difficult field, that of vocational licences. Perhaps I could now give a short explanation of' the actual text which is before us.
As your Lordships will know, the Secretary of State is the licensing authority for the ordinary driving licences issued at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea and the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners in Traffic Areas for heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences. Existing road traffic law states that these authorities may not grant a full licence unless the applicant has either held such a licence previously, or passed the appropriate test. There are special provisions for both visitors and new residents to drive for up to a year on foreign licences, but there is no right for new residents to drive heavy goods or public service vehicles, and after a year they must pass the test even to continue driving a car. The directive requires, and these draft regulations provide, that the holder of a currently valid licence issued in another state of the European Community may surrender it within the first year of becoming resident here, and obtain the corresponding British licence.
Under Regulation 1, the first exchange licences will date from 1st January 1983, although issue will begin once this instrument has parliamentary approval. The licences which can be exchanged are defined in Regulation 3 as the national licences issued in other Community states. The definition is so framed as to cover the licences issued for dependants of the British armed forces serving in BAOR—the British Forces Germany licences.
Regulation 4 is a technical provision, designed to avoid any discrepancy over rights to drive during the first year of residence between our existing legislation, which concerns Great Britain, and the directive, which applies to the United Kingdom. For the purposes of this directive, this also includes Northern Ireland and Gibraltar.
Regulation 2 permits the grant of ordinary licences for the groups which most nearly correspond to the categories for which the foreign licence is valid, and for the grant of those additional groups which automatically go with certain groups on the British licence. Regulations 5 and 6 provide for the subsequent issue of vocational licences. In recognition of the need to make a separate application for these and provide additional information, they allow a further six months, making the qualifying period 18 months from the date of becoming resident. These regulations also lay down the minimum periods of experience—six months within the 18 months preceding the date of becoming resident in the United Kingdom, or one year within the previous three years. The licence will be based on the British class within which vehicles have been driven for these minimum periods.
I have spoken at some length on the detail of the regulations and of the arrangements we are making to ensure that the safety of our roads is not compromised. Let me finally put this into its broader perspective. Movement of people is a feature of the world in which we live, and this is now to a very large extent accomplished by personal means of transport—by car. Hundreds of thousands of people enter and leave this country every year as visitors with their own transport. But we are here concerned with a few thousand who depart or arrive with the intention of settling for more than a year.
The largest group of beneficiaries of the directive is, in fact, likely to be the dependants of British servicemen and women who have been on a tour of duty in Germany. Rather smaller numbers of people move here each year from other Community countries with other Community driving licences, and will be seeking to convert their licences. This is, of course, a two-way flow. The directive contributes a new and valuable element to that freedom of movement to live and work which is a tangible aspect of our participation in the European Community.
As for the more distant future, the directive seeks more detailed harmonisation of the standards for driving tests and licensing with a view to improving road safety throughout the Community. This must be right. I should perhaps add that the British driving test is viewed with great interest by the authorities in other countries, because it is thorough and relevant. Even without the stimulus provided by the directive, we should be seeking efforts to copy it; and I believe the commitment to harmonisation will accelerate that progress. If the continuing process gives rise to any proposals for modifying our own system of driver licensing, we shall of course consult both this House and all those organisations which have an interest in these matters.
As the House will have observed, this is not an area where rapid change is likely or indeed desirable. But I am pleased to be able to move the approval of a

361
measure which marks a step of real benefit to individuals within the Community. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd July be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
5.27 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as noble Lords will observe, this is a set of rather complex regulations and we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for explaining them so clearly to us. Any regulations which have, as their objective, easing the movement of people and assisting them to work and take up residence are to he encouraged. But we must ask ourselves, is this particular harmonisation necessary and desirable and, if it is, is it adequate? Does it in any way militate against Britain's safety standards?
We have a number of items to assist us in this discussion. I have read the debate in the other place on the original directive, which took place in November 1980, as well as the guidance note which was issued to various organisations in June this year, and also the detailed memorandum which is contained in the Thirty-Second Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. However, the noble Lord's explanation has enabled us to understand many of those points more clearly. He mentioned that one argument for this is that as regards Britain the main beneficiaries will be those who are serving in BGF and their dependants, many of whom will have had tests undertaken by military driving examiners and have a BGF driving licence. Although that may be very useful, does it require a Community directive to provide for it? If that was something that we wanted to provide for, surely it could have been dealt with by some other means.
On looking through the various propoals, it would appear that a person from another EEC country who takes up residence here may, as we all know, drive on his or her existing licence for 12 months and during that period that person may exchange his or her national licence for a British licence without having to take any tests. Are we satisfied that tests in other EEC countries are satisfactory? How do they compare with the British standards? Is not the harmonisation of those test standards something which is essential if this particular set of regulations is to mean anything?
The Minister has said that minimum standards are set for driving tests and health. He also says that in general the British standards are commensurate with those and in many cases exceed them. In the debate in the other place the Under-Secretary of State confirmed that it will be possible for a person to fail a driving test here, but, when living in a Community country, may possibly obtain a licence there and on moving back to Britain the licence may be exchanged within 12 months for a full British licence. The question therefore arises: Can that be justified, particularly if the driving test standard in another member state is much lower than the standard in this country?
I note that the Secretary of State in a debate on the directive in the other place in November 1980 commented that in Britain we have a practical test of ability but that several of the European systems place an emphasis on a theoretical test. That is a point that must be considered when considering the different
362
standards of test in the different national countries.
Then, as the Minister has said—and this is mentioned in the 32nd Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in paragraph 2—
"The main obstacle to agreement on the draft directive was the existence in the UK of vocational licence schemes for drivers of heavy goods and public service vehicles."
The guidance note from the Department of Transport issued in June this year, to which I referred, says:
"Unlike most of her partners in Europe Britain has separate heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle licensing arrangements."
The Minister emphasised that in these connections Britain has a high standard of competence. I am certain that your Lordships will be concerned that in any measures now put before us there is to be no lowering of those standards in this country.
We know that the draft directive says that it does not provide expressly for a situation where a separate licence is issued for those particular vehicles, and we do issue those special licences. I recognise that in these regulations there are a number of proposals for safeguards for heavy goods vehicles, particularly the question that a person must either have passed an equivalent test or can show experience of driving similar vehicles in their own country. But this means that within a period of 18 months residence here a person could obtain in exchange a heavy goods vehicle licence in this country without any test whatever. I note that when this matter of the directive was debated in the other place the Opposition proposed an amendment that:
"no heavy goods vehicle, or passenger service vehicle, licences shall be granted to persons who have not passed tests of standard equivalent to those in the United Kingdom."
I know that the Minister said that there may be only 200 applications a year, but 200 applications of persons who have not passed any standard to drive any goods vehicles commensurate with that in this country is something with which we should be concerned. The same conditions for the exchange of a heavy goods vehicle licence are to apply in the case of an application for exchange for a public service vehicle licence.
As has been stressed in Britain now there is provision that the licensing commissioners may require an applicant for a public service vehicle licence to take a driving test. They may require him to do so. Paragraph 9 of the memorandum of the Department of Transport states.
"It would be inconsistent to require a person who holds a valid licence of another member state to take a test."
But I would ask the Minister if the commissioners are not satisfied with the evidence of driving experience, notwithstanding what has been said in the guidance note from the department, will the commissioners have the authority to require a test to be taken so as to ensure the safety provisions of driving public service vehicles?
The Minister referred to correspondence from the Transport and General Workers' Union. This is quoted in some detail in columns 461 and 462 in the debate in the other place on the regulations. I understand that, although the union has offered to obtain information they were very concerned about the effect of these regulations on driving standards, particularly as in some European countries a number

