Sitting of 24 July 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    PORTSEA HARBOUR COMPANY BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 26 July.

    COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 26 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Military Installations (Security)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security of the Greenham common site and other military installations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security situation at Greenham common air base; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Security at all military installations is under constant review. The high security areas within defence establishments, including that at RAF Greenham common, are very comprehensively protected.
    Mr. Greenway: How were two women able to live undetected inside the perimeter fence for almost a week recently? Why do the police seem to stand by while so-called peace women cut the chain link fencing and thereby gain access to the base, putting the defence of Britain last and their own eccentric behaviour first?
    Mr. Stanley: The evidence on the ground does not substantiate the claims of the ladies in question that they spent a week in that particular place. A distinction needs to be drawn between the protection of outer perimeters and of the high security areas. Although we divert as much as we reasonably can by way of finance and manpower to the protection of the outer perimeter fences, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that the key issue at Greenham common is the proper protection of the high security area, and, as I said, that has been comprehensively protected.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the security of our entire nation, never mind Greenham common air base, is at stake, that these horrific weapons are a menace to everybody, and that the majority of British people want to be rid of them? Does he further realise that his viewpoint on this matter is even worse than the security at Greenham common? The right hon. Gentleman has not yet realised just how deeply the British people feel about these horrific weapons.
    Mr. Stanley: I do not know which general election the hon. Gentleman fought last year, but it does not seem to have been the one that was fought by my right hon. and hon. Friends, when the British people gave a decisive mandate in favour of the Government's policies.
    Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise again, for the benefit of the House, the difference between the outer and inner perimeters? Will he confirm that no one has penetrated anywhere near those parts of the base which really matter?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The point that he makes is correct. I can also confirm that there has been no penetration of the high security area of Greenham common.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has it been made clear to the American forces, in the terms of the Secretary of State's recent written reply to me, that their powers in relation to trespassers in these bases do not exceed those of the ordinary citizen under the common law and that their liabilities correspond?
    Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the responsibility for informing American service men of their obligations under United Kingdom law rests with the American commander, and I am sure that they have been fully informed of the requirements and limitations of United Kingdom legislation.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that cruise missiles will continue to be deployed on practice runs outside the base at Greenham common, thereby emphasising that Greenham common is nothing more than a bomb-proof garage and underlining the pointlessness of the protest?
    Mr. Stanley: I can confirm that off-base training deployment will continue. That is the Government's firm policy.
    Mr. Strang: As the missiles are currently deployed outside the base, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are consulted in advance of the training exercises? As no live missiles are being carried, will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government would be able to veto any decision to take live missiles out of Greenham common?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made it clear on many occasions that no live missiles will be deployed for training purposes. I assure him that the off-base training deployment takes place after the closest consultation and liaison with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an apposite word in the English language to describe those who deliberately undermine the safety and security of the nation of which they are citizens? Can he recall what it is?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I fully take the point that he makes.
    Mr. Denzil DaviesIs it not a fact that at the end of the day the British Government's writ does not run in Greenham common and that ultimate security and control over the firing of these missiles lie with the United States Government? Is the Minister aware that recently the chief of staff of the United States army, General Meyer, admitted in a Congressional Committee hearing that missiles can at times of tenson and emergency be fired by the theatre commander? How does that square with the Government's attempt to pretend that they have a veto over the firing of the cruise missiles?
    Mr. Stanley: That reference to General Meyer has been made before. I have read his statement carefully, and I have found that it is not open to the construction that the right hon. Gentleman has put upon it. The United Kingdom's position is exactly as has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that no cruise missiles in this country can be fired or launched without her consent.

    Trident
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The running costs of the Trident force must be to some extent speculative at this time, but as a percentage of the defence budget it is unlikely to be significantly different from the present cost of Polaris; that is, some 1·5 per cent. each year.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that the cost of Trident increases by about £25 million for every 1 cent fall of the pound against the dollar? As the Government have admitted that they have no control over the way in which the dollar reacts in the world economy, why are they prepared to write a blank cheque for nuclear missiles to provide Americans with jobs, but are not prepared to write a blank cheque to sustain Britain's coal reserves?
    Mr. Heseltine: The answer, briefly, is that the Government believe that it is necessary for the United Kingdom to have an ultimate deterrent. Short of facing the Soviet Union with the hon. Gentleman, I can think of no other more effective ultimate deterrent.
    Mr. Dixon: Does the Secretary of State agree that Trident is a complete waste of money? Had Trident been in service two years ago during the Falklands dispute, it would not have deterred Galtieri, but it would have made it impossible to send a task force to the south Atlantic. The money to be spent on Trident will be at the expense of the surface fleet. Will the Government change their mind and cancel this useless project?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, the Government will not change their mind. We expect the spending on the conventional navy to be higher in each year of this decade than it was when the Government were first elected.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is it not essential that the Government should carry through their plan to acquire
    808
    Trident for two reasons: first, that we cannot be sure that Polaris will be effective in penetrating hostile defences of the sort that are likely to be deployed in the mid 1990s; and, secondly, that there is no alternative to Trident which will be effective and cost less money?
    Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is, of course, perfectly correct. The one question on which the Labour party does not agree is the scale of the threat posed by the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Johnston: Does not the possession of Trident assume its unilateral use without the agreement of the United States? If it does not mean that, why have Trident?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that it is a totally independent British system. The whole purpose of the possession of such a system is deterrence, not use.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Trident programme is on time and will not be affected by internal wranglings at British Shipbuilders?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I had noted comments of the kind that might have prompted her question. I believe that we shall carry through the Trident programme as we have planned.
    Mr. James Lamond: When contemplating spending thousands of millions of pounds on Trident, even if the money is spent over several years, does not the Secretary of State's conscience bother him when he looks at the television programmes about the starving children in the Third world?
    Mr. Heseltine: My conscience would bother me a great deal more if I looked at the threat of the Soviet Union and did not ensure that this country was adequatedly defended.
    Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the running costs of the present strategic nuclear force are under 0·1 per cent. of our gross national product? Is that not a remarkably low price to pay for the preservation of peace? Will not exactly the same arguments apply to Trident?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not seen that statistic. I am sure that it is soundly based. I believe the House realises that the running costs of Trident are likely to be broadly equivalent to the costs that were appropriate to the running of Polaris. As the Labour Government ran Polaris for such a significant time and and in secret modernised it with the Chevaline process, I had assumed that, on this issue at least, we would be able to find commmon accord with the Labour Party.
    Mr. Madden: Why is the Secretary of State so coy about the costs of Trident? Does he agree that, if the Trident programme were abandoned, the National Health Service could meet the real needs of the people, we could have houses for those who are in need of housing and give decent pensions to the people?
    Mr. Heseltine: We would have a Government who would sell out the country's basic interests for each cheap promise that the Labour party is capable of designing.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State saying that the comments by a former chairman of Vickers—that

    809
    there is difficulty in finding the sort of skilled staff needed for the Trident programme and that the dismissal of a former managing director of Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness is a disaster for the Trident programme—are incorrect? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is possible to bring in the Trident programme on the time scale that was originally suggested?
    Mr. Heseltine: Of course, I have seen the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He will be aware that the responsibility for the management of that yard must lie with British Shipbuilders. It is for British Shipbuilders to answer the detailed questions and to be sure that it has the management necessary to carry out the decisions.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that we understand why he is frightened to put a figure on the running costs of Trident.? Will he confirm that the running and support costs of Polaris come to about £600 million per year? Will he also confirm that it is reasonable to infer that the costs for Trident will certainly not be less than £600 million?
    Mr. Heseltine: If I had to confirm the figures in which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to believe and upon which he presumably bases his totally indefensible defence policies, I might feel some concern; but, as the right hon. Gentleman's figures are much closer to 300 per cent. of the actual costs, they show how wildly inaccurate he is.

    Chiefs of Staff Committees
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements for policy examination and co-ordination by members of the service chiefs of staff committees in respect of defence policy aspects affecting the three services.
    Mr. Heseltine: The changes described in the White Paper "The Central Organisation for Defence", are designed, among other things, to improve the Ministry's ability to reach the best defence-wide solutions. The chiefs of staff committee will continue to be the forum in which the chief of defence staff, as principal military adviser to the Government, seeks the advice of the service chiefs of staff. They will have full access to the advice of the new, unified defence staff; and they will have sufficient single-service staff to enable them to direct the work of their own services, as chairmen of the service executive committees.
    Mr. Dykes: My right hon. Friend made a full statement about this matter last week, and we now have the White Paper, but does he agree that the brouhaha about the change has been somewhat overdone? As he said, there is no net reduction in the role of the chiefs of staff. As they will have complete access to the new unified defence policy appraisal committee, will that not strengthen rather than weaken their intrinsic role?
    Mr. Heseltine: Any change brings uncertainty in advance. The chiefs of staff have a responsibility to point out their anxieties. I admire them for doing that. I take my hon. Friend's point that, under the new arrangements for the Ministry of Defence, if anything, they will have an enhanced opportunity to influence defence policy. That will emerge as the new system shakes down.
    Mr. McNamara: If the Secretary of State is correct and the role of the service chiefs is enhanced, why have they been making all this row?
    Mr. Heseltine: As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), there is always uncertainty in advance of change. It is perfectly legitimate for those who are the custodians of the single services to express any reservations that they may have. I must point out, however, that the chiefs of staff have now given a clear commitment that they will work for the system, and they believe that it is workable.

    North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet Lord Carrington to discuss the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's area of operations.
    Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir. There are no plans to enlarge the NATO area of operations.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the continuing threats to Western interests in the Gulf region require NATO to review its policy east of Suez instead of leaving it to the involvement of some member states?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he raises an important point. In the conduct of foreign affairs, the reality is that NATO will not act as a unified body in areas which are not immediately linked to its geographic base.
    Mr. Douglas: In any discussions with Lord Carrington, will the Secretary of State discuss our position in relation to the British flag fleet and whether we should have to call on NATO partners to sustain and support us across the Atlantic in times of emergency? Additionally, will he say what strain support for the Falklands puts on our naval resources?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the costs of the Falklands war were added to the defence budget. The Falklands losses are being replaced out of additional finance provided by the Exchequer.
    Mr. Canavan: By taxpayers.
    Mr. Heseltine: Of course, by taxpayers—taxpayers who elected this Government to govern the country and rejected Opposition policies.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is fully aware that we are carefully considering the points that have been made in that context, particularly by the Select Committee, and will respond in proper time.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the establishment of NATO has proved to be a monument to peacekeeping, the time has come for a fundamental overhaul of the entire management structure. of NATO, which has not been studied for some time?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend touches on an important issue. I hope that the new Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, will have an opportunity to consider these matters and to put them to the appropriate political forums that control NATO on behalf of the Alliance.
    Mr. McNamara: We welcome the Secretary of State's further commitment to the fact that NATO will have no out-of-area role as such. Will he comment upon statements in the press about joint planning with the United States Government on joint naval operations in the Gulf and give a commitment that they will not be carried out?
    Mr. Heseltine: That would be an extraordinarily irresponsible commitment for me to give, but I should not want to draw the alternative conclusion. It is apparent that, in a world of uncertainty and danger, like-minded nations discuss potentialities and hypotheses very much in the hope that they will never arise. They would be much criticised if circumstances deteriorated to the point of an active war and we had made no plans.
    Mr. Yeo: When my right hon. Friend meets Lord Carrington, will he urge him to consider the need to make NATO as cost-effective and efficiently managed as possible, particularly with regard to the large number of civilians employed by the organisation?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard what I said a moment ago. I take the same approach. It is critical that, with these vast sums of money that we manage in the defence budget, we should always ensure value for money and that as much as possible of the money finds its way to the front line.
    Mr. Holt: I accept that NATO is not expanding, but is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to last night's overseas broadcast by Russia, Greece has now abrogated nine of its 11 NATO treaties? If a similar Socialist Government came to power in this country, is it not likely that a similar shrinkage would occur here?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not rely wholly for my political information on Soviet broadcasts about the policies of NATO. My hon. Friend might be best advised to pursue his inquiries with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Nuclear Deterrence
    Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will restate his definition of the concept of nuclear deterrence.
    Mr. Stanley: I refer the hon. Member to the section of the Defence Estimates 1981 headed "Nuclear Weapons and Preventing War."
    Mr. Barron: What does the Minister of State consider to be the chief deterrent nowadays? The arms race has changed. We have moved from mutual armed destruction to the use of inter-continental ballistic missiles, and it is predicted that technology will take us into the age of space-based war. What constitutes the deterrent now—nuclear weapons or the arms race itself?
    Mr. Stanley: The essence of deterrence is to have sufficient capability to make it clear to any potential aggressor that it is not worth while attacking this or any other NATO country.
    Mr. Johnston: The Minister would presumably argue that we have effective influence over the United States through NATO. If so, is it necessary for us to duplicate the American nuclear deterrence system? Does not the insistence of Britain and France on maintaining an independent deterrent encourage other countries to do likewise?
    Mr. Stanley: I disagree. We have maintained our independent strategic capability because Britain is one of the very few countries, apart from the United States, which has that capability. That fact is welcomed by both the United States and our European NATO allies.

    Type 23 Frigates
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the first of class order for the type 23 frigate.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Negotiations with the lead shipbuilders, Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd., are in progress. We shall make an announcement on the placing of the order as soon as possible.
    Mr. Duffy: Given the customary year that will elapse before the placing of an order for a second of class, the dire need for new orders in the yards, the needs of the fleet for a modern post-Falklands frigate, and the lack of orders for major surface units over the past two years, are there not now grounds for moving more urgently?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman has always taken a deep and sincere interest in the size of the Navy, and this aspect in particular. We will place orders for the new type 23 at the rate of about three a year, after the initial gap after the placing of the first order. The Government have ordered 30 new ships since 1979. We now have 55 operational destroyers and frigates, and we intend to reduce that number to 50 by the 1990s.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: What is the latest estimate of the cost of the type 23 frigate? Is it still Government policy that there shall be no mid-life modernisation of these frigates, which are presumably to be disposable?
    Mr. Lee: We are talking of about £110 million for a type 23. We hope to get about four type 23s for the cost of three type 22s.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) is shared on this side of the House? Will the defence and hitting capability of these ships be an improvement on the present ones?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, I know that there is wide concern about the size of our fleet of destroyers and frigates. In terms of weapons, the type 23 will be equipped with towed array sonar, an EH101 or a Sea King with Sting Ray torpedoes, vertical lauch Seawolf and the Harpoon surface-to-surface guided weapon.

    Nuclear Tests (Medical Effects)
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into the medical effects of the British nuclear testing programme.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The National Radiological Protection Board study to determine the incidence of mortality in United Kingdom service men and civilians who participated in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear test programmes is progressing to plan.
    Mr. Fatchett: As the Australians have already established a Royal Commission and the American courts have already awarded damages to those affected by nuclear testing, and given that the British study may take three years, will the Government ask the NRPB to produce an interim report to allay the genuine fears about this?
    Mr. Pattie: I do not think that the NRPB, which is an independent body, would accept the relevance of an

    813
    interim report. It has given the Government an estimate of the time needed to complete the study. It remains our view that that is the period that will be required.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all British service men who may have been affected by radiation from those tests are aware of the survey and are being offered the opportunity to present their own medical evidence?
    Mr. Pattie: If my hon. Friend knows of any cases in which there are doubts I should be grateful if he would tell me about them. The NRPB is making strenuous efforts to ensure that the survey is as widely drawn as possible.
    Mr. Hirst: If the inquiry concludes that service men have been adversely affected by radiation in the Pacific tests, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that those affected, in particular the widow of one such service man in my constituency, will receive compensation?
    Mr. Pattie: I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to give an assurance ahead of publication of the study or in relation to particular cases. The Government will consider the best way to proceed in the light of the conclusions of the study.
    Mr. Alton: Is it not thoroughly unfair that Australian service men who served side by side with British service men at Maralinga and elsewhere have been able to test their claims in the courts whereas that right has not been afforded to British service men? What do the Government intend to do about that?
    Mr. Pattie: As I have explained before, we have no plans to change the legislation. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the legislation provides, so that is my answer.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not extremely unfair that service men are expected to write to the Department? Why does the Department not inform them of the inquiry so that they can present their evidence? What on earth are the Government afraid of'?
    Mr. Pattie: We are not afraid of anything. We are not talking about service men but about ex-service men. The NRPB has access to service records and is currently going through them. We are simply saying that anyone who wants to write in as well is welcome to do so.

    Europe (NATO—Warsaw Pact Forces)
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on relative North Atlantic Treaty Organisation — Warsaw pact conventional strengths in Europe in the light of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation document "The Conventional Balance in Europe."
    Mr. Stanley: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the NATO document "NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons". The relative conventional strengths portrayed in that publication confirm the extent of the Soviet threat and the need to maintain a strong commitment to NATO.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister agree that that document reveals that there are 58 fewer front-line divisions in the Warsaw pact than NATO originally estimated? As the NATO figure does not include the
    814
    French or Spanish forces, will he confirm that we are significantly closer than the Government have so far admitted to possessing adequate conventional forces to countervail a Russian attack in central Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: I agree that the balance is constructed on a different basis from that which has applied in the defence Estimates. I believe that it is reasonable to include the French forces in the overall balance. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that we can conclude that the conventional balance is entirely satisfactory. As a result of spending undertaken by this Government some progress has been made towards redressing the conventional balance, but I draw attention to the fact that in the foreword to the report the secretary-general draws attention to the need for continuing efforts to maintain our security.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the NATO Alliance formed in 1947 has provided a very good protective shield around Europe? Does he further agree that we should endeavour to be not just a strong member but the strongest member of that Alliance?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not know whether my hon. Friend suggests that we should devote resources to defence in excess of those devoted by our American friends, but we make a stronger contribution to NATO than our fellow members in Europe. That is one of the excellent results of the Government's defence policy.

    Type 22 Frigates
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to be able to announce the placing of the two orders for type 22 frigates.
    Mr. Lee: The tenders for these ships lapsed before the usual detailed examination of such factors as overheads and productivity had been completed. We are therefore seeking new tenders for type 22 numbers 13 and 14 and expect to receive replies in September. Once these have been clarified we hope to place orders before the end of this year.
    Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend recall promising in the House that the tenders would be awarded before last Christmas? Is he aware that he gives disappointing news, not only for my constituents at Vosper Thornycroft, but for the constituents of other hon. Members in the naval shipbuilding yards?
    Mr. Lee: I recognise that the placing of the orders for the type 22s has taken longer that we anticipated. We are looking for the best value for money. We recognise the critical importance of the orders to the respective yards. That is why we take the matter so seriously.
    Mr. Field: Will the Minister give due regard to the technical expertise that yards have shown in completing previous Ministry of Defence orders? Will he confirm that in that respect Cammell Laird has a record second to none?
    Mr. Lee: I pay the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) generous tribute because I know how hard he has worked and campaigned for Cammell Laird, with some of my hon. Friends, to promote that shipyard's interests. I am happy to confirm that the Ministry of Defence has always been satisfied with the quality of work produced by Cammell Laird. However, I must say bluntly that, to put

    815
    it mildly, we are not best pleased by the fact that no work has been done on the type 42 destroyer for the last four weeks and that 130 men from Cammell Laird — a minority—are blockading the yard and the rig. That will not be attractive to any prospective customer, whether it is the MOD or anyone else.
    Mr. Thurnham: In view of the successful testing of the Sea Eagle system, is my hon. Friend prepared to reconsider his decision to purchase the American Harpoon?
    Mr. Lee: The Sea Eagle, which we saw launched successfully on television at the weekend, was the air-launched version. That will be in service. There is no argument about that. Harpoon is the surface-to-surface weapon for the Navy. We have no intention of changing our decision on that.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware of the expression that best is the enemy of the good? Is he aware that it is often necessary to put in an order early rather than to await perfection? Is he aware that his answer will therefore cause disappointment?
    Mr. Lee: I appreciate that the announcement will cause a degree of disappointment. Nevertheless, competition is still wide open. On the export front we are hopeful that yards such as Vosper Thornycroft will be in a position to win some export orders.

    Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill
    Mr. Strawasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for implementation of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.
    Mr. Pattie: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on 23 July.
    Mr. Straw: The Government suffered a further humiliating defeat in the other place last week when Labour amendments requiring that the ROFs be privatised only as a single entity were approved. Do the Government now intend to accept those amendments or seek to reverse them?
    Mr. Pattie: The Government expect to address the amendments made in another place when the Bill returns to this House in October. Therefore, the answer is that we shall not accept those amendments.
    Mr. McNamara: Why will the Government not accept the will of the other place in this matter? We know of the great concern that the Government claim to have for democracy, Parliament and the rule of law. All that their Lordships are asking is that Parliament should approve of whatever regulations and schemes that the Secretary of State may make, because at the moment nobody knows what he will do, and he has a free hand to dispose of these valuable national assets. Why will they not accept that?
    Mr. Pattie: These matters were considered in the House extensively and the will of the House was made known then.
    Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the Conservative Benches there is still considerable support
    816
    for a decision that would allow the Ministry of Defence to sell some of the factories individually, rather than all of them collectively?
    Mr. Pattie: I note what my hon. Friend has to say.

    US Aircraft (Chemical Weapons)
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if any United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom are equipped to use chemical weapons including binary munitions.
    Mr. Stanley: No United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom are either tasked or specially equipped to carry chemical munitions.
    Mr. Cohen: I am pleased to hear that, but if the Government are serious about getting a chemical weapons ban—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—is the Minister prepared — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] to tell the United States that the United Kingdom does not want its chemical weapons in this country, and that we will not allow any planes in this country to have those chemical weapons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Will he also tell the United States that he will provide no facilities and in no way countenance plans for a theatre chemical weapons war in this country or in Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: I did not entirely hear the hon. Member's question, but there is no deployment of chemical weapons in this country.
    Mr. Warren: Will my hon. Friend accept that, as one of the parliamentary party that yesterday had the opportunity to visit Porton Down, I feel that it is good to see the strenuous and correct efforts being made by this country to combat the tremendous threat that we are suffering from the Soviet Union, which has 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons mounted against us?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the great severity of the Soviet offensive chemical capability, and I am also grateful for his tribute to the important defensive work done at Porton Down.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister give a clear assurance that the Government have no intention of allowing American chemical weapons, binary or otherwise, to be established in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stanley: I can only repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said. There is no deployment by the United States of chemical weapons in this country.

    United States Navy (Nuclear Weapons)
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that nuclear weapons based on United States vessels in United Kingdom territorial waters cannot be used without the approval of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Heseltine: The operations of United States vessels in British waters are covered by long-standing bilateral and Allied arrangements. We, like successive British Governments, are satisfied with these arrangements.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State accept that the majority of the public in this country are concerned about

    817
    the Government's answers that this is always by long-term agreement and understanding? Does he not understand that people want positive assurances from the Government that nuclear weapons based on ships in British territorial waters are on our land and will not be used if the United States of America is under threat? How can we assure the public that they will not be so used?
    Mr. Heseltine: In the same way as all Labour and Conservative Governments since the war have succeeded in doing.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the United States Government now have funding for an integrated plan for the targeting of all its nuclear weapons? How will Britain have any veto over certain weapons if they are part of an integrated plan?
    Mr. Heseltine: We have the advantage of profound and wide-scale discussions with the United States about the use of all their levels of military capability. Our problem is that we have no such discussions with the Soviet Union, which has just the same scale of nuclear capacity. That is the one factor which the Labour party simply will not face.

    United States Strategic Defence Initiative
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Defence if any discussions have been held with representatives of the United States Administration about a possible West European role in its strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heseltine: Consultation between the United Kingdom and the United States on all aspects of defence policy is close and comprehensive, and has naturally been extended to include the implications of the strategic defence initiative announced by President Reagan in March 1983. The United States Government have made no proposals for west European involvement in the programme, although President Reagan has made it clear that there will be no lessening of the United States nuclear guarantee to Europe.
    Mr. Cartwright: Can the Secretary of State say what implications for the Trident programme lie behind United States' activities over the strategic defence initiative?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to answer in precise terms about the conclusions of a development programme which it has not been determined shall proceed and which is very much at the exploratory and research stage.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hayesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NUM is making a complete mockery of the word negotiation if it is not prepared to make one single
    818
    concession? Will she confirm that there is a great future for economically produced coal, and the fact that we produce deep mined coal at £100 per tonne compared to £19 elsewhere is an absurdity?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that deep-mined coal is produced more cheaply elsewhere than in this country. I believe that the offer that Mr. MacGregor made in the recent negotiations was very reasonable, and I am very sorry that it was not accepted. The offer that the Government have made shows that there is a great future for the coal industry if it is accepted, with better pay, investment and compensation for voluntary redundancies than have ever been offered by a Government.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Lady give thought to the predicament of councils such as that in the city of Leicester, which was elected and re-elected on a programme of maintaining services for its citizens? Does she not recognise that the imposition of penalties through rate capping is a travesty of democracy and will certainly lead to a reduction in services, especially those most needed by the elderly, the disabled, the disadvantaged and those who are in desperate need of housing?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, in considering the level of expenditure it is necessary to consider also the interests of the taxpayers, the ratepayers, and those who are running small and larger businesses and who have to provide employment of the kind of which we all wish to see more. Their interests, too, must be taken into account.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of some of the speeches that we heard during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. I can remember the late Mr. Anthony Crosland making a speech about rates and saying, "the party is over."

    Merchant Marine Fleet
    Sir David Priceasked the Prime Minister what is the minimum size and mix of the merchant marine fleet that is necessary to be maintained under the British flag for reasons of national security.
    The Prime Minister: At present the United Kingdom registered merchant fleet numbers some 820 ships. The Government keep under continuous and detailed review the requirements of Her Majesty's Forces for support by merchant ships when carrying out their roles in the NATO Alliance and elsewhere, and the availability of merchant ships with specifications capable of meeting those requirements. For reasons of security, details of the ships that could be needed cannot be given.
    Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the height of the Falklands conflict there were more ships flying the Red Ensign than the White Ensign in the south Atlantic? Is she further aware that if the decline in the size and the mix of the British Merchant Navy continues she will be unable to call on the same merchant marine ever again in support of the Royal Navy?
    The Prime Minister: I understand exactly my hon. Friend's concern. The decline of the merchant fleet has been due to increased competition and continuing difficulties in the world shipping market. I think that the shipping industry is perhaps best at identifying the most

    819
    profitable opportunities to keep its numbers as high as possible. I readily accept that the Merchant Navy is very important for our defence. It is also important to keep a merchant building capacity in this country, for strategic reasons.
    Mr. Kinnock: Competition and other challenges are regular and continual factors. How does the right hon. Lady explain the fact that the British merchant fleet has been reduced by half since she became Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I gave the reasons in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). The decline in the merchant fleet is due to increased competition and continuing difficulties in world shipping markets. Against that background our shipping industry has done very well to create such large invisible earnings.
    Mr. Kinnock: Are not the changes made in this year's Budget in allowances, taxation and investment in danger of accelerating that decline still further? Will the right hon. Lady halt those policies if she does not want to take the risk of sinking the British merchant fleet along with much of the British shipbuilding industry, and of losing £1,000 million in balance of payments earnings?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will readily accept that any changes in this year's Finance Bill cannot have had any effect on previous losses in merchant shipping—[Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman will also know, some final amendments were made during the passage of of the Finance Bill which were welcomed by the shipping industry.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Since Mr. Scargill——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the question.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that coastal shipping is an important ingredient of the British fleet? Why does the right hon. Lady not adopt the same policy towards our coastal shipping as the French and other members of the EC adopt to theirs and make it the exclusive province of the British flag fleet with British-built vessels?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is that we are trying the world over to reduce the amount of protectionism that is practised, particularly in countries such as the United States and India. It would be far more beneficial to have free coastal shipping there than to protect our own very much smallers shores. Our fleet will do better when we can reduce the amount of protectionism. The step suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not give us very much, if any, advantage.

    Engagements
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Lady realise that her economic and industrial policies are now in tatters? Given that fact, the number of long-term unemployed, the many thousands of young people who have not yet found their first job, and the many people living on the poverty line, what hope do her policies hold out?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about our economic policy. As I have said in the House before, gross domestic product is up 2·75 per cent. on the year earlier, industrial output is up 3·5 per cent. on the year earlier, total fixed investment has grown by 10 per cent. and we have had the lowest annual average figure for inflation for 15 years. [Interruption.] I could cite many other examples, but the Opposition have started to make a noise, because they do not want to hear. I accept that it will be difficult to reduce unemployment, because the number of people of working age is increasing at a faster rate than the number of jobs. However, there has been an improvement in the prospects for young people and the youth training scheme is one of the best in the world.
    Mr. Jessel: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the election result in Israel? Does not the repeated stalemate there demonstrate the weakness of proportional representation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so vividly.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister confirm, or deny, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is at the moment asking Government Departments to come forward with cuts in expenditure for this year as well as for next year? Will she give the House her estimate of the outturn of inflation, as it must be clear that the 4·5 to 5 per cent. figure is bound to be exceeded? Even in the City people are advocating a 7·5 per cent. inflation outturn for this year.
    The Prime Minister: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and other Ministers, are engaged in the public expenditure survey for next year, as is customary at this time of year. With regard to inflation forecasts for the end of the year, that will depend on how long the mortgage rate must remain at its higher level, which depends to some extent on the future of strikes.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Has my right hon. Friend seen that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is considering how higher education can best serve the future needs of industry? Does she agree that the gap in high technology skills that exists in the labour market must be filled as soon as possible with home-grown specialists if industry is to take full advantage of new opportunities in changing markets?
    The Prime Minister: Yes Sir, but I have noticed recently much closer co-operation between universities and industries, especially regarding high technology. My hon. Friend knows that there are a number of science parks—I recently opened one at Warwick university—which are doing very well and securing the kind of co-operation that has been sorely needed.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: According to the Prime Minister's earlier answers, she insists on absolute commercial viability for the coal industry. On what morality or criteria does she totally reject her responsibility for the social viability of that industry?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that social grants have always been given to the coal industry. They are a fundamental part of the financial structure. This Government have been more generous than any other in giving those grants to the industry and in

    821
    making special arrangements for redundancy payments. Those two are treated separately from other grants to the coal industry, such as grants for operating losses, which are extremely high.
    Mr. John Browneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the collapse of the dock strike illustrates vividly that when Governments do not interfere, ordinary trade union members show very little wish to place their jobs in jeopardy in support of a political strike? Does she accept that there is now a crying need for the Government to provide for voluntary secret ballots, not merely for the election of officers, but wherever industrial action is contemplated, to enable trade union members to protect their jobs?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we shall debate trade union matters today, on which their Lordships thought that we had not gone far enough to protect the rights of ordinary members regarding the election of trade union officials. My hon. Friend will have noticed that in regions where a ballot of members of the National Union of Mineworkers was held and the majority voted to go back to work — that happened in Nottinghamshire where miners are back at work—they upheld the rules of the NUM rule book. They had a ballot and honoured the result.
    Mr. McGuire: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the general election was held just over 12 months ago jobs were still being lost at the rate of 20,000 a month? Given her forecasts of upturns, will she tell the House what the net job loss is? Is it 20,000 a month or fewer?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman might have seen from the figures published last week, the number of people in work in the economy, including the estimated self-employed, is estimated to have risen by about 260,000 during the past year. The size of the working population is increasing faster than the number of extra jobs, so there is still an underlying increase in unemployment, which is given every month in the seasonally adjusted figures.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will estimate the cost to date of the police operations in connection with the current coal dispute.
    The Prime Minister: It is the responsibility of each police authority to assess the cost incurred in policing the
    822
    dispute in the first instance. We have not so far required police authorities to submit running records of their costs, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently asked them to provide such information for the period up to 30 June.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever price is being paid, it is one that the British people are prepared to pay for as long as it takes to defend the rights of miners who wish to work? Does she agree that the miners are now being led by self-confessed Marxists, who are more concerned with pursuing section 3S of the NUM rule book—the overthrow of our free enterprise system—than they are with honouring rule 43, which provides for ballots before any strikes can take place?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. One can never give in to violence and intimidation. If one does, it is the end to democracy in this country. I agree with my hon. Friend that where there have been ballots in the National Union of Mineworkers, as in Nottingham, they have shown that people want to return to work; in some cases they have returned to work and are now turning cut coal. I notice that some time ago the Leader of the Opposition said in the House:
    "Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers is now a clearer and closer prospect than it was before today's meeting?" —[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 522.]
    That was in April. In July, the right hon. Gentleman said, outside the House,
    "There is no alternative but to fight."
    I agree that we need a ballot.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Prime Minister tell us how she can ignore the fact that thousands of families are in urgent need of help as a result of the strike? The Government cannot consider the cost to the coal industry of the planned reductions by herself and Mr. MacGregor until they take into account the social cost, which is rarely mentioned by her or by the Secretary of State for Energy. Why does she not consider the social cost to the mining industry?
    The Prime Minister: As I said in answer to an earlier question, there is always a good social grant. The cost of voluntary redundancy, which is also borne by special grant, is about £250 million a year. The sums given are greater than those given by any previous Government. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, when the Whitehaven pit was closed, the miners said that they were satisfied with the money they received. The Government have fully taken care of the social cost, and I note that more mining jobs have been lost under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. The compensation given was not half as good.