363
of persons who are engaged in heavy goods vehicle driving are self-employed.
I recognise that the Government share concern with everyone for safety provisions and have endeavoured to bring a number of those points in these regulations. However, I note that the Secretary of State in the debate on the directive said that in the short term the directive adds very little to Britain's safeguards, but that it does cut out a lot of red tape, and that in the longer term it could contribute to better safety standards generally. It would appear to me, in the light of our own standards in this country, that it will only lead to better standards generally if there is some harmonisation in test standards throughout the Community.
May I just raise two other points. I understand that the British licences issued in exchange will be free of any endorsements, even though the existing licence from another member state may have endorsements upon it. The Under-Secretary of State in column 460 in the other place said:
"With the discrepancies between the various national laws, I think that would he impractical"—
I think she is referring now to these being transferred to the British licences—
"But I shall take advice about it".
Later, when asked whether, where appropriate, details of penalties could be put on the British licence for our totting up procedure she said in column 472:
"I simply do not know without conferring with the Home Office, whether that would he practicable".
It may be asking a lot of the Minister, but is he able to say whether or not there has been consultation with the Home Office so that we may have an answer to that important point? If a licence from another member state being exchanged for a British licence has a number of endorsements, it would be wrong for them not to be transferred to the British licence.
Finally, in the memorandum from the Department of Transport, paragraph 15 indicates that for the purposes of a common transport policy of the Community Gibraltar is included in the term "United Kingdom". It goes on to say that as there are no powers there is:
"an intention to take the next opportunity to include such exchanges in primary legislation presented to Parliament".
If the Government therefore intend to have primary legislation introduced in Parliament to meet that point would not this also he an opportunity to make other bilateral arrangements for the transfer of driving licences with other states in addition to those of the Community? There is value in the exchange in the Community proposals but surely, even if we do not want a wide-sweeping provision, there ought to be some bilateral arrangements with other states. With those points, I generally commend the regulations, but there are some problems attached to them which I hope I have been able to explain.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for quite properly raising again certain aspects of what is proposed. I am glad to try to give some clarification to him. It is true, as he said, that various criticisms have been made on the scope of
364
enforcement. I have to stress that it is no part of the aims of the directive to improve the enforcement of the traffic laws in this or any member state. This is concerned with the issue of driving licences and does not touch on their endorsement or withdrawal for offences under national law except by implication.
However, I should make it clear that if a person applying here for an exchange has a current disqualification in this country the licence can, and will, be refused. If a person's licence has been withdrawn in the country which issued it he, or she, will not get an exchange because he, or she, will be unable to produce a valid licence. In the case of applicants for vocational licences the normal application form must he completed stating any recent convictions. The licensing authority may take these into account in exactly the same way as convictions in Britain declared by a British applicant.
Further than that it is not possible to go. Road traffic laws are not identical even between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, let alone among other Community countries. For foreign courts' convictions to be recorded on our licences would be to give them jurisdiction to order the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre to enter those matters in its driver records. Even if that were to be enacted—and I stress that it would represent a major and controversial step in an area of basic constitutional importance—such a transfer of endorsements would not be practicable unless there was an exact correspondence between national laws so that everything which was an offence in another Community state was an offence in British law. For my part, I cannot foresee the day when that will come about. I think it must follow that the enforcement aspects of the British licensing system remain apart from those aspects to which these regulations are directed and with which the directive itself is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, expressed anxiety about the standards of other Community driving tests. It is true that, from our point of view, many of them leave room for improvements. It is also possible that when the further discussions on harmonisation foreseen by the directive have started, they will reveal some respects in which we can improve our own requirements, although we have reason to believe that in all major respects our tests are the most thorough. What the directive offers is a framework within which we can press our partners for a general levelling up of standards, and I believe there are already signs of that. There can he no question of a levelling down.
This levelling up is of real benefit because it means that the standard of driving in the Community will be slowly but surely improved. That affects safety on the roads everywhere, above all for those who encounter visiting drivers from other member states on the roads here and those who take their holidays on the Continent or drive there on business, all matters which are a fact of life already. Allowing quite a small number of Community licence-holders to have our licences, regardless of what tests they have taken in the past once they become resident here, is, I submit, a small price to pay for setting in motion this major force of improvements. Let us not forget that a large proportion, probably the majority, of those who exchange licences will he our own citizens returning from periods of residence on the Continent.

365
The noble Lord was also properly concerned that there should be no lowering of standards concerning vocational licences. I went in some detail in my opening remarks into the safeguards for the exchange of vocational licences. There is a balance to he struck here. The directive is a hard-won compromise between the commitment to free movement which we accepted on accession to the community and our right to maintain our high standards in the interests of road safety. That directive is a commitment and the emphasis is now on the administrative arrangements to ensure that this balance is kept in the assessment of individual applications. I have made it clear that the Department of Transport will pass on to the licensing authorities any useful information to assist them in this task.
The noble Lord asked what would happen if the commissioners were not satisfied. If they are not satisfied, they can refuse a licence. The driver can then take a test or, of course, appeal to magistrates, and I assume that they would then take his or her experience into account in considering the matter. I hope I have covered in the main the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quite properly expressed by him because, as we have both said, these are complex matters. They have been evolved over a period of time, they are an attempt to move in what I think it fair to call the right direction and I am sure they will take us further down the road of harmonisation in all matters of this kind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rampton Psychiatric Hospital: Morale
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the morale at Rampton Psychiatric Hospital and whether they will give a date before which the police presence in the hospital will be removed.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I thank in anticipation all those on all sides of the House who are taking part in this debate. I understand that I shall not have the right to thank them afterwards, so I am doing so now.
Like many Members of this House, I have many other outside interests, and two of them are pertinent to my Question this evening. For over 25 years I have been a magistrate and for an equal length of time I have worked with leagues of hospital friends, and it was in that capacity that I was invited to visit Rampton again some 18 months ago and I have been there on several occasions recently. On 22nd May 1979, Yorkshire Television showed a programme about Rampton Hospital which was to have three important repercussions; first, the police were at once put into the hospital, and they are still there; secondly, the Boynton Committee was set up; and thirdly, confidence in the hospital at all levels was shattered and a trail of havoc has followed. At no time did the people making the film go into the hospital.
Rampton is one of four special hospitals. It is an austere building set in austere countryside in Nottinghamshire. In 1961 there were 975 patients.
Today there are 662, 497 male and 165 female; 42.6 per cent. suffer from mental illness, 22.8 per cent. from psychopathic disorder, 18 per cent. from subnormality and 16.6 per cent. from severe subnormality; 265 patients are unrestricted and 397 are restricted and therefore cannot he discharged without the consent of the Home Secretary; 81 per cent. of males come from courts following convictions, 34 per cent. of women are from the courts and only 26 per cent. are restricted. At the beginning of this month there were 1,037 members of staff, of whom 683 were nursing staff, 447 males and 236 females. Nearly all the staff are members of the Prison Officers' Association.
The criteria for admittance to a special hospital is that a patient is dangerous, violent or has criminal propensities. When their treatment is finished they are transferred to National Health hospitals or hostels. Unfortunately, at this time 111 patients are awaiting places. I am told that recidivism is very low, which is a comforting thought.
The Boynton Committee was set up in the autumn of 1979. As a result of very hard detailed work while living in the hospital, the report contained over 200 recommendations. It also contained specific references to the dedication and care of the nursing staff and the help given by the voluntary leagues of hospital friends. The report was also of the opinion that the school of nursing should be maintained.
Recommendations already implemented include the appointment of the Rampton review board of six members, who are making a big impact in the life of the hospital, and the setting up of the hospital medical team, who have day to day responsibilities; that came into operation in June 1981. There was also the appointment of a medical director, who took up his post last spring, as well as other medical appointments. Improvements for the patients include provision of their own lockers and the making available of interview rooms on 13 wards to date, with the hope of more to come. Transistor radios apparently were very important, and patients are allowed to use them in bed. Ties do not have to be worn, except on the admission ward. Auto-shavers are in use, and, to hide the bare walls, pictures, peg boards and posters have been put up. Those are only a few of the very many improvements which have recently been made. The League of Friends gives considerable help by visiting and by arranging coaches for visitors from long distances, and it is now arranging very well-publicised horse-riding lessons. These are very much appreciated.
As I have said, Boynton also made a point of the retention of the school of nursing. Therefore the morale of the nursing staff was recently lowered again when they were told by the General Nursing Council that the school must close. I am told that the intake to the school is unusual, in that mature people often join, perhaps after early retirement in the social fields, and they find a rewarding vocation in nursing the mentally ill. I hope that the Minister will use his considerable influence and powers of persuasion to see that the unit is retained.
In one of my semi-judicial capacities I was able to meet eminent psychiatrists. I have written to several of them, and they have been kind enough to give me their professional opinions. I asked whether they thought that patients' evidence of alleged incidents that may