Mr. Robin Walsh
3.33 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order arise out of Question Time? If not, I will take it immediately after the statement.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that the answers to specific questions were far more informative and interesting than the answers given to other forms of questions, would you consider encouraging hon. Members to put down specific questions for Prime Minister's Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: That is entirely a matter for hon. Members, but, of course, I believe that it is a good idea.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Very well, I will take it now.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: As you know, Mr. Speaker, during the past five months I have raised more than 120 questions in relation to the Prime Minister's links with Cementation and, of late, in relation to the case of a British national, Mr. Robin Walsh, who has been the subject of several written questions to the Secretaries of State for Defence, for the Home Department, and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Mr. Robin Walsh died in prison in Oman and was mistreated there——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I do not think that there can be any point of order for me, but if the hon. Gentleman will put his question I will see whether I can answer it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point of order that I wish to raise with you specifically, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that I as a Member of this House tabled questions on the Order Paper, and the replies to those questions I gave to the Sunday Times, to The Observer and to "World in Action," and as a result of a court action brought by the Omani embassy in London last——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into the arguments. What is the point of order for me as the Speaker?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: As a result of those actions brought within the courts——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now abusing an opportunity. I ask him now to put to me a point on which I can rule. I cannot be concerned with any programme which may have been on television or any questions that may have been put to Ministers to which the hon. Gentleman has not had reasonable answers.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Omani embassy in bringing that action was preventing me from carrying out my duty which was to ensure that the questions that I raised could be published by the organs of the British media, including "World in Action", which, as a result of pressure exerted on the Independent Broadcasting Authority last week, took a decision to require "World in Action"——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman any further. I have given him three opportunities to put a
824
question to me. It is not a point of order —[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman, I think, is dissatisfied with answers that he has received from Departments. He has other opportunities to raise this matter. If it is a matter of privilege, he can pursue it in the ordinary way, but I cannot hear him any further on this matter, which is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 136 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the last hon. Members to use parliamentary privilege in a proper way, may I put it to you that in my opinion we have today seen a grave misuse of that privilege, and I invite you to suspend that hon. Member?
Mr. Speaker: The ploy used by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a legitimate parliamentary ploy. Indeed, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) used it himself.
The House having divided: Ayes 44, Noes 295.

Division No. 423]

[3.37 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald

Patchett, Terry

Ashton, Joe

Pike, Peter

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Blair, Anthony

Redmond, M.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Eadie, Alex

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Eastham, Ken

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

Torney, Tom

Ellis, Raymond

Wareing, Robert

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Weetch, Ken

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Welsh, Michael

Flannery, Martin

Wigley, Dafydd

Garrett, W. E.

Winnick, David

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Woodall, Alec

Hardy, Peter

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Janner, Hon Greville

Tellers for the Ayes:

Litherland, Robert

Mr. Derek Fatchett and Dr. John Marek.

Loyden, Edward

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bendall, Vivian

Alexander, Richard

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Alton, David

Benyon, William

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Berry, Sir Anthony

Amess, David

Best, Keith

Arnold, Tom

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Ashby, David

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Ashdown, Paddy

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Aspinwall, Jack

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Batiste, Spencer

Bright, Graham

Beith, A. J.

Brinton, Tim

825

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Browne, John

Heddle, John

Bruinvels, Peter

Henderson, Barry

Bryan, Sir Paul

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Buck, Sir Antony

Hill, James

Budgen, Nick

Hind, Kenneth

Bulmer, Esmond

Hirst, Michael

Butcher, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Butler, Hon Adam

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Butterfill, John

Holt, Richard

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Carttiss, Michael

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Cartwright, John

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cash, William

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Chope, Christopher

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Churchill, W. S.

Hunter, Andrew

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Irving, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Colvin, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Conway, Derek

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Simon

Johnston, Russell

Cope, John

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Corbett, Robin

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Corrie, John

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Cranborne, Viscount

Kennedy, Charles

Crouch, David

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Key, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Kirkwood, Archy

Dorrell, Stephen

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Knowles, Michael

Durant, Tony

Lang, Ian

Dykes, Hugh

Lawler, Geoffrey

Eggar, Tim

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Evennett, David

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Favell, Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fletcher, Alexander

Lightbown, David

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lilley, Peter

Forman, Nigel

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Forth, Eric

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lord, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Luce, Richard

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lyell, Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Freud, Clement

Macfarlane, Neil

Gale, Roger

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maclean, David John

Goodlad, Alastair

Madden, Max

Gorst, John

Madel, David

Gower, Sir Raymond

Major, John

Grant, Sir Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Greenway, Harry

Malone, Gerald

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

Maples, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Marland, Paul

Grist, Ian

Marlow, Antony

Ground, Patrick

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Grylls, Michael

Mates, Michael

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mather, Carol

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Merchant, Piers

Hanley, Jeremy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Harris, David

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Haselhurst, Alan

Moate, Roger

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hawksley, Warren

Montgomery, Fergus

Hayes, J.

Moore, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

826

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Squire, Robin

Murphy, Christopher

Stanbrook, Ivor

Nelson, Anthony

Stanley, John

Neubert, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon David

Newton, Tony

Stern, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Onslow, Cranley

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Oppenheim, Philip

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Osborn, Sir John

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stokes, John

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Sumberg, David

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Tapsell, Peter

Patten, John (Oxford)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Pawsey, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Pollock, Alexander

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Powell, William (Corby)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Powley, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thurnham, Peter

Price, Sir David

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Tracey, Richard

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Twinn, Dr Ian

Raffan, Keith

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rathbone, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Renton, Tim

Waddington, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Wainwright, R.

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Waldegrave, Hon William

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Walden, George

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wallace, James

Rooker, J. W.

Waller, Gary

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Walters, Dennis

Rost, Peter

Ward, John

Rowe, Andrew

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Ryder, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Watts, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Whitfield, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Raymond

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wiggin, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Silvester, Fred

Wood, Timothy

Sims, Roger

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Yeo, Tim

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Tim Sainsbury

Speller, Tony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It relates to the point of order that I raised before.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot accept a further point of order on that matter. I have already ruled that I cannot rule on the question that he has put to me. I gave the hon. Gentleman three, perhaps four, opportunities to put a point of order to me which I could seek to answer, but he failed to do so.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It has not been our practice to accept the same motion twice on the same day, and I cannot accept that motion a second time today.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his place.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Skinner: No, but it is about the same issue.
Mr. Speaker: I have already told the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I cannot rule on his point of order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is seeking to raise the same point of order, I must give him the same answer. He is only wasting the time of the House. If he wishes to raise a different point of order, I shall hear it.
Mr. Skinner: It must be different because a different Member is raising it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. Is his point of order on the same subject as that raised by the hon. Member for Workington?
Mr. Skinner: It is on the same subject, that is for sure
Mr. Speaker: Then I cannot hear it.
Mr. Skinner: I want to raise it because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is being gagged.

Rate Support Grant
3.52 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance for 1985–86. It contains my proposals for the rate support grant settlement in England, and my decisions on selective rate limitation under the Rates Act 1984.
I am today issuing to local authorities proposals for the main features of the RSG settlement for next year. Copies of the material sent to them are in the Libraries and the Vote Office. This early announcement should give authorities plenty of time to budget sensibly in 1985–86. It is the first time that I have been able to set out so much of the framework of the settlement so early in the year. I hope that this is welcomed. It is also the first time that the Rates Act provisions for constraining the rates — and hence the expenditure — of high-spending authorities have been available to the Government. They have strongly affected the overall shape of the settlement. This year's budgets show a continuing real terms increase in the level of local authority current expenditure. The Government remain committed to the constraint of public expenditure. This is essential if we are to put the economy on to a sound footing for the longer term. We must continue to seek economies.
For 1985–86, for the first time, the Rates Act enables me to start curbing the worst excesses of the highest spenders. Until now, even the lowest spenders have had to be asked to make significant savings because of the irresponsible behaviour of the minority of high spenders. The Rates Act makes it possible for me to begin to change that. As I promised at last year's settlement, it gives me the scope — within the overall continuing need for restraint—to set fairer targets for low spenders. At the same time, the Government are determined to ensure that these realistic targets are not overspent, and the holdback proposals reflect that determination.
First, rate limitation. The new powers given me by the Rates Act enable me to set rate limits for the worst overspenders and thus protect their ratepayers. I am today laying before the House a report describing the basis of selection of authorities for rate limitation. I will select for rate capping those authorities spending more than £10 million whose budgets for the current year are more than 4 per cent. above their targets, and more than 20 per cent. above their grant-related expenditure assessment. On the basis of these criteria, the following 18 authorities are designated: Basildon, Brent, Camden, the GLC, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, the Inner London education authority, Islington, Lambeth, Leicester, Lewisham, Merseyside, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southwark, south Yorkshire, and Thamesdown.
I am setting expenditure levels for these authorities which will form the basis of their rate limits. In most cases they will have to contain their expenditure at the same level in cash terms as their budget for 1984–85. In the case of the three authorities which are budgeting to spend more than 70 per cent. above GRE this year and which have increased their budgets by more than 30 per cent. since 1981–82 I am setting expenditure levels 1·5 per cent. below their effective 1984–85 budgets. These authorities are the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and the London borough of

829
Greenwich. The 18 designated authorities are being formally notified of their expenditure levels. I shall of course consider any representations which they may wish to make to me asking for a redetermination of their expenditure level.
This announcement is good news for ratepayers. The 18 highest spending authorities will have their spending levels controlled. Furthermore, as I said during the passage of the Bill, because the Rates Act 1984 enables me to control the expenditure of the highest spenders, I can set fairer targets for the low spenders, as I promised earlier this year. For the current year, the maximum cash increase over 1983–84 budget is 3 per cent. For next year, I am proposing to allow most low spenders to increase their spending by 4·25 per cent. over budget this year. On the best estimate of the rate of inflation over the period—the GDP deflater— this should require no further real terms cuts from those authorities. This has been made possible only by the headroom provided by rate limitation. High spenders will have tougher targets, but no authority is asked for more than a 1·5 per cent. cash reduction on its 1984–85 budget.
Those targets add up to about £21·8 billion, which implies an increase in current expenditure provision in excess of £800 million. This takes account of the setting up of London Regional Transport—on last year's basis, the increase would be nearer £900 million. The equivalent increase for 1984–85 was some £500 million. The increase in the 1985–86 provision will be contained within the established aggregate public expenditure plans.
Those targets are therefore realistic, and must not be seen as an invitation to increase spending. For that reason, I am proposing a much tougher holdback tariff for the first percentage points of overspend. The tariff will entail reductions in block grant equivalent to 7p at ratepayer level for the first 1 per cent. of overspend, another 8p for the second percentage overspend, and another 9p which will be added for each 1 per cent. of spending after that. That is a strong deterrent to overspending, but I think there will be a wide recognition—at least on this side of the House—of the fairness of this proposal. I am proposing reasonable, realistic targets. It is only fair in return to expect that they will be met, and to take a firm line with anyone who sees this as an opportunity to boost spending.
The effect of these proposals on services provided by local authorities will depend on their ability to use resources efficiently. The Government look to local authorities to do their utmost to contain their pay and other costs and to manage their resources in a way that ensures that the best possible value for money is obtained.
Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £11·7 billion, about the same amount after adjustments as the corresponding figure for 1984–85. This represents a grant percentage of about 48·8 per cent. for 1985–86, compared with 51·9 per cent. this year. This continues the trend we have set over recent years of shifting the burden of local authority expenditure away from the taxpayer and towards the ratepayer, thereby increasing local authorities' accountability to the local electorate.
I am now consulting local government on my proposals for targets, holdback and aggregate Exchequer grant before presenting a rate support grant settlement to Parliament at the end of the year. Consultation on grant distribution will take place in the autumn.
The Government remain determined to restrain the level of current expenditure of local government. We are
830
now seeing the benefits of the Rates Act. Because it allows us at last to get to grips with the excesses of the highest spenders, responsible low-spending authorities will no longer have to carry the can for them. As I promised, I am proposing fairer targets for them. My proposals mean that if authorities spend within their targets — the capped authorities will have to stay below their spending levels —the average rate increase in England should be lower than this year's average increase. This will be welcomed by hard-pressed ratepayers everywhere. I commend my proposals to the House.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just announced an unprecedented and giant stride along the authoritarian path to central control and one that he will almost certainly live to regret? That is from a Government who came to office committed to rolling back the frontiers of the state. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not true to say that the Rates Act 1984 makes it easier for other authorities because of the magnitude of the cuts that he is expecting in 1985–86 which remain at something like £800 million, and the gap in 1986–87 between spending plans and his attitude, which is about £2·3 billion or 11 per cent. of what local authorities are spending? Is not his figure of 4·25 per cent. for inflation made nonsense of by recent interest rate rises? Will not that mean real cuts for local authorities?
How can the right hon. Gentleman say that this is good news for the ratepayers when every council spending at target next year will receive less grant and, therefore, have to raise rates and cut services just to avoid paying the harshest penalties that the Government have ever imposed upon local authorities? The Secretary of State said:
"This continues the trend we have set over recent years of shifting the burden of local authority expenditure away from the taxpayer and towards the ratepayer, thereby increasing local authorities' accountability".
What nonsense from a Government who fought an election campaign on a pledge to abolish the rates.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way to help ratepayers would be to maintain the real value of grant and to scrap the penalty system, and not, as he is doing, by cutting the RSG in real terms by about £590 million?
Dealing with the list of rate-capped authorities, does the right hon. Gentleman recall our correspondence during the Portsmouth by-election? Does he remember writing to me on 11 June and, in the first paragraph, saying, following the announcements I had made about his list:
"The information given to you is incorrect in virtually every detail. I am surprised that you should make such accusations on the basis of inaccurate hearsay.''?
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the list he has just announced is identical to the list that I announced, plus one authority—the London borough of Hackney? May I also remind him that the tests he has applied are exactly those tests which I said he intended to apply? Does not the statement make the letter of 11 June in his name completely dishonest? Does it not also mean that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Conservative candidate in Portsmouth, Mr. Patrick Rock, told deliberate lies to the electors of Portsmouth in a desperate attempt to salvage votes for a discredited Government?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that four authorities he has designated today — Haringey, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Thamesdown — have increased expenditure by less than the average for local