367
have happened up to 21 years ago could be relied upon. The replies from all but one ranged from, "Probably not", to "No". One said that he thought possibly an incident could be remembered. One doctor gave the view that six years was the maximum period of memory retention. However, all agreed—which is very rare with psychiatrists—that, because of the nature of the illness, patients are prone to exaggeration, suffer from delusions, often go out of their way to make trouble, and can frequently be vicious.
We know of course that even the non-violent patients assault nursing staff. When I visit wards I am aware that I am closely guarded in case of an attack. Although attempts have been made in the past to institute a code of practice for nursing in the special hospitals, so far it has not been found possible to formulate one which covers every contingency at Rampton. That might be one reason why nurses have been charged by the police, and indeed have even had to stand trial.
Of course as a magistrate I agree that offenders must pay the price for their offences. I am also aware that there might be a substandard apple in a barrel. But, my Lords, in my submission it is not possible for a police officer, who is not trained in psychiatry, who does not have the day to day responsibility of coping with, treating, and trying to cure patients—who often are very sick and violent—to differentiate between what might happen in the streets outside and what occasionally can happen when dealing with patients. For instance, the problems of stopping a violent street brawl and stopping violent patients from fighting must be similar, but the difference is that the police officer is not likely to be charged with assault, while the nursing officer might well be charged. It was because of—and only because of—the lack of a code of practice that nurses recently withdrew escort duties, but the review board, with all the interested parties, is now working on this matter and normal duties have been resumed.
The police have been in the hospital for over three years. The net result to date is that there have been charged with offences 21 nurses, six of whom retired or resigned before trial. Charges have been of ill-treatment of patients under Section 126 of the Mental Health Act 1959, and a small number of charges have been preferred under Sections 18 and 47 of the 1861 Act, which are for offences against the person. All charges relate to alleged incidents between 1961–22 years ago—and 1979. Four nurses were found not guilty at Crown Court. Two were found not guilty at magistrates' courts, and two charges were dropped by the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Last Friday at Nottingham the learned judge dismissed most of the charges against four of the nurses, saying that there was insufficient evidence and that the alleged offences were too long ago. Three other nurses were convicted by a jury, and the learned judge awarded nine months, suspended for two years, against two of them and three years, suspended for 18 months, against the other. All six nurses earlier found not guilty have been reinstated at the hospital.
Meanwhile, the nurses are carrying on their very difficult duties with care and devotion, but they are ever mindful that each one of them may receive a summons to attend Worksop police station to answer
368
a charge relating to an incident that is alleged to have happened many years ago. Meanwhile, also, some of the patients are taunting the nurses with threats of "telling on" them to the police. No one can go on working under those conditions of considerable tension. Staff are now weary, deeply disillusioned, frustrated and tired of the endless stress.
I am glad to know that the Secretary of State and my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench have recently been to Rampton. I should like to say, for what it is worth, that I have enormous admiration for everyone working at the hospital. In asking the Minister to use his good offices in the right quarters to withdraw the police from the hospital. I am sure that a new spirit, a new hope, a new confidence in a new challenge will make Rampton Hospital the great place of care and healing that it has always been.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am mindful of the fact that this is not a short debate, but an Unstarred Question, and therefore it behoves me not to make a speech, but merely to elaborate a little upon the noble Baroness's Question, and perhaps add one or two questions of my own. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to this matter of vital public importance—and it is a matter of public importance, not of importance merely to those at Rampton.
In thanking the noble Baroness for her initiative in seeing that this very important matter is noticed and is discussed in your Lordships' House, perhaps it would be appropriate if I also make clear that though the noble Baroness and I are at one on this particular Question, we do not necessarily see eye to eye on all the various matters involved in the history of the events. Indeed, I would say that I differ a little from the noble Baroness in my attitude to the original film by Yorkshire Television—I think it was entitled "The Secret Hospital"—shown in May 1979. I do not for a moment say that everything that was said or suggested in that programme was true. Indeed, we now know that a great deal that was said and suggested was not true. But in my view events and public opinion at that time were such that it was perhaps necessary for somebody to draw attention to the whole matter—and Yorkshire Television did that.
Following that, as the noble Baroness has said, we then had the Boynton Inquiry. I welcomed the Boynton Inquiry, and indeed I warmly welcomed many of the matters in the report. Here, perhaps I might take the liberty of reminding the noble Lord the Minister who is presently to reply of two very brief sentences in the Boynton Report which seemed to me to be very important. They are brief, and I will quote them. In the report (Cmnd. 8073) on page 22, paragraph 5.12, we see this stated by the Boynton Inquiry:
"We think that Rampton operates too much as a closed and secretive institution".
We also see, if we look at the detailed recommendations at the end of the report—and the noble Baroness has referred to these—that Recommendation 203, on page 152, says this:
"Less emphasis can and should be placed at Rampton on the provisions of the Official Secrets Act".
My Lords, I should merely like to ask the noble Lord