831
authorities as a whole? Why are they included when the City of London is not included, spending 274 per cent. above its 1979 expenditure level and 247 per cent. above its GRE—the worst overspender by both tests?
Does the Secretary of State understand that his announcement will place authorities in an impossible position, as was acknowledged recently in a letter to The Times from Councillor Norman Hawkins, the Conservative leader of the London borough of Hillingdon, who said that if authorities obeyed Whitehall they would end up breaking the law requiring them to provide proper services to their areas? The Secretary of State's statement will provoke resistance from all councils committed to maintaining essential jobs and services.
Far from saving public expenditure overall, this exercise will cost the Exchequer an extra £600 million because the claimed savings of about £200 million from the controlled and designated authorities will have to be set against the extra £850 million the Treasury has had to cough up to buy off some of the right hon. Gentleman's Tory friends.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that cutting rate support grant and forcing councils to provide a larger share of their own expenditure is not increasing their freedom or choice, nor is it improving responsibility or accountability to ratepayers and to voters? In reality, under this system the more responsibility a council takes for a greater percentage of its expenditure, the more likely it is to come under Whitehall domination. Does not that make the whole exercise nonsense?
Mr. Jenkin: That is an astonishing tally of criticisms against what is a fair and realistic settlement. The hon. Gentleman took no account of the aggregate targets which I have just announced—some 6 per cent. higher than the targets that I announced at this time last year; that it allows a 4·25 per cent. uplift for low spenders compared with 3 per cent. last year when inflation last year was due to be 5 per cent. compared with the estimate of 4·25 per cent. this year. That is for authorities——
Dr. Cunningham: It is a cut in real services.
Mr. Jenkin: It is not a cut. Authorities last year which were above their GREs faced a 2·5 per cent. uplift of target only, against a 5 per cent. inflation. This year it is a 3·75 per cent. uplift against a 4·25 per cent. estimate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the Government of whom he was a member reduced the proportion of the aggregate Exchequer grant from 1976 to 1979, whereas we are merely maintaining — [Interruption.] That makes authorities, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like, more accountable to their ratepayers.
The hon. Gentleman made great play about Portsmouth. He will remember that the letter he wrote to me — he has quoted my reply to it— accused me of deliberately manipulating to try to secure political purposes. He accused me of using the Civil Service to politically gerrymander legislation; and he said that officials had been told to look for special circumstances to exclude that council. All those accusations were false, and that is what I said in my reply.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned four authorities whose spending is less in excess than the GRE of the City. The
832
City has consistently hit its spending target. None of the designated councils has come within 4 per cent. of its target. The hon. Gentleman has the figures wrong when he talks about the extra costs of £600 million. What matters is what is spent, not what appears in the public expenditure White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman will know that year by year we have had to add back into the public expenditure White Paper substantial sums because of substantial overspending. This next year, if the 18 capped authorities had continued increasing spending at the same rate that they have over the past three years, the aggregate spending would be £400 million higher than the limits I have now set for those 18 authorities. The result is that I am able to offer fairer targets to the low-spending authorities—the authorities whose spending is below the level of their GRE. This is a fair settlement.
Mr. Francis Pym: The extent to which my right hon. Friend has been able to provide a fairer settlement for the low-spending authorities will be greatly appreciated. The figures will require careful study, but he has made a move to ease the share of the burden falling on those authorities.
However, how does my right hon. Friend justify what appears to be a U-turn from trying to abolish the rates and ease the burden on the ratepayer to a situation in which the burden on the ratepayer appears to be going to increase without limit? Will not whatever assistance he may feel that he has obtained out of the Rates Bill be more than offset for all ratepayers by a reduction from 51·9 per cent. to 48·8 per cent. in the overall contribution of the rate support grant, and is that not bad news for the ratepayer?
Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his appreciation. As he will know, it was very much in response to representations from him and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we adopted this new method of setting targets.
I have merely announced the percentage of aggregate Exchequer grant for 1985–86. No assumptions should be made about the pattern of grant in ensuing years. This is not a U-turn. We are continuing a trend followed by successive Governments since 1976 who have sought to reduce the percentage of local authority current spending met by the taxpayer and to increase the accountability to the local ratepayer.
I can assure my right hon. Friend that if authorities spend within their targets next year the average level of rate increase should be lower than the average level this year, which at 5·5 per cent., is the lowest for 10 years.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cut in the share of local authority expenditure which he has announced today is bad news for the areas which are already suffering hardship as a consequence of Government policy? Will he accept that people in south Yorkshire are puzzled because it is only a few days since the Secretary of State for Transport announced that it was Government policy to have lower fares and better services, and that the ratepayers should provide a subsidy to promote the bus services? Since that is the policy that we have been trying to pursue in south Yorkshire in the face of considerable opposition from the right hon. Gentleman, will he consult the Secretary of State for Transport and try to decide in which Department the illogicality lies?
Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend—to whom this question is primarily addressed — would be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that in south Yorkshire as in many other metropolitan transport authorities there is certainly scope for massive improvements in efficiency, and that furthermore adjustments are being made in targets this year because of the capital-only transport supplementary grant. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend and I work closely together. We believe that the combined package that we have put before the country on rate support grant and transport supplementary grant will be fair to authorities such as his.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed by the hard-pressed ratepayers of Haringey who enjoy the unenviable distinction of being among the most heavily charged and least well served in the country, as was evidenced a few days ago by the HMI report on local education? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that the economies will be found from the waste and the top-heavy administration of an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy and not from the essential services?
Mr. Jenkin: The borough of Haringey also has the unenviable distinction of having increased its manpower by over 5 per cent. between 1979 and 1983, when the average outer London authority was able to reduce manpower by 3·5 per cent. Haringey will be well able to meet the necessary economies by cutting out overheads and bureaucracy among the town hall staff.
Mr. Guy Barnett: The right hon. Gentleman may believe that he is being fair, but can he really believe that he is being fair to Greenwich? There is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that, in terms of value for money and the size of the social problems faced by the council, the right hon. Gentleman's figures are completely and utterly wrong.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind during the coming months that the report of the Audit Commission will demonstrate that the result of this absurd system is that, far from being better off, the ratepayer is worse off to the extent of £1·5 billion a year?
Mr. Jenkin: The London borough of Greenwich is among those which have increased their spending by the largest amounts over the past two years. It is now spending 114 per cent. more than its 1978–79 figure, compared with an average increase among local authorities of 79 per cent. Such an authority should clearly be able to make the modest savings in expenditure which capping will necessitate next year.
The hon. Gentleman would be wise to wait until he sees the final report of the Audit Commission before he comments on that report.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Will my right hon. Friend be warned that his proposals will prove arbitrary, dangerous, ineffective, and ultimately costly? Will he accept that there is no possibility of good news for ratepayers as long as we continue to transfer the burden from taxes to rates—the tax which is least able to bear it? Does not my right hon. Friend understand that there is not the slightest possibility of keeping the lid on this boiling saucepan unless we have a financial structure which is comprehensible—which this certainly is not—and a system which is fair to all ratepayers in all parts of the country?
Mr. Jenkin: If my right hon. and learned Friend will give me a blueprint of the system which he would like to see, I shall study it carefully. My right hon. and learned Friend makes no secret of his dislike for the rate-capping legislation, but it would have been impossible for me this year to offer fairer targets to those spending below their GRE if I had not started to make savings from the highest spenders. Those authorities have been for too long able to pass on the burden of their higher spending to authorities which have budgeted and spent responsibly year after year. I am glad to have been able to start a trend in the other direction.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that these proposals have no basis in principle? If we go on in this direction, there will soon be no central Government support at all and everything will be funded from the rates, and that will be quite contrary to the only policy on the matter which the Government have ever claimed to espouse. The proposals are also contrary to logic, because most of the expenses are determined by debt repayment, interest chargers, nationally fixed employment agreements, and housing benefit amounts.
Above all, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals show no compassion? Most people in the inner-city constituencies such as mine have their rates paid for them because they do not have the money to pay. What will the effect be on the homeless, the unemployed, children in nurseries, the people who need the health services, and the old? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us the figures, is that because he does not know or because he does not care?
Mr. Jenkin: The last time there was a 3 per cent. cut in aggregate Exchequer grant, inflation was higher, there was no rate capping and there was a very high overspend by local authorities. Despite all that, the average rate increase in 1983–84 was only 6·5 per cent. Now that we have lower inflation and rate capping, and as we expect a much lower overspend next year, I stand by the view that if authorities budget to spend within the target there will be a lower rate increase next year than there has been this year. The exemption of some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents from rate payments is part of the Government's policy to ease the burden on those least able to bear that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that policy.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Whatever the merits of the general principle of applying controls on authorities which use political measures to flout the general will of the people as expressed through Parliament, does my right hon. Friend agree that slavish adherence to a formula means that cities such as Portsmouth, of which I seem to be the only representative present, with a reputation for good housekeeping but with social and economic problems stemming not least from the loss of employment caused by the rundown of the naval dockyards under the Government's policies, are artificially caught within a category from which, according to all the principles of equity and justice, they should be excluded?
Mr. Jenkin: It would have been quite indefensible to manipulate the principles so as to exclude Portsmouth, which is now spending more than 5 per cent. above its

835
target and nearly 35 per cent. above GRE. Moreover, its budgeted expenditure for 1984–85 represents about £88.75 per head compared with £71 per head for the 10 largest shire disricts and £51 per head for the shire districts as a whole. It is not as though Portsmouth is unfairly treated in terms of GRE, which is £66 per head—the eighth highest of all the shire districts — compared with an average of less than £50 per head for the shire districts as a whole. It may well be trying to budget responsibly, but it has repeatedly spent in excess of its target, so I am afraid that it is caught by the principles, although it is entitled, like any other authority, to seek derogations under the Rates Act.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Why is the Secretary of State pursuing such a wicked vendetta against the people of Sheffield when increases have been more than 2 per cent. below the national average since 1978–79 and 8 per cent. below the national average since 1981–82? Is it because the people of Sheffield have consistently increased their Labour vote throughout that period due to the good local government provided in that city?
Mr. Jenkin: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should talk to the commercial and business ratepayers who pay the overwhelming proportion of rates in Sheffield. They will be able to tell him a thing or two about rate payments in Sheffield.
Mr. David Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the small potential relative improvement in the position of low-spending counties will be welcome, as far as it goes, after the unrealistic and unfair position that previously prevailed? Does he agree, however, that the whole paraphernalia of holdback, clawback, penalties and targets is reaching the end of its useful life, if it ever had one, and that the time will very soon be here for a major reform to establish relations between local and central government on a fairer basis and to define more clearly the distribution of functions between them?
Mr. Jenkin: On many occasions, speaking before local authority audiences and elsewhere, I have made no secret of my wish to see an end to the target and holdback provisions and I hope that we shall be able to move in that direction in the next year or two. In the meantime, however, there is considerable overspend on local authority current expenditure. That was one of the reasons for my announcement about overspending on capital expenditure, which I would rather not have made. Until local authority expenditure as a whole is closer to the Government guidelines, the measures will remain necessary, but I take careful note of my hon. Friend's wish for a long-term solution to the difficult problem of the financial relations between central and local government and I share his ambitions in that respect.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the city of Leicester has managed to retain its excellent services while keeping rate increases below inflation at 3·106 per cent. last year and 4·253 per cent. this year? In his campaign for taxation without local representation, will he at least exclude decent, responsible, hard-working Labour authorities which are doing a first-class job for the citizens of areas such as Leicester?
Mr. Jenkin: Leicester's budget is more than 27 per cent. above GRE and nearly 5 per cent. above target. In the past five years, Leicester has increased its spending by 134 per cent. compared with an average of 79 per cent. While the average shire district has managed to reduce manpower by 6·2 per cent. since 1979, Leicester has increased its manpower by 6·9 per cent.
Mr. Charles Morrison: I thank my right hon. Friend for his early statement, which will undoubtedly help local authorities in their financial planning. I also welcome what he is doing for the lower spenders. Does he accept, however, that the increase for low spenders will at best be at the level of inflation? Is he aware that those authorities have already cut services to the bone and that there has been a progressive deterioration in roads, the provision of school books, and so on? Is it not likely, therefore, that the rate increase in the lowest spending areas will be a good deal higher than the average?
Mr. Jenkin: It is impossible to estimate the rate increase in any individual authority or class of authority as this will depend on the way in which they prepare their budgets next year and the extent to which they use balances or put money to balances.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the more realistic targets that we are setting for low spenders. The advantage of the proposals that I have announced is that if an authority can make savings through greater efficiency it can then put the savings into improved services without incurring any holdback penalty. The great majority of authorities could still run their services more efficiently. The low-spending authorities will be able to use that greater efficiency to provide better services.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Secretary of State aware that 80 per cent. of the budget of Merseyside county council goes on police and fire services and public transport and that the council has managed to turn the tide with regard to passenger transport use? Which statutory obligations does he expect the council to renege on? Is it to be the police or the fire service when in both cases the pay settlements are nationally agreed? Is he aware that in a deprived area such as Merseyside, where more than 50 per cent. of households do not own a car, people rely on an efficient passenger transport service such as that which has become increasingly available under the Labour-controlled council? Is he also aware from his recent visits that the people of Merseyside will never succumb to his gauleiter policies?
Mr. Jenkin: The Merseyside county council and some other authorities would do well to stop spending ratepayers' money on free handouts to the miners. The hon. Gentleman's language is grossly exaggerated. I am asking no more of the three highest spenders than for them to spend the same cash next year as they are budgeting to spend this year. They should then manage to provide all services without coming within a mile of breaching any of their statutory obligations.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: If the Government intend to reduce by 3 per cent. the share of local authority expenditure which they pay, how will that assist in reducing the level of rate rises to which the Government are committed?
Mr. Jenkin: We are enhancing the accountability of local authorities — [Interruption.] That is exactly the argument which the Opposition used when they did the same. By enhancing their accountability local authorities will be made responsive to their ratepayers' desire for more economic and effective services. That is a continuation of a trend followed by successive Governments since 1976.
Ms. Harriet Harman: How can the Secretary of State say that Southwark is an overspending authority when its increase in expenditure in the last five years has been less than the increase in expenditure by the Ministry of Defence? Will the right hon. Gentleman face up to the fact that if he rate-caps Southwark it will mean fewer home helps, fewer meals on wheels and fewer nursery places? Is he aware that that is bound to mean that more elderly people and more children will be forced into institutions, which is in direct contradiction to what his friends in the DHSS say they want? Should the right hon. Gentleman not be pursuing authorities such as Gloucestershire, which refused a home help to a woman of 104 and the Isle of Wight which provides not one nursery place, instead of Southwark which tries to provide decent services?
Mr. Jenkin: Southwark is spending nearly 52 per cent. above its GRE and nearly 17 per cent. above its target. It has increased its expenditure by 100 per cent. in the last five years compared with the average of 79 per cent. Southwark simply must recognise that the burden that it has imposed upon its ratepayers is intolerable. The purpose of the Rates Act is to protect ratepayers in high-spending areas. I am glad that we have been able to make a start this year.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the strictures of right hon. and hon. Members who know the size of the problem, those of us who represent low-spending, prudently managed counties such as Essex are pleased that he listened to our plea earlier this year that good management should not be penalised by the profligate spending of the few? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Essex is likely to receive 4 per cent. or more above this year's budget? Does that figure take account of any likely movement of inflation between now and then?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. Essex has been spending below its GRE. Notwithstanding that it was marginally over target this year, its target will be uplifted by the full and maximum 4·25 per cent., which is the present estimate of the gross domestic product deflater. The Essex spending target should be protected against inflation.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be received with anger by the Sheffield city and south Yorkshire councils which have pursued reasonable and realistic targets, have deployed their resources efficiently—given the nature and burden of their responsibilities — and whose records have been endorsed time and again at the polls? Where does the scope for improvement in Sheffield lie without crippling its services and creating job losses? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was venting his political spleen on what is, after all, a Labour citadel.
Mr. Jenkin: Politics does not enter into the issue. We have applied fair and reasonable criteria, without fear or favour, against all authorities. Ratepayers in Sheffield and south Yorkshire have been groaning under the burden of rates. During the passage of the Rates Act the nexus between rates and votes in the two areas broke down. The Government fought the election on a pledge to protect ratepayers against high-spending councils. This is the first step to that end.
Sir John Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), the residents of Hallam, who find the rates burden too heavy, will welcome his statement? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that industry, trade and commerce in Sheffield and south Yorkshire have seen extravagance in the city and county councils for five and perhaps 10 years and therefore will welcome a measure that will control the burden on their businesses so that they can stay in business and do not have to make more people unemployed?
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that defiance can be mitigated by constructive proposals by the Auditor-General and his Department so that at last we may have more efficient town and county halls?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On the question of the proposed defiance of the Rates Act, it comes ill from the Opposition to say that they will not heed legislation passed by the House. However, councils are not led by one man — [Interruption.] — however notorious he may be. Every councillor who faces the responsibility of complying with the Government's legislation will have to recognise his legal obligations. I have no doubt that, as in Liverpool this year, when authorities face decisions next year they will recognise that the law has to be obeyed.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of the problems faced by local authorities stem from this Government's policy of rising unemployment and all its social consequences? Instead of regurgitating figures, the right hon. Gentleman should pay full regard to the human problems in the cities to which only local authorities can react. Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to that, instead of telling us constantly about the overspending and wastefulness of local authorities which spend their money on housing people, on home helps and on providing social services? Does he agree that such services are needed more in times of high unemployment?
Mr. Jenkin: Of course local authorities have a duty to those whom they serve. The needs of an area which is deprived are recognised in the GRE assessments. However, that does not excuse local authorities which do not seek to provide services in the most efficient and effective way possible. In areas where there is a great need for local authority services the incentive and obligation to achieve the maximum efficiency is higher. I hope that the hon. Member will use his influence to try to secure that result in Liverpool.
Mr. William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of Streatham and Lambeth will present him with a vote of thanks because they have been hammered by high rates and little improvement in