369
who is to reply whether progress has in fact been made since those days on those matters, because I share the view of the Boynton Report that it really is very important indeed that institutions such as Rampton, Broadmoor and so on should be exposed to public scrutiny as much as is possible, bearing in mind the need for the staff to be able to get on with their work.
So I hope that progess has been made with opening up these institutions to public scrutiny, but I would go on to say that doing those things—and I think it is necessary to do those things—certainly does not in my view require a permanent police presence. As the noble Baroness has rightly reminded the House, the events into which the police were very properly and correctly inquiring took place a very long time ago, and very few of the present staff at Rampton were in any way concerned in those events. Indeed, many of the present staff at Rampton were not working in the hospital at all.
Perhaps I could go on to say that it seems t o me that the police have more urgent and pressing matters to get on with than merely living permanently in Rampton Hospital. They have very important work to do. Indeed, I might suggest, if this is not digressing too much, in relation to the deplorable events which took place at a public meeting of the police with the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police in London recently, that to my mind the behaviour of the police then was not really related to resentment about low pay. I think it was related in many ways to the tact that the police as a whole are desperately overworked; and while they are desperately overworked I think it is very important to see that numbers of policemen, from whatever force they may come, should not be tied up indefinitely in continuing an operation such as that which has been going on for so very long at Rampton.
Indeed, too, the situation and the climate of opinion have changed. I think, as I said before, it was right that the police went in and carried out a thorough investigation. But they have had long enough to complete that, and I take very much the point that was made by the noble Baroness: it is not helpful to members of staff doing a highly difficult job in extremely difficult circumstances to have the constant feeling of a police presence somewhere looking over their shoulders and looking over their work. I repeat that I think it is necessary that these places should be open to public scrutiny; but, of course, that is going on now. We shall be dealing with another measure in your Lordships' House in a day or two, the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, which sets up a mental health commission and sets up machinery whereby hospitals will be under continuing scrutiny from the point of view of public interest.
Therefore, I think there are a number of developments which have taken place since those days in 1979 which surely make it important that the police presence in Rampton should be removed at the earliest possible moment. I hope that in replying the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell us why it is that after such a long time they are still there; and I hope that he will, perhaps, tell us that it will be possible for that police presence to be ended very soon. And if that is as a result of the initiative which the noble Baroness has taken today, then I would join with so
370
many other noble Lords in your Lordships' House in thanking her for having done what she has done.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we should he grateful to my noble friend Lady Macleod for initiating this debate. Quite apart from the merits of the debate, it is, so far as I know, the first debate in which as many Peeresses will be taking part as noble Lords. That is a fine demonstration of sympathetic sex equality in your Lordships' House. My Lords, I was chairman of MENCAP at the time, 3½ years ago, when this matter came to light, and we were extremely worried because, in addition to the psychopaths, some of them very violent, and the mentally ill at Rampton, there are a number of people there who are simply mentally handicapped to various degrees. Indeed, quite a number of our parent members have or have had mentally handicapped sons and daughters there, including our founder member.
My Lords, it became abundantly plain, when investigations were started after Yorkshire Television did their rather sensational filming of this, that the problem arose through a minority of the staff who were in charge of the most violent patients perhaps exceeding the force that was necessary. It is not for me to question, and I do not question, the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the results of the cases in the courts. I was most relieved, however, to hear my noble friend Lady Macleod say what has happened in the case (which we should not discuss any further) so far as discharges from certain charges are concerned.
My Lords, Rampton has a very wide range of people there for treatment. Some, as I say, are suffering from various degrees of mental handicap, and you go right through various degrees of mental illness to the truly violent psychopaths. It has seemed to us at MENCAP that perhaps not enough care has been taken to separate those three categories, and I suggest that all the information which has come out points at the real necessity for a complete separation of those three categories of people—the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and those with violent criminal tendencies. I do not think that that is a counsel of perfection. I would have thought that as a practical matter it was something which needed to be done. Perhaps by now it been done—we do not know; we may hear this evening. But it is certainly something which should be done, and which, if it has not yet been done, then I hope it soon will be.
So far as the police are concerned, whatever the original complaints against the minority of staff in the 1970s, there can be no justification, in my opinion, for keeping the police there indefinitely. I hope I am not being emotive when I say that it cannot help the staff in this very difficult and demanding work indefinitely to have the police breathing down their necks. Unless it is really necessary, it should not happen; and I cannot believe that it is necessary any longer, after all that has happened in the last three years. So I hope that we shall hear from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne this evening that the suggestions made by my noble friend Lady Macleod have been heeded by the Government and by those responsible for the administration of our criminal law, for whom I have such

371
admiration. I hope we can call this a closed chapter before long.
6.10 p.m.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, it is now over three years since I visited Rampton with the All-Party Parliamentary Mental Health Group, since which time the staff there have been coping with the difficulties caused by the continuing police inquiries and the court cases, some still in progress. Rampton has an enormously difficult and demanding task to fulfil. It has to deal with a population that almost all other institutions and services have failed. On June 1st 1982, there were still 106 people on the "approved for transfer" list at Rampton, despite there having been a more positive response from local hospitals recently, 174 patients having left the hospital in 1981. Rampton has its Eastdale unit for rehabilitation which could offer eleven more places were the funds available but there is no similar unit at all for female patients and the other special hospitals have none either, to my knowledge.
May I ask the Government what the present situation is with regard to the interim secure units? These units were planned to relieve the pressure on the special hospitals but to do this effectively more of these secure units need to he established. Without these, the ordinary psychiatric hospitals will continue to evade their responsibilities for dealing with difficult or unlikeable patients under the Mental Health Act. Since the establishment of a new hospital management at Rampton with the appointment of a medical director, Dr. Alfred Minto, and a review hoard with management responsibility for the hospital, a distinct mental handicap division of approximately 250 men and women has been set up under the care of three newly-appointed consultant psychiatrists who are responsible for both medical and psychiatric care.
Now, Rampton Hospital wants very much to get on with its job. Its medical director, Dr. Alfred Minto, is very keen to bring Rampton into the mainstream of current psychiatric thought and progress and is actively organising seminars, lectures and such to further this purpose. The hospital needs help to reduce its sense of isolation and, with this in view, useful links with neighbouring universities have been established, such as with the School of Social Work at Leicester University. I understand from Mr. Herschel Prins, the director of this school, that they now have various joint activities with Rampton including the placement of social work students. This training and education programme could be extended into the post-qualifying field to include the utilisation of Rampton's facilities; but to do this adequately it needs a continuing injection of funds. This is crucial. Let us not dwell on the past with all its mistakes but look to the future—a brighter one, I trust. I should like to pay tribute to all the dedicated officers and staff at Rampton and I wish them well.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, to perform many tasks in the nursing profession calls for the very finest qualities. Psychiatric nursing in particular makes huge demands and asks for almost superhuman strength of character.
372
Any one of us who has seen the quiet and patient concern and understanding shown by those psychiatric nurses who really find a vocation in such hospitals is left inspired and admiring. Obviously, it would be impractically idealistic to expect all nurses to reach this standard of dedication, but the unselfishness displayed really does deserve the best support of those of us lucky enough to be neither patients nor nurses in those hospitals.
Many of us have felt very disturbed about the difficult conditions for staff at Rampton; so now we are deeply indebted to my noble friend Lady Macleod for giving us this chance to talk about it and for her fact-filled speech. In addition, I should like to back up the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Renton as to categorisation of patients. For a long time I have felt that categorisation of schizophrenic patients alone is something that has not been attended to nearly enough. I hope his appeal today will be heard in wider circles.
In all our thoughts must be anxiety about the morale of nurses working in such taxing circumstances. It seems quite astonishing that so few nurses have thrown in the sponge and left the hospital for good. Nevertheless, it is interesting to know how many of those who have been involved in court cases have later been reinstated. Undoubtedly the morale of the staff at Rampton deserves to he well and truly boosted. These people are carrying out duties that few of the rest of us could claim to have the care and compassion to do. Therefore, the least that we can do is to back up my noble friend lady Macleod in her requests to the Minister.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Faithful!: My Lords, I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for asking this Unstarred Question today, but I have to ask the indulgence of your Lordships because I cannot speak directly to the Motion as it is now eight years since I went to Rampton. But, having said that, four patients to whom I was social worker came to see me within the last few months and I am in touch with them. They are now all, except for one, out in the community and working. I think that that is a tribute to the work done at Rampton.
That is not to say that they have not got some complaints. It would be quite unnatural if they had not; but the complaints were something quite different. The complaints concerned the siting of the hospital. Oxford to Retford and on to Rampton is a terribly difficult journey and the great complaint of the patients with whom I was in personal touch was that they were losing touch with their families. Their families could not visit, their families could not afford to visit and, when they did visit, it had very often to be with one of us social workers because often that was the only way that the family could get to Rampton. If patients are unable to be in touch with their families, they become more disturbed than they are already. I think that we have not looked closely enough at what it is that really disturbs the patients at Rampton. They are disturbed. But not to be in touch with your family, to be miles away from your family, and not to be visited by them, causes great concern. Very often it is only to their families that they will tell

373
anything that they are deeply worried about. Therefore, my Lords, my question to the Minister, alongside the Unstarred Question which the noble Baroness has asked, is this: Is there any possibility that there could be regionalisation of the special hospitals, particularly Rampton? As the noble Baroness has said, we have four hospitals in this country; but Rampton is particularly and peculiarly difficult to get to.
The noble Baroness spoke with warmth of the League of Hospital Friends, and I support her tribute to them. Canon Mason, the chairman, arranges outings for the patients and, where possible, he arranges for patients' families to come along. But this cannot be very often. At Broadmoor there are 800 visitors visiting patients who have no family to visit them. There are three such visitors at Rampton. The reason why there are three of these visitors at Rampton is because of its remoteness and the fact that it is right out in the country. Despite the points made by the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who told us of the interest taken by the universities, university people come and go. What is needed is consistency, and what is needed is the same person visiting year after year. So my question to the Minister—and I repeat it—is this: Is there any hope of setting up smaller hospitals in different parts of the country and regionalising the special hospitals? This would be an asset not only to the patients whose families could keep in touch with them, but to the staff and thus to the running of the hospital.
6.21 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, it is just over three years since I visited Rampton in October 1979, but it was an unforgettable experience. The distressful state of mind of many of the patients was equalled only by one's admiration for the devotion and skill of the staff. It is because of this that it is most fitting that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, should have asked this Question this evening.
For more than three years publicity has been directed against certain members of the staff who may or may not have felt or displayed temper under extreme provocation. Some have paid the penalties of the law for it—others have a cloud hanging over them. Surely it is high time that this was brought to a conclusion for the sake of both nurses and patients. It is to be expected that mentally ill or mentally handicapped patients will have delusions about ill-treatment on the part of the staff and then forget what they have said. Is it possible that the memories of mentally ill or mentally handicapped patients can be relied upon over a short period, let alone a long one? We all know how difficult it often appears to be for details to be remembered by apparently sane witnesses.
What has happened to the code of practice for Rampton? Why has it not yet been formulated? I believe it is under urgent discussion, but could not the medical director promulgate a set of draft guidelines with the proviso that they could be modified or disused after the final code of practice has been agreed? The reason why the nurses recently withdrew from their escort duties but have since continued those duties was because of a lack of a code. One has to remember that nurses have from time to time to deal with violent patients and must be allowed to use such force as is
374
necessary to restrain them, to protect not only themselves but others, and to prevent the unfortunate patients from hurting themselves.
I am glad to know that the review board proposed by Sir John Boynton in his report on Rampton has been set up and is operating. I was also glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, say that it is giving great help. Could the Minister say whether it is likely to continue after its three years (I think that is the period) are up? Could the Minister when he replies also say whether nursing auxiliaries are or can he employed at Rampton? It seems to me to be wholly reasonable that no nurse should ever be alone with violent patients in view of the danger both of possible violence and of unfounded allegations. It is here perhaps that nursing auxiliaries could be of real help, where the highest degree of nursing skill is not involved.
My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply what opportunities the staff have for transfer to other institutions. After several years nurses might well feel that they would benefit from a change of scene within their profession. Every week one reads in the newspapers of the posting of members of the armed services and others. Such changes could perhaps be beneficial to both the nurses and the patients, and maybe a grant or payment to help them with the move would be possible.
In The Times of last Saturday, 23rd October, there was a report about Rampton. Three nurses were acquitted of the charges. The offences were alleged to have taken place in 1961 and one nurse is now stated to be 71 years old. The judge said:
"There was no supporting evidence for the allegations, and since the events were said to have taken place 21 years ago, recollections could be dimmed."
Would the Minister say whether there are many such cases outstanding of stale charges? If there are, is it not time that there should be an end to it? How can there he peace at Rampton if nurses continue to be kept in suspense and under suspicion? How can the nurses under these circumstances be expected to impart a sense of security and confidence to the patients who are at Rampton precisely because they need those things?
6.16 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, although this is a very important Question directed towards a relatively narrow point and has been asked by my noble friend Lady Macleod with her usual sensitivity and compassion, this particular very disturbing Question raises wider issues, although I do not propose to go into that situation this evening.
I have not visited Rampton or any of the other special hospitals; but obviously, anybody who has served on the committee of a mental hospital will take a very deep interest in the situation at Rampton Hospital. One of the great problems of this hospital—and although I have not visited Rampton I am reasonably familiar with some of the territory around that area—is that it is six miles from Retford, which is the nearest main line station. The weekend services to Retford, particularly the Sunday rail services, are not particularly frequent. That means that people coming from the London area, for example, or from the South of England who may have