839
services? Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to impose personal penalties on councillors who introduce illegal rates, or no rates at all?
Mr. Jenkin: On the latter point, the ordinary provisions of the law will apply. As we have seen this year, there is an obligation on an authority to make a rate, and the auditor, although allowing reasonable time for that process, is not powerless where an authority refuses to do so.
On the first point, compared with the London borough of Wandsworth, which in 1983–84 spent £202 per head, Lambeth spent £315 per head, which is half as high again. Who will put his hand on his heart and say that Lambeth services are half as good again as those of Wandsworth?
Mr. John Fraser: Will not the Secretary of State recognise that in Lambeth he has achieved a moronic double? He will be cutting local authority services there by 10 per cent. in real terms—taking into account the increase in interest rates and inflation—and cutting the services of ILEA and the GLC by about 10 per cent. in real terms. At the same time, he is forcing up rates by cutting rate support grant by about 6p in the pound and by increasing penalties so that, for instance, in Lambeth every extra pound spent on improvement grants or the administration of the housing benefit system, because of holdback, will cost the ratepayers £10.
The Secretary of State has announced a prospectus for poverty, redundancy and cuts. Does he not realise that he is pushing local authorities to the very limits of legality and breaching the convention of general municipal obedience to central Government? Let me warn the Secretary of State that he had better start making preparations to nationalise local government.
Mr. Jenkin: I might reasonably ask the hon. Gentleman why it costs Lambeth £15 a head to empty dustbins when neighbouring Wandsworth does it for £9. That can be repeated in service after service. The hon. Gentleman is doing no service to his constituents by trying to pretend that his authority is so efficient that it cannot make even the savings necessary for a cash standstill this year over next year.
Sir Dudley Smith: Given the situation which has arisen, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is essential to reward low-spending authorities for their efforts, which he has gone some way towards doing this afternoon? Is he also aware that the vast majority of ratepayers—I mean ratepayers—will regard the package that he has announced as being fair and a measure that will begin to curb some of the excesses about which we have learnt? Does not this show yet again that there is an essential need to revise the whole rating system?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend knows that the Government engaged in as wide a consultation as any of their predecessors in trying to find an alternative to the rating system for financing local authorities. This was the subject of a study by the Select Committee on the Environment. The conclusion both of the Government and the Committee was that there appeared to be no acceptable alternative to the local rates. The real problem is that rates in some areas are rising too high and the burden was too
840
great. The announcement that I made was the first step towards implementation of the manifesto pledge that we would deal with that problem.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), when Liverpool did not want to cut services and make people redundant and so that Liverpool would stay within the law, urged the Liverpool Labour group to put up rates? Now they are making that legal action illegal for these rate-capped authorities. Does not the Secretary of State realise that he is likely to turn into lawbreakers and criminals those in our society who have spent a lifetime protecting the elderly, the disabled and our education services, whereas the heroin pushers and dealers of Merseyside will be left alone?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is engaging in mad exaggeration. I am asking the highest spending authorities to do no more than to keep their spending in cash terms next year level with that of this year. They are, by definition, authorities that are spending well above the GRE level and well above targets. They should look about and use the Audit Commission report to see where their services are so much less economical and efficient. Many other authorities are well able to provide good services at much lower cost. That is the way to get value for money in local government.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the Member for Leicester, East, I speak with authority when I say that the news that Leicester is to be rate capped will be welcome to both local and commercial ratepayers alike? Is he further aware that up to £60,000 has already been spent by the grossly extravagant Labour-controlled Leicester city council when its spending rate is 55 per cent. above the national spending rate in this year alone? It has a policy of no redundancies under any circumstances, which is why its employment rate is 6·9 per cent. above the national average. This is the best news that my right hon. Friend could have given us this afternoon.
Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: If the average increase in spend of all authorities since 1979 has been 92 per cent., and the London borough of Haringey has increased its spend by 88 per cent. on what basis does the right hon. Gentleman justify rate capping that authority? If he again uses the argument about increased manpower in that authority, how does he square it with the Home Secretary's recent boast about the increased number of policemen who have been employed in London? Does that mean that the Secretary of State is rate capping all these authorities to make a reduction in real terms next year by the equivalent of the rise in the retail price index, and will that include a cut in the police force for London?
Mr. Jenkin: The Metropolitan police force is not covered by this statement. In 1983–84, Haringey spent £555 per head, which is 37 per cent. over GRE compared with neighbouring Enfield, which spent £328 per head, which is 2 per cent. above the GRE. Why does Haringey employ 64·4 staff per 1,000 population when other outer London boroughs manage with 43 staff per 1,000 population? By any standards, Haringey is a grossly overspending authority. As my hon. Friend the Member

841
for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, many of the ratepayers there will welcome my announcement this afternoon.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of Swindon and Thamesdown will welcome this news? Is he also aware that the Audit Commission report for Thamesdown showed that the bulk of the overspending by that authority was in the development of new houses and new factories in the new parts of the borough so as to help to create employment and prosperity? Will he recognise that fact when, as I think is likely, the local authority's representatives come to talk to him soon?
Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend knows, the Rates Act makes provision for authorities to seek derogations from the expenditure limits that I have announced. I have no doubt that a number of authorities will be beating a path to my door to put their particular circumstances to me. We shall no doubt look carefully at factors such as those that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State accept that the best way to get value for money from local council spending is not to create an ever more complex and bureaucratic system of central Government control but to give local people a better chance to influence what goes on in their town halls? Has he seen the threat made by a number of rate-capped authorities that they will dissipate their reserves during the current financial year, and will therefore have to levy a substantial rate rise even to fund the reduced expenditure that he is approving for next year? How will that be good news for the ratepayers in those authorities?
Mr. Jenkin: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is applauding the actions of authorities which wish to do that. A number of authorities, in making their budget and rate this year, drew heavily on balances. One can only spend a balance once. It may be that some authorities will make high rate increases next year. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman categorically that their expenditure will be lower than it otherwise would have been as a result of the operation of the Rates Act that I have announced this afternoon.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: My right hon. Friend is well aware that some authorities protected their ratepayers by prudent budgeting and expenditure economy before the Government returned to office in 1979. How does he defend a formula that seems to penalise such authorities for so doing, and seems to ignore the substantial discrepancies in rating valuation which affect Surrey as opposed to, say, Kent or Hampshire? Can he tell me, for the benefit of my constituents, where he expects Surrey to come in the order of priorities of beneficiaries from his statement today?
Mr. Jenkin: Surrey will have a maximum increase of 4·25 per cent., which is equivalent to the estimate of inflation next year. Surrey is a high-resource authority. As my hon. Friend knows, the principle of equalisation of rate poundage is fair. Because high-resource authorities have a broad resource base, they should be able to keep rate increases down to reasonable levels next year if they spend within their targets, as I am sure that Surrey will wish to do.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman must have a heart of flint, or an implanted calculating machine, when he puts inner city areas like Brent into his scheme. Does he recall that under our statutory obligations we are paying £30,000 a week for the homeless, and that we have a crisis in housing with 15,000 people on the waiting list?
More important, does he recall that when he was Secretary of State for Social Services he persuaded local authorities to bring people out of the institutions of psychiatric hospitals and into the community? As a result in Brent we are bringing 60 patients from Shenley into the community by arrangement with the DHSS. The right hon. Gentleman's cuts in Brent will mean that the support and back-up services for those people will not be available. How can he justify that?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is aware that GREs take account of the special needs of inner cities. Perhaps I may quote some of the figures. Camden has a GRE of £360 per head, Islington of £353 and Hackney £321. The average GRE for inner London is £286. If the GRE average, excluding education, is compared with that in the outer London boroughs, to put it on a comparable basis, the average GRE is £140 per head in outer London boroughs. Several inner-city areas undoubtedly have inner-city problems, which is recognised in our formula.
The fact that an inner-city authority has inner-city problems is not a reason for not making its services as effective and efficient as possible. I know that the local authorities in Brent and many other areas could certainly make economies in the way that they deliver services for their ratepayers.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase is welcome as far as it goes, although I should like it to go much further. For example, in the London borough of Hillingdon it seems that the target will be just under £90 million, whereas Hillingdon's forecast target budget for this year is £90·363 million.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unless there is an improvement in the rate support grant settlement in December, the high-resource outer London authorities like Hillingdon will continue to face considerable difficulties?
Mr. Jenkin: I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that the target for an outer London authority such as Hillingdon, which is spending above its GRE, will be 3·75 per cent. higher than its budget for this year. Last year, the equivalent figure was only 2·5 per cent. against a 5 per cent. inflation forecast, whereas this year the proposed target is only 0·5 per cent. below the estimate of inflation. I do not think that that should prove an impossible target to meet, even in Hillingdon, which I know faces considerable problems.
Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State realise that the expenditure level that he set in his statement for the London borough of Islington will effectively mean a cut of 8 per cent. in Islington's services in the next financial year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an invitation to come with me to Islington—it is not far from the House —to meet some of the elderly people, the families with children and those with disabilities who will be severely harmed by the effect of his statement? He would learn at

843
first hand not that they welcome the statement — far from it—but that they react with anger and resentment at the loss of those services. Will the right hon. Gentleman come with me and talk to my constituents to find out what they really think?
Mr. Jenkin: I was in Islington three weeks ago addressing a meeting. There was warm support for the Government's legislation and a strong demand that Islington should be on the list of rate-capped authorities. Islington has become notorious for spending money on wild fringe activities and it could certainly run many services more economically. All that we ask is that Islington should hold its cash spending next year at the same level as this year—against an inflation forecast of 4·25 per cent. which I do not think is unreasonable.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful to him for sincerely trying to rectify the injustices of his predecessors to low spenders and that all ratepayers and sensible people welcome his attempt to curb the activities of some lunatic authorities? Assuming that Cambridgeshire will receive its 4·25 per cent. is it not being hit less firmly than other authorities rather than having the injustices of many years rectified?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Cambridgeshire is one of the fastest growing counties in the country? That is causing special problems. Is he also aware that all this is no substitute for proper reform of the silly rating system and that decisions are needed rather than more consultations?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is referring to our attempts to meet the case last year for low-spending authorities, for which I thank him. Cambridgeshire, like most low spenders, will be allowed an increase of 4·25 per cent. on this year's budget compared with a maximum of 3 per cent. for the current year against an inflation estimate of 5 per cent.
Under the public expenditure constraints, it would be wrong for me to disregard spending above target, even if it is below GRE. Supposing that I had allowed a disregard for spending between target and GRE, that would give an additional headroom of about £500 million. We were already adding more than £800 million to local authority current spending. Given the constraints, the announcement is fair.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that what he calls the excesses of high-spending authorities arise because many areas provide services that they are not statutorily obliged to do, such as nursery education or care for the elderly, for which all authorities must provide increasingly? Does he accept that councils might be running something like south Yorkshire's passenger transport service, which has much popular support? Although the Secretary of State claims to protect ratepayers, the ratepayers of south Yorkshire ought to be protected against him, his Rates Act and his rate capping rather than ratepayers being protected from the authorities?
In the past 12 months, since I came to the House, I have not received any letters from ratepayers complaining about the level of South Yorkshire county council's rates. My
844
local authority, which I consulted recently, has not received letters from local business men complaining about the rates in south Yorkshire. How can the Secretary of State justify saying that he needs protection when we need protection from Whitehall, not the other way round?
Mr. Jenkin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have received many letters from ratepayers in south Yorkshire who have complained about the burden of rates. Indeed, they have made it abundantly clear that they look to the Government to protect them against the persistently high rate demands that that authority has made over the years.
I am confident that south Yorkshire will be able to live within the expenditure limit that I have set, which requires no more than that it should keep its cash spending in line with its spending for this year.
Mr. Piers Merchant: In view of the doubts expressed about the exact nature of the criteria used in selecting those authorities that are the so-called victims of rate limitation, will my right hon. Friend consider reviewing those criteria at an early opportunity? Will he also examine the financial situation of Newcastle city council? According to his announcement, that authority is not to be rate limited, although it is well-known for its extravagence and high rates. Although my right hon. Friend's statement will be good news to many ratepayers throughout the country, does he accept that it will not help those ratepayers in Newcastle who were last year faced with the highest rates in the country?
Mr. Jenkin: If I remember rightly, it was my hon. Friend who drew the attention of the Standing Committee on the Rates Bill to the fact that, even before that Bill had reached the statute book, Newcastle city council was taking account of its provisions. It has clearly made efforts to come closer to the targets that it was set and so to reduce the burden on its ratepayers, and it does not come within the criteria that I have set out. I hope that many other authorities will do their best to avoid coming within the criteria set under the Rates Act. That is the best way of keeping local authority spending within limits.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only groaning to be heard in south Yorkshire has come from the weight of Labour votes in the ballot box, which have returned Labour councillors to south Yorkshire in overwhelming numbers time and again? Would he care to publish the letters that he has received, as I suspect that some of them come from people who do not live in south Yorkshire but who have probably visited it? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people themselves want to determine the sort of area in which they live, the services that they want, and the amount of money that they should pay? It is not the Secretary of State's job to tell them what to do.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman sat through all our proceedings on the Rates Bill, and he should know that that is not a proposition that either this Government or their predecessors could accept. Local authorities derive their powers, including their powers to tax, from Parliament, and for many years they have abided by the convention that their total expenditure should remain within the guidelines set by central Government and approved by the House. Like any other authority, south Yorkshire is not