375
relatives and friends at Rampton, find it difficult for weekend visiting. I understand from the admirable Boynton Report that Monday is the other day for official visits. This may be somewhat more convenient for travelling, but obviously it is not so for those who have other jobs to perform.
A few weeks ago there was a very disturbing series of television programmes on the women's prison at Styal in Cheshire. I only mention this because two of the women in this programme, who were looked after with great devotion by the wardresses of that hospital—and there was no question of any ill-treatment there—were, certainly so far as I could tell, confirmed psychopaths who should certainly be in an institution such as Rampton. But as my noble friend has already stated, there are a number of inmates or patients in Rampton already waiting to be transferred to other establishments. Here is the very difficult anomaly which must face any mental health tribunal, review board or indeed Her Majesty's Government. I should like to ask my noble friend: what consideration has been given to this point?
Two hundred and two recommendations were made in the outstandingly clear report from Sir John Boynton. Obviously, in an Unstarred Question, one cannot go into details about these, but one concerns the matter of night duty. I accept that many of these recommendations have been acted upon or are, hopefully, in course of being acted upon. I should like to ask: what is the present situation regarding night duty? Twenty years of consistent night duty, which is stated as having taken place so far as some nurses are concerned, seems to be an inordinately long time, particularly with such disturbed patients.
The League of Friends at Rampton and elsewhere perform the most marvellous job. Indeed, one wonders how any hospital, be it a general hospital, a psychiatric hospital or a special hospital of any kind, could function at all so far as the welfare of patients is concerned without the League of Friends; and so I should like to pay a real tribute to them.
Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can to tell your Lordships how many of the 202 recommendations regarding Rampton Hospital, as instanced in the Boynton Report, have been acted upon or are in the process of being acted upon. My noble friend, happily, has mentioned some of the more important points, such as transistor sets in rooms and improvements in bus transport and so on. I would hope that facilities will be made available for more of your Lordships and Members of the other place who have not yet visited these places to do so, because I believe that Members of both Houses of Parliament have a duty, and particularly those of us who are interested in this question of mental health at whatever level, to make ourselves acquainted with these establishments where very hardworking and hard-pressed nursing staffs are looking after extremely difficult patients who are frequently violent through no fault of their own.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, first may I say that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, in thanking her supporters, as she expected, in advance, has
376
certainly got the results she asked for. Because so many Members have spoken, giving very briefly their expertise, my job from these Benches is to speak as briefly as possible in order to give the noble Lord as much time as he needs and deserves to reply.
Let us face it, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has painted a serious and worrying picture which must give cause for concern, and in raising this issue for us tonight she has done a good service. I would particularly agree with her that it is a mistake to close or to envisage closing the school of nursing. This does have an effect on the morale of the nursing profession because a school of nursing does confer prestige on a hospital, and nurses are naturally very proud and conscious of the prestige of their profession. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that surely something could be evolved without having to call in the police.
I would also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—and how right she is—and also with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the lack of visitors and distance from family can cause worry and unrest in addition to other things, and this does not help the patient's condition. That, of course, applies not only to Rampton, but to Her Majesty's prisons as well, as your Lordships will realise.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the mental hospital staffs and particularly to the nurses, not only at Rampton, but generally throughout the country, because we must recognise that theirs is a very difficult job calling for extreme patience and skill. I recollect some years ago visiting a Durham hospital and going through the women's section (where a male has to be closely escorted) with a matron. It was very touching indeed to see some women touch the matron's cloak and give every sign of happiness in so doing. That impressed me so much that I cannot forget that particular picture.
Let us also recognise that some patients, because of their illness, can be unpredictable in behaviour and sudden violence may arise which puts the nurse at risk. This is something they always have to be prepared to face as part of their job in the course of their duties. I well remember many years ago having to help a male nurse whose skull had been fractured by a patient suddenly hitting him over the head with a chair. So it is not only a question of patient care; it is a matter of looking after the staff as well. In special hospitals, such as Rampton, obviously the risk of patients becoming violent is even greater, because of the special category of patients.
As has already been indicated, there is at present no code of practice and I agree that it would be extremely difficult to formulate such a code: but some nurses have to work in difficult conditions and at greater risk than their colleagues in other mental hospitals. As we are to evolve a code of practice generally for our mental hospitals, I am wondering whether it would not be possible in the proposals in the Bill which is still before Parliament to extend it to special hospitals, because in this case a different code of practice would need to be evolved.
I should like to ask the Minister for some reassurance on another point. Although I am open to correction on this, I understand that tribunals which will be set up under the new Bill would not apply to special hospitals, I hope I am wrong here, but if they

377
can be brought forward for special hospitals I think it would ease the present position. I think that such tribunals, in the case of special hospitals, would have to be separately staffed in order to deal with the problems they would face. I would say in passing that it seems incredible that witnesses should be asked for evidence of incidents going back some 20 years. It looks as though there is some lag on tribunals in this case, which would he eased if we brought in special tribunals for the future.
Patients have rights, and legislation which is before Parliament will advance them. I refer specifically, of course, to the new Bill; but we must not overlook the fact that staff have rights too, and protection must also be extended to them. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be able to indicate the present position and say what steps, if any, the Government are prepared to take to improve the matters which have been so well outlined by the noble Baroness.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must, of course, start by thanking my noble friend for bringing this Question to the attention of your Lordships. I should like, before responding to the debate, to pay tribute to the valuable work which she does as national Chairman of the Leagues of Hospital Friends, but particularly for the interest she has shown in Rampton Hospital and the encouragement which she has given to the staff working in the hospital during a very difficult period. The League of Friends of Rampton Hospital, under the chairmanship of Canon Mason, have given considerable support over the years to patients at the hospital, to patients' visitors and to the staff, and I gladly include them in this tribute. I know something of the great lengths to which my noble friend has gone in giving her personal support to Canon Mason and his colleagues and to all at the hospital.
Since I took up my present ministerial appointment, in which I have a particular concern with mental health services, I have visited a large number of hospitals and other units, to get a first-hand impression of the work which they are doing. I have a particular concern with the special hospitals and I did, in fact, visit Rampton Hospital, as part of my preparation for this debate, on Friday, 15th October. This provided me with a most valuable opportunity to meet the local managers of the hospital, and staff representatives, and to visit many of the wards and departments where I was able to talk to a large number of patients and individual members of the staff.
I think I should first make some general comments about the special hospital service as a whole, before moving to the particular situation at Rampton Hospital. There are four special hospitals, the others being Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire—probably the best known—and two hospitals situated just north of Liverpool, which I have also visited recently. These are Moss Side Hospital, which has been in use since the 1930s, and the completely new Park Lane Hospital, which is still being built, although it already accommodates some 200 patients in facilities which I believe are as good as could be found anywhere in the world. The buildings at the other special hospitals obviously do not compare with these, but the care provided in them is, of course, of an equally high standard.
378
The four special hospitals are provided in accordance with Section 4 of the National Health Service Act 1977, which places on the Secretary of State for Social Services a duty,
"to provide and maintain establishments for persons subject to detention under the Mental Health Act 1959 who, in his opinion, require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities".
Since the point is sometimes misunderstood, I think I should emphasise that this is the only basis upon which people are admitted to special hospitals. Most of the patients have been sent there from the courts, but the special hospitals are places of treatment and not in any sense of punishment. In fact, nearly 25 per cent. of all the patients in these hospitals were not admitted in connection with any offence, but were transferred from other psychiatric hospitals or admitted direct from the community.
There are hundreds of thousands of people who at any one time are suffering from some form of mental disorder. Seven thousand people are compulsorily detained under the Mental health Act. Of these, only 1,750 are in the special hospitals. We are thus concerned with a tiny minority of mental patients who, for some time at least, require to be treated under conditions of special security. Unlike all other hospitals in the National Health Service, these four hospitals are the direct responsibility of my department, and the 2,800 staff who work in them are employees of my department. The hospitals are, as I have said, provided under the terms of the National Health Service Act, and the care and treatment given in them is part of the total spectrum of health care which the National Health Service provides.
I turn now to Rampton Hospital. This hospital is situated in a rural area near Retford in Nottinghamshire. My noble friend described it as austere countryside. But I must say that I thought it was rather beautiful when I visited the district the other day. Originally opened in 1912, the hospital was responsible from 1920 onwards for the care of mentally handicapped people under secure conditions, when it operated under the direction of the former Board of Control. Since 1959, the hospital has been the direct responsibility of my department. The number of patients in the hospital has fallen significantly in recent years. At the present time, as my noble friend said, there are about 650 patients—three-quarters of them male and one-quarter female. There has also been a substantial shift in the types of patient in the hospital; less than half of the total are now suffering from mental handicap. I will deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton in a moment.
At Rampton Hospital, as in all the special hospitals, a full range of therapeutic treatment is provided and there is a variety of industrial and other occupations. Care is provided by a number of disciplines, including doctors, nurses, psychologists and social workers. In total, there are about 1,000 staff employed at the hospital, some 670 of whom are nursing staff. I think it may be helpful to quote these figures—some 650 patients cared for by 1,000 staff—to indicate to your Lordships the scale of the task which is undertaken in this hospital.
On 22nd May, 1979, as my noble friend reminded your Lordships, a film about Rampton Hospital was

379
shown on independent television. The film, which was entitled "The Secret Hospital", included many serious allegations of ill-treatment of patients by members of the staff at the hospital. The then Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Mr. Patrick Jenkin, referred these allegations to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who arranged for the allegations to be investigated by the Nottinghamshire police. It is the protracted nature of these inquiries which has given rise to the concern expressed by my noble friend and other noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken this evening.
Mr. Jenkin also announced his intention to institute a thorough review of the organisation and facilities at the hospital. A review team was subsequently appointed under the chairmanship of Sir John Boynton. In October 1980, the review team produced a comprehensive report, which was published in full and which included more than 200 separate recommendations. If your Lordships will allow me, I will deal with some of those recommendations in a moment. But, for now, may I just refer to the central one, which was the establishment of a special health authority, to be known as the Rampton Hospital Review Board, to take over responsibility for the local management of the hospital and to ensure the implementation of the Boynton team's recommendations.
The review board assumed its responsibility in September 1981. The chairman of the board, who devotes two day a week—as well as a lot of other time—to the management of the hospital, is Mr. Leslie Teeman, a leading businessman in the East Midlands. Mr. Teeman and his colleagues on the board, originally five and now six, undertook a challenging task when they accepted their appointments. Changes were needed at the hospital, but it was not a case of starting from scratch. As the Boynton team had acknowledged, and as the members of the review board came to recognise, there was already much that was good about Rampton Hospital, a fact which has received all too little recognition in the various public comments. The staff of the hospital were providing dedicated care for some of the most seriously mentally disordered patients in the country. All of those staff had been bruised by the general accusations which were then flying about. Rampton Hospital is a human institution and it is not surprising that the morale of many staff in the hospital had been undermined, initially by the sensational accusations being made, and subsequently by the extensive, but entirely necessary, police inquiries at the hospital.
Thus, the task facing the review board was to help restore confidence and morale; to build on what was good—and, as I have said, there was much that was good in this hospital—and to seek to make changes where needed in the light of the Boynton recommendations. This task called for high qualities—of patience and understanding, as well as imagination, vigour and determination. I am very glad to acknowledge the sympathetic and enthusiastic manner in which the members of the board have set about their task. One of the national characteristics, from which we so greatly benefit in this country, is the willingness
380
of able people to undertake public service often in difficult circumstances. The service which the members of the Rampton Hospital Review Board are giving typifies so much of what is best in our society and all of us owe them a debt of gratitude and the assurance of our full encouragement.
My noble friend has drawn the attention of your Lordships to the effect on staff morale at Rampton Hospital of the protracted police inquiries. I can assure her that my colleagues and I are fully aware of the problems which have arisen. Both we and the chairman of the review board, while recognising the difficult task facing those responsible for conducting the investigations, have drawn the attention of the prosecuting authorities to the effects of the protracted inquiries on staff morale and thus on the effective management of the hospital, and the consequent need to complete the investigations as soon as this could properly be done. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General acknowledged this problem when he replied to an adjournment debate in another place on this subject on 2nd March this year.
I think it is important, however, while recognising the difficulties, that we should take great care to avoid saying anything which might have a further adverse effect upon morale. The review board members are seeking to restore both the morale and the confidence of the staff of the hospital. I believe, from what I saw on my recent visit, that they have achieved a great deal and I hope that I, too, was able to make a modest contribution when I was there. We must give them positive encouragement in this important aspect of their work.
My noble friend referred particularly to the effect on morale of the loss of the hospital's status as a nurse training school. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, mentioned this, and at least one other noble Lord or noble Baroness. The decision to withdraw approval from the school was taken by the General Nursing Council, which is, of course, an independent professional body with statutory responsibility for such matters. I am aware of the background to the GNC decision, which I do not, of course, question. I do, however, agree very much with my noble friend's view that the existence of an approved nurse training school in a hospital is an important influence for good; and there is no doubt that the withdrawal of approval from the school was a further severe blow to management and to staff at Rampton Hospital.
A great deal of work has been done at the hospital since the approval was withdrawn to deal with the various matters which have given rise to criticism. I understand that the nursing management of the hospital will shortly be submitting an application for reinstatement of the school's approval. This is a matter entirely for the GNC to decide but I wish to say in plain terms that all of us concerned with the management of the special hospitals very much hope that in the light of the new circumstances the application will be successful and that basic nurse training approval will be restored at Rampton Hospital just as soon as possible.
I turn now from the particular concern of my own department with its responsibility for the management of the special hospitals to the question of police presence in Rampton Hospital. The special police inquiry team which has been carrying out the inquiry