845
entirely free to spend and rate up as far as it would wish. As part of the general body politic in this country, it is expected to he guided by the guidelines laid down by this House.
Mr. W. Benyon: My right hon. Friend will recall that I was no particular friend of the Rates Bill. Nevertheless, it is the law of the land. Will he make it crystal clear that the Government will not hesitate to use the full resources of the law against any council that goes against that law?
Mr. Jenkin: So far as it lies within my power, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course, some of the legal provisions lie at the instance of the district auditor.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposals that he has announced will lop about £60 million off the budget of the Inner London educational authority? Will he also confirm that he has not obtained a mandate so to damage London's education service from a borough election, an ILEA/GLC election or a parliamentary election? Will he take it from me that the people of inner London will not be prepared to put up with a £60 million cut in provision for their education service, which they want to see improved, not damaged?
Mr. Jenkin: Compared with ILEA's budget — national insurance surcharge adjusted—for the current year of £917 million, ILEA's provisional target for next year is £900 million, which is nowhere near the reduction that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman should take account of inflation.
Mr. Jenkin: We can take account of inflation, but the fact remains that ILEA spends far more on many of its services than other education authorities. I have no doubt whatever that it can make the savings sought this year without seriously damaging its services.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that those businesses within the local authority areas that he has named will welcome his proposals, as it is they that pay most of the rates and have to provide the jobs. What percentage of householders and those within the local authorities that he has named actually pay the full rate?
Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend knows, the percentage varies from authority to authority. However, over the country as a whole, only £1 in £5 is paid by the domestic ratepayer. Indeed, £4 out of every £5 comes from other sources, including the rate support grant. In many of the areas affected by rate capping, the percentage of those paying rates is even lower than that. In those circumstances, the ratepayers turn to the Government for protection. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not bordering on the hypocritical of the Government to tell local authorities that are striving manfully to provide services for the young, the old, the disabled, and so on, to make cuts while at the same time the Government are giving increased grants to the Common Market in 1984–85 so that French farmers can be subsidised, the Italian Mafia can be propped up and another 60,000 tonnes of cheap butter can be provided for Russia while unemployment rises as a
846
result? Is it not apparent that the Labour-controlled authorities can fight this measure only by joining together and defying this obnoxious law?
Mr. Jenkin: I know that the Gentleman has been away for a little while, but I think that he may have strayed into the wrong debate.
Mr. John Powley: At first sight, the settlement for Norfolk seems to be along the right lines. But does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the settlement for any local authority is, authorities will be better able to keep within their targets during the forthcoming financial year if wage and salary settlements—which account for 60 to 65 per cent. of all expenditure—are kept to low single figures and if, in particular, the current dispute with the teachers is settled at the announced rate of 4·5 per cent.?
Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that local authorities should look to their pay and manpower levels if they are to keep within their targets and provide efficient services. I note what he has said about the teachers' pay arbitration. That matter is currently in hand, and it would be quite wrong of me to express any view about it.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State belongs to a Government who glory in confrontation and are continually trying to recreate domestically the Falklands war. They are doing it with the miners and now they are going to do it with local government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the GLC were to cut £54 million off its budget for 1985–86, it would mean terminating all grants to organisations—no doubt the Secretary of State would be glad of that—stopping funding to the Greater London training board, adding £5 a week to housing rents, sacking 1,000 firemen, reducing the operation of the Thames barrier, ending all repairs, removing the GLC mobility scheme, and so on? Does he really believe that members of the GLC will carry out such cuts? I can assure him that we shall not. The Secretary of State is writing a prescription for confrontation, because that is the style of his Government, that is what his political mistress wants, and that is precisely what they will get this year. The only thing that concerns me is that it will not be this Secretary of State who will see the confrontation. However, his announcement is a prescription for confrontation, and he should know it.
Mr. Jenkin: I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman's speech might have been better received on the other side of the Thames.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action he has taken today. He will realise that the vast majority of people outside this House cannot understand the bleating that is taking place here on behalf of a few power-hungry, empire-building local authorities which, if they half put their houses in order and were half as efficient as industry —which has recently put itself in order, and pays over half the rates received—would have no problem at all in maintaining their services. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the knife will at last be taken to the collection of free-loading lesbians, gabbling left-wing Goebbels and—as we saw last night on television—the headquarters of the alternative Labour party, which is currently funded by the GLC?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend expresses the views of a large number of ratepayers.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement amounts to nothing more than a vendetta by the Government against the poorest people in the poorest parts of the country and against the public sector trade unions which are doing their best to defend the public interest? Is he further aware that many authorities will refuse to go on bended knee and ask for derogation and to co-operate by making a rate at the end of the year and that their electors will strongly support their declaration of war on the Government for trying to destroy their local services?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the borough of Islington the proposed cuts amount to more than £8 million? Is he further aware that 10 per cent. of all council jobs will be lost — for example, 80 staff will be dismissed from the housing repair section, 100 from the closure of six libraries, 71 from the closure of two old people's homes and 120 from the closure of six children's day nurseries? That means that 751 staff would be dismissed if these policies were carried out. Is he also aware that these policies mean that council workers will be thrown on the dole and that life will be made more miserable for the poor, the sick and the elderly? Has his Department calculated the on-cost in terms of misery and unemployment benefits that these policies will cause?
Mr. Jenkin: Nothing whatever will be gained by such wild scaremongering. Islington will be asked to do no more than to keep spending next year in line with spending this year. I have no doubt that, like other city authorities, it will be able to achieve that if it sets its mind to it.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: While waiting for the fundamental reform of the rating system, is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of ratepayers in Basildon, Billericay and Wickford will be delighted by these proposals? It may put an end to such things as tenpin bowling alleys being run at a loss on the rates, party political propaganda on the rates, nuclear-free zones and CND flowerbeds in our recreation parks and, worst of all, the driving out of real, meaningful jobs from our districts.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. The Basildon authority is spending more than 70 per cent. above its GRE in the current year and, by any standards, it is a grossly extravagant authority.
Mr. Bill Michie: Is the Secretary of State aware that I received a letter from a large engineering company, which set out how much the rates had affected its profits? I sent a letter back explaining how much the cuts in Government grants to Sheffield had affected profits, and asking whether I should take the matter further. The firm has since been silent. I advise other hon. Members to answer similar letters in the same vein so that firms understand what is going on.
Is the Secretary of State fully aware—he did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—of the effect that these proposals will have on jobs and services? His spiteful remarks earlier show that he is fully aware of local authorities which have helped to keep miners' families from starving. He should be more aware of the effect that the proposals will have on jobs and services in caring authorities. Does he realise that hitting so spitefully all authorities which put caring
848
before profit will only strengthen their resolve to fight to the bitter end? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had a MORI poll in Sheffield in which the people were asked their opinions about standing firm against Government cuts, and the answer was——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Member. He must put a question to the Secretary of State and not discuss the MORI poll, which has nothing to do with the Secretary of State.
Mr. Michie: Finally, is the Secretary of State aware that if he got a bloody nose from the cock-up in Liverpool, it would be like a vicars' tea party throughout the country?
Mr. Jenkin: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hysterical outbursts from Opposition Members are put into context when one considers the way in which many Labour-controlled authorities have responded to Government policies? Is he aware that in spite of many political misdemeanours, for which the Norwich city council is responsible, its prudent reaction to sensible Government policy has led to a 4·25 per cent. increase in target and, therefore, to a reasonably satisfactory outcome for the citizens of Norwich?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. If local authorities budget and spend prudently, they will be able to provide a perfectly adequate level of services at reasonable cost to ratepayers.
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is difficult to find an original question? In view of the fact that more than half of the councils to be rate-capped are in Greater London, will he acknowledge that his announcement today will be welcomed by industry and commerce which, through profligate spending by local councils and punitive rates, have had to lay off jobs? Will he undertake to cap Mr. Livingstone and his profligate and extravagant spending of £10 million on party political propaganda and make a statement at an early date about the revaluation, at least, of commercial and industrial properties?
Mr. Jenkin: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's problem. The same is true of finding answers. I answered a written question today about extravagant spending by abolition authorities.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have been considering the question of commercial revaluation. I hope that we shall be able to come forward with proposals in due course. Regarding domestic revaluation, the Government are still considering the position. I cannot offer any prospect of an early statement about it.
Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that virtually no hon. Member on either side of the House has categorised his announcement as good news for ratepayers? [Interruption.] Those who understand the issue certainly did not. Will the Secretary of State explain why he continues to shelter behind weasel words and does not have the courage of his convictions, such as they are, and admit that the target of 4·5 per cent., because it is less than the rate of inflation and taking account of the rise in interest rates, is bound to involve a cut in the real level of spending for authorities which are not to be rate capped and a cut of between 5 and 7 per cent. for authorities which are to be rate capped?

849
What is the Secretary of State's estimate for inflation following that recent rise in interest rates? Does he understand and accept that the reduction in the rate support grant of £590 million in real terms will force rates up in every area or force further cuts in services? Is he aware that he will be responsible for the rate rises, just as the Association of County Councils said that over the past five years the Government have been responsible for all rate rises above the level of inflation?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that if rate capping were to bring down the rate levels of the rate-capped authorities, there would be less rate support grant from the pool for the non-rate-capped authorities and therefore rate capping would force up the rates in lower spending Conservative-controlled authorities? Does he agree that that is the truth, as the director of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy claimed only last week?
When the Secretary of State talks about using the Audit Commission report, does he have in mind the report leaked last week, which showed that local authority expenditure has not increased above target, but that the apparent increase of £1,500 million during the past three years is entirely attributable to the bizarre and disgraceful system of local government finance over which he presides? He is responsible for overspending, not local authorities.
Lastly, does the Secretary of State believe that it is disgraceful that no provision has been made for a debate on such a major announcement? Does he agree that there should be the fullest possible debate on this report and announcement as soon as the House returns in the autumn?
Mr. Jenkin: The latter point should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The hon. Gentleman should know that my statement relates to the provisional arrangements for the rate support grant settlement, and that we shall now be consulting local authority associations on my announcement.
The hon. Gentleman said, as we have heard previously, that rate capping is bound to be to the disbenefit of authorities that are not rate-capped. I must tell him that,
850
overwhelmingly, the effects of the reduction in spending of rate-capped authorities will be to reduce the amount of holdback which they suffer, which has no impact on other authorities. When the holdback is levied, it goes to Me Treasury. When it is reduced, it comes back from the Treasury. If some changes have an effect on the block grant, which is the cash-limited amount, the effect will be no more than marginal. It will be far less important than the fact that we have prevented about £400 million of excess spending, and so have been able to set much more reasonable targets for low-spending authorities.
I do not know where the hon Gentleman has been for the past one and a half hours. Many of my hon. Friends welcomed my statement and recognised that it is in the interests of ratepayers——
Mr. Tony Banks: Only three.
Mr. Jenkin: I have the list here, and it is many more than three.
As to interest rates, these are provisional statements and no doubt we can consult the authorities on the figures that I have announced before I announce the final rate support grant in December.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. in view of the serious statement of the Secretary of State, will you advise me by what means the House can urgently debate this matter and divide on it?
Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the House will return to this subject again.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the rough time that the Secretary of State has had during the past one and a half hours, could you, as the friend of all of us, say a word of comfort to him before he goes on his last walk to the gallows?
Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State would have expected to answer all the questions that were put to him this afternoon. I will leave it at that.

Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment
5.23 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Copyright Act 1956 so as to provide new penalties for offences relating to infringing copies of computer programmes; to provide for the issue and execution of search warrants in relation to such offences; and to confirm that copyright subsists in computer programmes.
My Bill seeks to curb the serious and growing problem of theft by electronic copying of computer software. The objects of the Bill are, first, to make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that computer programmes in written or in electronically recorded form are covered by the Copyright Act 1956; and, secondly, to give stronger protection by means of the criminal law to the creators and manufacturers of software, who are suffering serious losses from what they describe as software theft.
The description "software theft" is all too accurate. I have watched while a small floppy disk containing the sort of business software that is used to make a microcomputer operate as a word processor, and which retails at nearly £300, is copied on a simple twin disc drive microcomputer in not longer than 10 seconds. There is nothing sophisticated about such theft. The video pirates who used to make pirated copies of video tapes and films, and whose activities are now being substantially curbed by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983, are now turning their attention to the piracy of software.
The object of the Bill is to make such piracy a criminal offence, in the same way was was done for pirated video tapes by the 1983 Act. The Bill will provide for unlimited fines and for up to two years' imprisonment for the making for sale, importing or distributing for commercial gain of articles which are known to infringe copyright. There will be lesser penalties for the selling, possessing, or exhibiting of such material. The Bill will also provide the police with powers to search for and to seize infringing material. I should make it clear that the Bill's criminal provisions will not apply to infringing copying for non-commercial purposes. As hon. Members with teenage children will know, there is a substantial problem with widespread home copying of games and other programmes. We are not after the schoolboy, but we are after the commercial pirates.
The seriousness of the problem should not be underestimated, and those who work in the industry who are keenly interested in the Bill will be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology, who is here to listen to the debate. Several leading software houses in the United Kingdom, including IBM, have joined the federation against software theft. They estimate that software theft causes annual losses of many tens of millions of pounds; indeed, some estimates exceed hundreds of millions of pounds.
In addition to the example that I have already given of the all-too-easy reproduction of valuable business software
852
using standard equipment, there are many other examples. Computer games are a growing industry. Those tapes are being pirated on a major scale, just as video tapes used to be pirated. Visitors to the Blackbushe Sunday market will find at least half a dozen stalls selling pirated games tapes, including pirated computer software. At least one operator has his own factory with sophisticated duplicating equipment and a substantial distribution network. Furthermore, those who deal in hardware are all too often ready to yield to the temptation of throwing in pirated copies of valuable business software to the purchasers of their equipment. Those activities damage software houses, large and small. They also injure the consumer, polluting a highly competitive market, and robbing the innovator of a legitimate return on his risk and investment.
Some people argue that a more widespread reform of the Copyright Act is needed, and such a reform may be in distant prospect. The immediate problem is to deal, not with the sophisticated plagiarist, but with the straight thief who, using widely available equipment, can produce with the greatest of ease perfect and immediate replicas of expensive and easily marketable software, which the reputable houses have often spent a small fortune to produce.
A Bill has been drafted to meet those immediate needs. Of course, it cannot become law this Session, but I hope that it will either stimulate a sympathetic Government to legislate in the coming Session, or that they will support a private Member's Bill following the autumn ballot. My proposals have wide support on both sides of the House, and I seek leave to introduce the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, and Mr. Richard Shepherd.

Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment
  COPYRIGHT (COMPUTER SOFTWARE) AMENDMENT BILL
  Mr. Nicholas Lyell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Copyright Act 1956 so as to provide new penalties for offences relating to infringing copy of computer programmes; to provide for the issue and execution of search warrants in relation to such offences; and to confirm that copyright subsists in computer programmes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 216.]

Trade Union Bill [Money] (No. 2)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Union Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in sums so payable under Schedule 1 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 (paragraph 8 of which relates to the provision of staff etc. for the Certification Officer). — [Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day
  Trade Union Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Trade Union Bill
    Clause 2

      REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED TO RELATION TO ELECTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      "(6) Every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

      (a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and

      (b) so far as is reasonably practicable, be enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself.

      (6A) So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

      (a) have sent to him, at his proper address and by post, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and

      (b) be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post."

      Read a Second time.
      5.32 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 1, at beginning, insert—
      '(5A) In accordance with Section 3 of the Employment Act 1980, the Secretary of State may issue Codes of Practice containing practical guidance on procedures for the issuing and counting of ballot papers. Such guidance shall stipulate certain minimum criteria and preclude certain practices. Failure by a union to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice shall give a union member the right to apply to the Certification Officer or to the court under section 3(1) of this Act for a declaration that the union has failed to comply with those requirements.'.)
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
      Amendments (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) to the proposed Lords amendment.
      Lords amendment No. 3, after Clause 2 insert the following new clause — Modification of section 2 requirements—
      " .—(1) Where a trade union proposes to hold an election and is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 2 of this Act would not be satisfied in relation to that election if subsection (6A) of that section were to apply as modified by this section, it may proceed as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6A) there were substituted—
      '(a) have made available to him—

      (i)immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and

      (ii)at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him;

      or be supplied with, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and
      (b) be given—

      (i) a convenient opportunity to vote by post (but no other opportunity to vote);

      (ii) an opportunity to vote immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours and at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him (but no other opportunity); or

      (iii) as alternatives, both of those opportunities (but no other opportunity).'"

      Amendments (a), (b), (c), and (d) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 3.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 13 to 16.
      Mr. Leigh: I believe that the considerable evidence of malpractice in workplace ballots gives ample justification for such an amendment to the Bill.
      Mr. Ron Davies: What is the evidence?
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman asks for evidence. I shall be delighted to provide it. The recently published pamphlet of Aims of Industry, under the heading
      "Trades Union Bill is ballot riggers' charter",
      said:
      "In last year's ballot in NALGO where the papers are issued in bulk for distribution in the place of work one member boasts of having cast 129 votes. His main strategem was going round the waste paper baskets filling in discarded ballot papers. This is known as 'putting to good use' ballot papers half of which are generally thrown away."
      If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that, perhaps he will listen to Kate Losinka, the president of the Civil and Public Services Association, the largest Civil Service union, who said that in the 1983 elections militants in her union held meetings in several rooms, harangued members and then immediately debated a ballot in that emotionally charged atmosphere. It is not surprising that, although Communists can achieve only 1 per cent. of the vote at general elections, in the CPSA they won many posts.
      I believe that all that is required—this is what my amendments seek—is a trenchant booklet setting out some answers to questions which moderate trade unionists and the House should be asking. For instance, will each faction fighting elections in trade unions have to appoint returning officers and scrutineers? How will neutrality be achieved in the collation of votes? How will voters identify themselves? Will they have to prove who they are? How will impersonation of those who are abroad or ill be prevented? Most important of all, how will voters at these elections know whether an election is to take place? Will it be advertised on page 3 of The Sun? I doubt it. Of course, under the Bill as at present drafted, they can always go to the certification officer, but a poll last year showed that 87 per cent. of trade unionists had never heard of the certification officer. Under the Bill, will the ballot papers carry a warning from the Government,
      "Government health warning —rigging may damage your union health."?
      Of course they will not.
      My amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 3, reads as follows:
      In line 2, leave out from 'union' to end of line 25 and add
      'proposes to hold an election other than by means specified in section 2(6A) of this Act the trade union shall show cause to the Certification Officer that the proposed method of election is fair, equitable and effective, and if the Certification Officer is so satisfied he shall allow the election to be held as proposed by the trade union.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, make by a statutory instrument subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, regulations specifying the procedure for claiming exemption under this section from the requirements of subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act. '.
      The effect of the amendrnent is to give power to the certification officer to prevent a workplace ballot proposed for no good reasons. Lord Gowrie in another place said that the Government hoped that postal as opposed to

      855
      workplace ballots would become the norm. Indeed, under the Government-inspired Lords amendment No. 1 a trade unionist is given a right to be sent a voting paper at his address. However, in the next breath, by Lords amendment No. 3, the trade union leadership is given a right to throw that overboard. It can satisfy itself that workplace ballots would be free, fair and effective. It is a judge in its own court. It is rather like giving an accused person the chance to choose trial in front of a nobbled jury or in front of a freely selected jury, and then giving the innocent victim the opportunity to appeal. If that is not sophistry, what is?
      I predict that when ballots are held in 1986 under the provisions of the Bill, postal ballots will simply be found not to have become the norm. What do the Government mean by the norm? Do they mean 50 per cent.? That is an optimistic figure by any count. They will not achieve 50 per cent. Do they mean a mere handful? Of course it will be a mere handful, possibly what we have at present; that is, basically the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union.
      Baroness Cox, who led the revolt initially in the Lords, and who to the very last held out, said:
      "What is causing deep disappointment to many moderate trade unionists is especially the fact that the presumption for postal ballots is so weak that it can easily be ignored, and the fact that there is no requirement whatever for any form of independent scrutiny to forestall potential malpractice. These omissions highlight perhaps the basic characteristic of both the Bill and the Government amendments—that they provide for a constructive change on a premise of goodwill and good faith, but they fail to give adequate safeguards for situations where these do not pertain. Indeed, these omissions are so serious that one experienced trade unionist has commented that, 'The wheelers and dealers and bully boys will be laughing:" —[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1984; Vol. 453, c. 1090.]
      They will be laughing at this.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the noble Baroness was elected by postal ballot or by a workplace ballot?
      Mr. Leigh: This is a serious debate, and anybody who knows the Baroness will know her concern for those who are fighting the militants. The hon. Gentleman knows all about militants. The Baroness is concerned for those who are fighting the militants in the workplace, and it is people like the Baroness whom we should be supporting.
      Assuming that the Government get their Bill today, I hope that, at least, the Minister will offer to review the working of the Bill. If, as is likely, there are no more ballots in two or three years' time than there are now, I hope that the Goverment will offer to bring in new legislation.
      Amendment (d) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 3 says:
      '(2) Where a trade union wishes to vary the method of voting in subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act, the trade union shall submit to the Certification Officer an explanation as to why the requirements of that subsection are not being followed and if the Certification Officer is not satisfied with that explanation his report shall be evidence in any court proceedings as to the validity of the subsequent workplace ballot. ' .
      In a spirit of compromise, I offer this to the Government. If the reason why they are not prepared to accept my other amendments is that they do not want to force the certification officer into telling the trade union what to do, surely they can at least accept this
      856
      compromise. It puts the onus on the trade union to justify a workplace ballot. If the certification officer is not satisfied with that explanation, his adverse comments can be used in proceedings in court.
      During the passage of the Bill, in order to convince the unconvinced of the unconvincable, the Government have produced a series of spurious arguments, with which I now deal.
      The first and real reason why they are not prepared to make secret postal ballots mandatory is what I would describe as the "two fingers argument". In other words, the Government are concerned that legislation passed in this Parliament will meet the same fate as legislation passed in the early 1970s. Of course trade unionists will object to secret postal ballots, because such ballots will ensure that militants will not be elected. That is the first and only reason for proposing them. If militants in the trade unions are not prepared to accept secret postal ballots as stipulated in my amendments, why should they be prepared to accept workplace ballots as stipulated in the Bill? I do not believe that they will.
      The next argument adduced by the Government is that workplace ballots produce a higher turnout. That is simply not so. There is, of course, a high turnout among the miners, but that is a unique industry, with a limited number of workplaces. The industry is heavily unionised, but even in this industry the practice of dishing out ballot papers at the workplace has been called into question.
      The other union often quoted by Ministers is the CPSA—the only major Civil Service union to hold workplace ballots. In 1981 there was a 40 per cent. turnout in that union, but by 1982 that had declined to 30 per cent. and this year it was as low as 25 per cent.
      The third argument is that of impracticality. It is said that some unions, such as the National Union of Seamen, cannot use postal ballots. That is fine. Let those unions justify themselves to the certification officer.
      The fourth argument is that some workplace ballots are, or could be, genuinely fair. So be it, but that should be justified to the certification officer.
      The fifth argument, that the unions cannot produce central registers, is, I believe, nonsense. The electricians' union succeeded in doing so long before the age of efficient computers and, incidentally, saved itself £1,000,000 in arrears.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: There is surely a stronger point in favour of my hon. Friend's amendments than he claims credit for. A secret postal ballot would result in correct and up-to-date union membership records, which some of us have long wanted. That would avoid the possibility of the Mickey Mouse branches and membership counting that we have seen in the past.
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point.
      The next argument is that we should leave it to the moderates such as Frank Chapple. He is a once-in-a-lifetime figure, and we simply cannot expect the average man on the shop floor to approach the union bully boys and to demand a secret postal ballot. That simply will not happen.
      The last argument is that we shall fall foul of the ILO if we insist on secret postal ballots. That is nonsense. All countries regulate trade unions. If we are to be taken to the ILO simply for insisting on fair secret postal ballots, what are we to fear from that august body?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): I am somewhat confused. Have not the Government said that they will extricate themselves from the ILO in any event as soon as they are able to do so?
      Mr. Leigh: If that is so, it makes my point even stronger. I do not understand why Ministers are so exercised about the ILO.
      As the Bill has progressed, the denizens of Caxton house have used all these arguments, but I prefer to listen to a man who fought militants on the shop floor. Writing in The Sunday Times, Frank Chapple said:
      "MPs should be under no illusion when they vote on Tuesday on the question of workplace versus postal ballots in union elections … MPs should insist on reinstating the earlier plan to make secret postal ballots the rule, rather than the exception. The Governmet's behaviour on this vexed issue is as remarkable as it is disturbing. It has warbled, waffled and prevaricated. Ministers who once enthusiastically backed the postal ballot moved inexplicably to prefer workplace ballots … There is no practical case against postal ballots — only the left's covert anxiety to prevent the extension of democracy to the privacy of the union member's home. Yet the Government will still leave the union to decide on whether the ballots should be postal or at the workplace. True, a complaints procedure will exist. But the onus will be on the individual member to buck the system."
      We are being asked to adopt the policy of the preemptive cringe. Like the chandeliered ballroom of the dictator's palace, where gentle persuasion is used to hide the torture chambers below, so the Government by their arguments give respectability to all that is most shady and disreputable in the trade union movement. They turn their backs on men such as Frank Chapple and women such as Kate Losinska, who for years have battled against the militants in our trade union movement.
      In a letter to The Times, moderate trade unionists said that militants fear secret postal ballots like Dracula fears the crucifix. I would add, "Or like Frankenstein the powercut and Habgood the thunderbolt." Are we to have the courage of our convictions, or will the supporters of "The Resolute Approach" be dismissed in terms used by a Prime Minister to which the present Prime Minister is often equated:
      "Decided only to be undecided
      Resolved to be irresolute
      Adamant for drift
      Solid for fluidity
      All powerful to be impotent"?
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: It is not my function to defend the Secretary of State against the vicious attack of his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I leave the right hon. Gentleman to do that for himself. However, the hon. Gentleman made some observations on which I feel bound to comment.
      He used a number of terms in almost shorthand pungency without for a moment seeking to define them. Terms used in a dogmatic way, confusing dogmatism with authority—as the hon. Gentleman did—without being defined, obscure any discussion or debate. I want to turn my attention to two of the terms that he used and to invite the House to think about them.
      The hon. Gentleman used the word "militant". In some ways we live in a strange age, in which "do-gooder" has become a pejorative term. When I was a youngster, one was proud to be called a do-gooder, but now one is sneered at. Presumably one gets applauded for being a do-badder.
      858
      In exactly the same way, someone who joins an organisation but makes no contribution to the work and welfare of that organisation, apart from his subscription, and who leaves it to others to do the work, is somehow considered to be a desirable person, whereas a chap who does the work is dismissed sneeringly with the term "militant" — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle used the term without defining it, I am entitled to make my definition.
      Under my definition, I have been a militant for more than half a century. By that I mean that I have done my share of the chores. I have regularly attended branch meetings. Presumably the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle admires those who stay away. When necessary I have taken office, sometimes even when it has been inconvenient and taken up too much of my leisure time. That is the basis on which trade unions work. I have never sacrificed enough to be a branch secretary. I am amazed at the self-sacrifice of branch secretaries, many of whom give up their leisure time for four evenings a week and even one or two mornings at the weekend. They are the militants——
      6 pm
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins rose——
      Mr. Mikardo: I shall give way in a moment, although I have a strong suspicion that what the hon. Gentleman wants to say is not important.
      I have been militant when it has been necessary. I have participated in many delegations and have volunteered—although perhaps not as often as I should have done—to take collections. After all, someone must do that. Many people do not realise that 95 per cent. of the work of trade unions is carried out voluntarily, without reward, by people in their leisure time. They are the militants. We need militants to keep the unions operating. When I hear hon. Members or anyone else speaking with contempt about militants in trade unions, I know that they have never been involved in the work of trade unions.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Frank Chapple, the Prime Minister, myself and many others would be termed militant under the hon. Gentleman's definition? He defined a militant as someone who takes part actively in the institutions in which they work.
      Mr. Mikardo: That is marvellous. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my next point. That is the fate of hon. Members who give way too readily.
      My next definition is that of a moderate. I find the use of the word "moderate" to be rather strange. I know Frank Chapple very well, and although we are at odds on many matters, we get on well. We both have East End connections. Frank Chapple does not think of himself as a moderate. Anyone who describes him as a moderate and me as an extremist is turning the truth on its head. No one is a more moderate old geezer than me. Sometimes I think that I am too moderate. Frank is undoubtedly an extremist and I do not think he would object to that description. Conservative Members are falling for Fleet street newspeak. When dealing with political matters, they never use the term Right-wing—they only refer to Left-wing extremists on the one hand and moderates on the other. No one is ever Right-wing. Anyone who is a Right-winger is