381
into allegations against some members and former members of the staff at the hospital was set up following the request to the Director of Public Prosecutions in May 1979 to which I have already referred. I am aware that my noble friend has been in correspondence about these matters with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, and I have of course consulted my right honourable and learned friend about the response which I should make on this aspect of my noble friend's Question.
Let me first make clear the Government's attitude to abuse or neglect of patients. We are aware that in the special hospitals and in mental hospitals in the National Health Service an enormous amount of care and treatment of the highest standard is given to patients by the dedicated staff who work in those hospitals. But we also know that mistreatment or neglect can occasionally occur, and I say unequivocally that where there is any evidence of such mistreatment or neglect it will not be tolerated.
It is also sometimes alleged that some members of staff cover up the misdeeds of colleagues out of a misdirected sense of loyalty, or bring pressure on others not to complain if they see any wrongdoing. Our position on this also is absolutely clear. I can do no better than to quote the words of my right honourable friend Mr. Jenkin when, as Secretary of State for Social Services, he addressed an international psychiatric nursing conference in September 1980. He said then:
"Management must support those who complain; there must be thorough investigations; and victimisation or intimidation of those who are doing their duty must be ruthlessly stamped on."
I am sure that all of your Lordships would endorse those sentiments.
So our attitude to any wrongdoing against patients is clear. It is totally unacceptable and must be rooted out wherever it occurs. But we recognise that the kind of exhaustive inquiries which may he needed to establish the truth regarding allegations of wrongdoing can have a depressive effect on the hospital concerned, not only for those against whom allegations might lie but for the general body of the hospital's staff who have to carry on the daily business of caring for patients against a background of suspicion and often ill-informed comment. It is this problem to which my noble friend has drawn the attention of your Lordships in the case of Rampton Hospital.
The position at Rampton Hospital is that, following the reference of this question to the DPP and the setting up of the special police inquiry team, more than a thousand separate allegations were received. The police team was thus faced with a mammoth task of investigation to enable the prosecuting authorities to decide whether there were cases in which the evidence required prosecutions to be brought. The allegations made were of many different kinds. All of them had to be looked into. Some were very serious, others trivial. The vast majority of the allegations received have not been substantiated, or were of a character which could not have given rise to any question of prosecution. But in some instances the prosecuting authorities were satisfied that the evidence did justify charges. This is not the occasion to comment on the nature of particular allegations. That
382
would be quite wrong, especially as some trials are still to take place, but your Lordships will wish to know that, of the cases so far concluded, one person has been convicted of the single charge made against him, three people have each been convicted of one or more of the charges made against them, and are currently seeking leave to appeal; nine people have been acquitted of all the charges against them (three of these were involved in the recent case in which the judge, after hearing the prosecution evidence, directed the jury to acquit the defendants); and the charges against two people have been dropped.
My noble friend, who has taken a close interest in these matters, now asks explicitly for a date after which there will be no more police presence at the hospital. I understand completely why she seeks that undertaking, but I am afraid I must tell her that an undertaking cannot be given in that form. There are two main reasons for this. First, so long as criminal proceedings are continuing—and it may be some time before the remaining charges now outstanding will have all been finally disposed of—the police may have to visit the hospital to obtain information required by those responsible for conducting the prosecutions in connection with the charges which have already been brought.
Thus we must expect that the police inquiry team set up to investigate the allegations at Rampton Hospital will continue in existence until the last of the outstanding charges has been disposed of I should emphasise that responsibility for the inquiry team rests, as it must do, with the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire who has been responsible for conducting these investigations on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be for the chief constable to decide if and when the inquiry team should be disbanded. But I can inform your Lordships that the inquiry team which, at the peak of the investigations, included 20 police officers has now been reduced to six, with two supervisory officers. This is a clear indication that, as we would all hope, this matter is now nearing its end. Thus, the first reason why I cannot give the undertaking which my noble friend seeks is the essentially practical one, that the work which this police inquiry team is doing is not yet completed and will not be completed before the outstanding charges have all been disposed of.
The second reason why I cannot give the undertaking is more fundamental and is a matter of principle. The assurance being sought is that beyond a certain date the police will pay no more visits to the hospital in relation to the matters which the special inquiry team was set up to investigate, except possibly for some limited purpose. I am told by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General that some allegations are still being made. Generally, these are not revealing any fresh matters of substance. But if some matter should be brought to notice which indicated that a serious offence might have been committed, clearly the police must be free to investigate it. We have no grounds for supposing that any such matter remains uninvestigated or undiscovered; but it would be quite wrong in principle to give an undertaking in terms which could be seen as preventing the police from properly investigating any serious allegation which might arise either at Rampton Hospital or elsewhere, no matter how unlikely the

383
possibility of any such allegation might seem at present. There could be no question of Ministers seeking to interfere with the actions of the police in such a matter.
I hope the House and my noble friend will recognise that I have chosen my words with care and that there are sound reasons why I cannot, on behalf of the Government, give the undertaking which she seeks. I hope, however, that the explanation which I have given her will serve as some reassurance both to her and to the management and staff at Rampton Hospital that we have now reached a stage where we would expect that any continuing police presence in the hospital is likely to be limited to inquiries relating to charges which have already been brought or to any fresh matter of substance that might be brought to notice. I believe that goes a very long way towards meeting my noble friend's point. But I am, in fact, able to go even further—and I am very glad to be able to do so.
My noble friend is probably aware that the police inquiry team recently questioned, under caution, five more members of the staff at Rampton Hospital. Four of them have since been told that they are to be charged and the fifth has been told he will not be. I am now able to tell my noble friend and your Lordships, on the authority of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, that those charges are the last which are to be brought as a result of the information obtained by the police inquiry team over the last three and a half years. No further charges are to be preferred as a result of those investigations. As I have indicated, if any new matters of substance should be brought to notice, they must be properly investigated, but I am sure that my noble friend will have been glad to receive the information I have just given. It will. I know, be widely welcomed by the management and staff at Rampton Hospital.
I have already spoken at some length and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not deal with individual points which have been raised in this debate. But I will certainly write to noble Lords who have raised them with a full response. The end of the ordeal which the hospital has now been suffering for more than three years really is, at last, in sight. As I said earlier. I have recently met and talked to many people in the hospital. I have seen clear evidence of the valuable work undertaken by staff in the hospital, often under very difficult circumstances—work which few of us would want to share. The tribute which I wish to pay to them is in no sense rhetoric or formality. Society asks these people to undertake on its behalf one of the most difficult jobs that anyone can be asked to do. We rarely show any recognition of the value of this work, usually preferring to sensationalise or criticise; but my colleagues and I certainly do recognise its value. We wish to give to staff and management the support they deserve and to encourage them to look to the future with a positive resolve to continue to care for their patients with commitment and dedication and at the same time to keep fully abreast of new developments in treatment and care.
Before I end, I want also to repeat my tribute to Mr. Teeman and his review board. They took on their task at a time of great difficulty for the hospital and have rendered a considerable service, not least to the
384
patients. We are indeed most grateful to them. I have sought to make the most of the timely opportunity provided by my noble friend to deal with the understandable anxieties prevalent at Rampton Hospital. I have been able to give some new assurances which I hope will be widely read—not least at the hospital itself.

Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last, agrred to with amendments; the amendments were printed pursuant to Standing order 47 (No. 230).
Criminal Justice Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with another amendment agreed to but with a consequential amendment to the Bill; with certain other amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining amendments disagreed to but with amendments made in lieu thereof; the Commons amendments to be printed pursuant to Standing Order 47 (No. 231).
Cornwall County Council Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee on unopposed provisions with amendments.
County of Lancashire Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee on unopposed provisions with amendments.
Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on unopposed provisions with amendments.
British Transport Docks Bill
The Examiner's certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.

Southern Water Authority Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes past seven o'clock.

  WORMWOOD SCRUBS: PRISONERS' MAIL
  WORMWOOD SCRUBS: PRISONERS' MAIL
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS: TERMS OF LICENCE
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS: TERMS OF LICENCE
  THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876: REVISION
  THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876: REVISION
  AIRGUNS: DANGER TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS
  AIRGUNS: DANGER TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS
  LEAD LEVELS IN LONDON SCHOOLS
  LEAD LEVELS IN LONDON SCHOOLS
  SWANS: LEAD POISONING
  SWANS: LEAD POISONING
  SEWAGE DISPOSAL: IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
  SEWAGE DISPOSAL: IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
  UK CITIZENS IN THE EC AND THE EDUCATION (MANDATORY AWARDS) REGULATIONS
  UK CITIZENS IN THE EC AND THE EDUCATION (MANDATORY AWARDS) REGULATIONS
  BRITISH CHEESES: DIPLOMATIC HOSPITALITY
  BRITISH CHEESES: DIPLOMATIC HOSPITALITY
  NICARAGUA: EC AID AND UK POLICY
  NICARAGUA: EC AID AND UK POLICY
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
  SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACEMENTS: PARENTS' COMPLAINTS
  SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACEMENTS: PARENTS' COMPLAINTS
  FARM CAPITAL GRANTS: GUIDANCE
  FARM CAPITAL GRANTS: GUIDANCE
  WARRENPOINT DOCKS: DRAUGHT AND TONNAGE OF SHIPS
  WARRENPOINT DOCKS: DRAUGHT AND TONNAGE OF SHIPS
  H-BOMB TESTS AT CHRISTMAS ISLAND 1957
  H-BOMB TESTS AT CHRISTMAS ISLAND 1957