      859
      automatically a moderate and anyone who is a Left-winger is automatically an extremist. That is why a distinction must be drawn.
      I remind the House that Frank Chapple was one of the Communist gang who did the original ballot rigging in the ETU. Trade union reform came about because of Frank Chapple, Frank Haxell and Leslie Cannon. I knew them well; they were the fiddlers three. Only the newcomers to trade union matters, such as the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, who still has his mother's milk wet on his lips, look upon Frank Chapple as a great pillar of respectibility.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle dismissed all the Government's arguments rather brusquely. I wish to deal with the argument about the electoral register. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think it was impossible to have an accurate register. One hon. Member said that ballots would help to put the registers straight. I must say that they will not do that, even though I wish that they would. Trade unions need accurate lists of members, but it is difficult to compile them because people change their jobs and move homes without notifying their branch secretaries.
      My union distributes a journal by post, but, unhappily, a large percentage are not delivered because members have changed their addresses without notifying their branch secretaries. Someone might move, not simply into the next borough, but, because of a change of job, to another part of the country. Some people have followed the advice of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, got on their bikes and gone somewhere else to work. Those people register in a different branch and branch transfers have to be made. However, branch secretaries work in their spare time, without the aid of typewriters, duplicators and word processors—therefore, branch transfers take a considerable time and electoral registers are not updated.
      At the last election, the electoral register in my constituency was about 8 or 9 per cent. inaccurate, leaving aside deaths. In one ward it was 15 per cent. out, despite the fact that the register is compiled by professional people with considerable resources. They spend a great deal of money sending out forms, they employ many clerks and people to knock on doors. Yet the register is still inaccurate. Therefore, we cannot expect too much when the register is composed by amateurs in their spare time.
      Mr. Fallon: The register for my constituency may be inaccurate, but at the general election 77 per cent. of the electorate managed to vote — which is a much higher figure than those voting on trade union matters. Some pathetic arguments are being put against the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman's argument is easily the most pathetic. He claims that because members have changed their addresses branch secretaries cannot keep their registers up to date. Surely it will be a strong incentive to members who change their addresses to register their new addresses if they know that they might lose their vote in any ballots.
      Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. Gentleman had ever been a trade union member he would know that there are more compelling reasons for persuading people to notify a change of occupation or address than having a vote once
      860
      in a blue moon, yet people still do not do so. There is a great deal of inertia and lethargy. All that Conservatives Members have said is highly theoretical.
      Mr. John Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, of which I am a member, we have postal ballots not only for executive council members but for every other paid officer in the union. Each union member has about 20 postal ballots a year. Nevertheless, every month our union journal carries long messages from the general secretary and other officials begging members to notify the union of their change of address, often to no avail. Despite all the efforts of the officers in our union, the register is at least 10 to 15 per cent. out.
      Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that his union has exactly the same problem as mine. Not only does that happen in trade unions, but it is a common complaint among secretaries of all voluntary organisations, especially those who work in their spare time. They find a register difficult to keep up to date.
      In the ordinary way, it would not matter to be 1 or 2 per cent. out, but once it becomes a matter of law anybody who claims not have been sent a ballot paper can cause endless problems by going to law. We have seen how sea lawyers in all sorts of organisations can exploit such a situation. What Conservative Members may say shows that their approach is not based on their experience of life and the organisation and management of trade unions.
      It is irrelevant that the percentage turnout at trade union votes is so low. I deplore that. I have spent a lot of time in my union working hard to increase that percentage. I have addressed meetings and begged people to vote. I have said that I do not care how people vote, as long as they vote. I have given a lot of my time to doing that. If the hon. Gentleman has not done that, he should not be complaining about the low level of ballots. That is to be regretted and we should all aim to make democracy more participatory. Too many people in all walks of life are prepared to let others do the chores and even make the decisions.
      A trade union is no different from this honourable House in one respect — [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) lets me finish, if he shuts his mouth and opens his ears, he will learn something to his advantage. A trade union is full of willing people—a few are willing to work and the rest are willing to let them. Hon. Members know that that is true of the House, a trade union, all voluntary organisations and some non-voluntary organisations as well. We all know that. Those of us who are the workers regret it, but we bear our share of the burden. It is no good being theoretical about all this.
      Mr. Martin Stevens rose——
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)rose——
      Mr. Mikardo: Is it more important, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give way to a Front Bencher or a Back Bencher? I shall give way to an old friend, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens).
      Mr. Stevens: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind gesture. I warn him against saying that I still have my mother's trade union milk splashing over me. I do not think that I have missed more than four or five meetings

      861
      of my branch of the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs in the past eight years, so I am all right.
      Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman does not attend the union's annual conference when he is the delegate.
      Mr. Stevens: If anybody is interested, that intervention is untrue.
      With all the imperfections, and in the interests of being practical, does the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) think that more trade union members, or fewer would vote if we had a personal ballot than if we used the workshop ballot, the branch ballot, or another method?
      Mr. Mikardo: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman defends himself so vigorously against an accusation that I never made. I was not referring to him when I spoke of people not knowing how the unions work. I was speaking of somebody else. Nevertheless, he had better be careful or he might be run down as militant. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not know, nor does anyone else. But there would be a lot more complaints, rows and a lot more time taken up of busy honorary branch secretaries. I do not want to see that happen. It is difficult enough to get chaps to volunteer for such jobs now. I do not want to make it any worse.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman said that his union's journal was sent out by post to his members. No doubt that is because he feels that his members would be more likely to receive the journal. Why is it that he does not send the ballots out by post or give out the journals at the branch meetings when the votes are cast in the election? At the branch meetings only 2 per cent. of his members bother to vote. Therefore, it is difficult for the House to understand his argument when he is prepared to send his journals out by post but does not want to send his ballots out by post.
      Mr. Mikardo: I was not surprised to see the hon. Gentleman bob up. He was on the same theme during the Committee and Report stages, literally ad nauseum. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simple. It is not that I am prepared to do this or that. I do not decide the union's procedure. They are decided by the members. The journals are sent out by post because that is what the members ask for. The ballots are conducted at branch meetings because that is what the members ask for. As I have given that answer to the hon. Gentleman goodness knows how many times since we started the Committee stage, I hope that it will now have penetrated even his concrete and will have sunk in at last.
      Those who support the amendment do so without cognisance of the practicalities. One has to deal with life as it is and not see it as some ideal picture of life which is much better organised than it actually is. If the amendment were agreed to it would cause endless trouble for little gain. I suspect that that is one reason why the Government are resisting it. No doubt we shall hear about that in due course from the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have much sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), but we are dealing with a carthorse which, even if taken to water, cannot be made to drink. Union postal ballots have a notoriously poor response from the
      862
      members. I support the Lords amendments on the assumption that the register of addresses of union members will be available to the public and not be secret. I should welcome an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the register will be open to the public in the same way as a list of shareholders in a limited liability company.
      Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that a person who joins a union may have an employer who is opposed to trade unionism? There are many employers of that sort who contribute financially to the Conservative party. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the employer should have access to information that will reveal that this employee has joined a trade union?
      Mr. Thurnham: Certainly. I further query the presumption that ballots will be postal unless the union is satisfied that workplace ballots will meet all the necessary requirements. Surely the employer, not the union, should be so satisfied. The employer is providing the jobs, and he should be fully satisfied that his employees have been properly balloted. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's assurances on that point.
      Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is appropriate that the debate is taking place against the background of the industrial action that has been with us over recent weeks. We have seen some of the events and actions which have given rise to public pressure for the changes which are encompassed in the Bill and which some of us believe should be made to go further along the lines of the amendments which we have tabled.
      On our television screens we saw the dockers balloting by a show of hands at Dover. It was a disputed ballot which brought out the men in that port, held up trade to the continent for a considerable period and almost stopped nearly 250,000 people travelling to the continent on their holidays. That is clearly an inadequate system for balloting union members on whether industrial action should be taken. The Bill will deal with such ballots. I acknowledge that the Bill will have that effect. I hope that balloting by a show of hands will be brought to an end if the Bill succeeds in its purpose. Those of us who want to see more democratic procedures will welcome that.
      We have not seen a proper ballot being taken in the miners' dispute, despite that being provided for in the rules of the union.
      Mr. Richard Holt: We know that members of the National Union of Mineworkers who have had the opportunity to vote have voted against the strike.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I acknowledge that. However, the National Union of Mineworkers has not organised a national ballot. I think that it is the view of most people that the leadership of the NUM has sought deliberately to avoid such a ballot, because it fears that the outcome would be a rejection of the industrial action that it is proposing.
      6.15 pm
      Much has been said about the workplace ballots that have taken place within the NUM. I do not want to embarrass the Minister of State, Department of Employment too much, but in Committee he presented the NUM's workplace balloting as an example that deserved support. That was the view of the chairman of the Conservative party. It is worth while considering the way

      863
      in which that balloting has operated in the past, especially in the election of the union's general secretary, Mr. Peter Heathfield. There was a close fight, and the contender lost by slightly more than 3,000 votes. I have brought the facts of that ballot to the attention of the House on a previous occasion. I shall merely say now that there are grave doubts about the way in which the workplace ballot of the NUM was carried out on that occasion. What happened to the spoilt ballot papers that were referred to by the defeated candidate? He said that he would make inquiries about the ballot papers that were not received by some members. How did the press know about the ballot papers in individual boxes at the pitheads? How did that information appear in the press before the votes were counted in London three or four days later?
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about the rights of the individual over those of the union, and I have no doubt that his views are shared by his right hon. and hon. Friends. How does he square his present views with the fact that in 1974 he voted for the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which represented a high-water mark in the rights of trade unions over their members? On that occasion, he was joined by every member of what is now the alliance. What has changed in the past 10 years—his sense of what is right, or of what is politically expedient?
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman studied the record, he would know that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I voted for the repeal of the 1971 Act because we believed that it was deeply damaging to industrial relations. That Act did not incorporate the legislation that is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in 1975 my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled a motion calling for postal ballots for trade unions. If he wants to check back, he should read the Secretary of State's Second Reading speech. Some of us have been in favour of postal ballots for trade unions for many years. The amendments that we have tabled represent no recent change in our view.
      There is experience of postal balloting within the trade union movement. The Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and its general secretary Mr. Frank Chapple, are advocates of postal balloting, and the experience of that union shows how it works in practice. The AUEW's postal balloting has dramatically improved participation in elections when comparison is made with the old system. It has led to a voting turnout in that union comparable with the turnout in local government elections. I accept that that is not an acceptable level, because we want every union member to participate in all the ballots of his or her union, but voting turnouts have a great deal to do with the size, organisation and history of the union and the procedures that it has adopted over a long period. I have no doubt that some unions will continue to have low voting turnouts while others, by the very nature of their organisation, will have much higher turnouts.
      There have been a number of arguments against the proposal——
      Mr. Mikardo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I want to draw my remarks to a close.
      I shall take up some of the reasons why the Government have opposed the proposal for postal balloting. The amendments propose that postal balloting should be the norm and that workplace balloting should be the exception. The Government have wobbled all over the place in a remarkable way since the Bill was introduced. They have been under pressure from their supporters and from those in the trade union movement who represent the broad spectrum of opinion. I cannot understand the Government's behaviour. There is an overwhelming case for postal balloting, and I cannot understand why they did not provide for it in the Bill. As with so many other issues, they have placed themselves in a dreadful predicament, for which there was no need. If sections of the trade union movement support postal balloting, is it too much to ask a Conservative Government to do so? I hope that Conservative Members will show that they agree with the proposition when the Division takes place.
      We are asking in the amendments for the independent supervision of postal ballots. That is vital, as Frank Chapple observed in The Sunday Times. The Minister claims that independent supervision would give rise to a substantial quango. It seems that the Government have shot themselves in the foot yet again. It is the Government who are proposing giving much greater powers to the certification officer. I welcome that, because we pressed for such a system throughout the consideration of the Bill in this place. We want the certification officer to have a greater role. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that that officer can carry out that role. I hope also that his right hon. and hon. Friends will note that it is important that the running of such ballots should not be in the hands of union activists—I do not use the word "activists" in a pejorative sense — who are, by definition, partisan people with a preference for one candidate or another from the Right, the Left, or wherever. An independent body should run those ballots, and proposals in our amendments cater for that.
      There is a need also for some flexibility in the operation of postal ballots. We accept that it is wrong that postal ballots should be imposed upon every union. Some unions — for instance, the National Union of Seamen—may find other methods — for example, using their employers' communications systems — to get ballot papers to and from union members within an organisation. Our amendments propose measures whereby that flexibility is allowed, but we do so according to strict criteria, assessed by the certification officer. There can be exceptions to the general rule of imposing postal ballots if the circumstances warrant it and the certification officer approves them.
      Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, there is great evidence of abuse of balloting procedures within the trade union movement. One does not need to look very far to find such abuses. That is probably only the tip of the iceberg. I have been active in the trade union movement for a large part of my life. I was an adviser to the Civil and Public Services Associations for a number of years. During the CPSA's recent election, 82 branches with 13,000 members sent in ballot boxes too late, so their members were effectively disfranchised, and 112 small branches with 7,000

      865
      members sent in no ballot papers at all. How can that be satisfactory? What happened in that election? The political complexion of the largest Civil Service union in this country has dramatically turned about, and the Left is in control. The Left has sacked the general secretary from the TUC general council and put a Communist party member of the executive in his place.
      Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgfield)rose——
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I believe, from my knowledge of the Civil Service trade unions, that that person is totally unrepresentative of the members whom he purports to represent.
      Mr. Blair: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: No. I have a lot to say, and I must quickly draw my remarks to a close. That is one outstanding example of branch balloting working defectively. As Frank Chapple said, the only way in which one can overcome those defects is by introducing a system of postal balloting.
      I hope that the House will support the view that I believe was inherent in the decision in the other place and go for postal balloting. It is remarkable to look at the way in which the other place took that decision. It was remarkable to see Conservative and Labour Front Benchers going arm-in-arm through the Lobby and being defeated by a coalition of members of the Labour party, including Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and former general secretary of a trade union and Lord Howie; distinguished members of the Conservative party, including Lord Thorneycroft; and members of the alliance. I hope that the same will happen in the House tonight. Back-Bench Members should show the two Front Benches that they are prepared to accept what the whole country wants—postal ballots for trade union elections.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) feels strongly about the arguments between postal ballots and ballots at the workplace. I am bound to say that this afternoon I came into the House without any strong view about that matter. I thought, for perhaps personal tactical reasons, that I would do my best to support the Government. It seemed to me that there was quite a lot to be said for the Government's general argument that one might look slowly at trade union law and, if a particular proposal did not work out, one might reconsider it and perhaps move to a different position.
      There has been constant pressure from Conservative Back Benchers upon successive Secretaries of State to go a little faster, and in the past I have been part of that movement. I believe that the success of this legislation depends most of all not upon the enactment of the criminal law but upon the willingness of individuals to take remedies under the civil law. Therefore, there is something to be said for the inherited position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of moving step by step. When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) say that one of the arguments that had been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was that the proposed amendment was not lawful, because it would be in breach of the International Labour Organisation convention. I
      866
      hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say that he has never used that argument either publicly or privately. I hope also that he will say that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is entirely wrong about that argument. That argument is an affront to the dignity of the House, and the sooner the House votes in favour of this amendment to demonstrate that it wishes to be free of the ILO convention, the better.
      Next year we have the opportunity of getting out of the ILO convention. There is, of course, a general argument against the ILO to the effect that the two Houses of Parliament are best able to judge the ways in which our country shall be ruled. We do not need, thank you very much, rule by abstract principles from foreign powers.
      Mr. Mikardo: What about Brussels?
      Mr. Budgen: In relation to other institutions, the hon. Gentleman has been a doughty proponent of the general arguments that I have been putting forward. Let me keep to the ILO for the time being.
      Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the words he used a moment ago about the ILO could have been used, word for word, by some spokesman in Poland denouncing any attempt by the ILO to look into the claims of Solidarity?
      Mr. Budgen: I am not one of those who believe that we have the right to interfere in the internal arrangements of other nations. I am not one of those who speak consistently about the need to conform to human rights in Russia. I am, of course, aware that internal arrangements within another nation state may plainly represent a threat to our security, but I do not believe that it is our duty to impose our views about the balance between individual liberty and the power of the state in other countries. For the sake of argument—I see that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is nodding—I point out that I do not welcome, for instance, the advice that is so generously showered upon those who live in Northern Ireland about the way that they manage their domestic affairs.
      We have the good fortune to be able to withdraw from the ILO next year. As I understand it, the Government have not yet taken a decision about that matter. There will be many on these Benches who do not like the idea of being ruled by abstract principles from the ILO. But there is another important point. Conservative Members are not indifferent to the scourge of unemployment. We, most of all, want people to be able to price themselves into work. Ten per cent. of the present, sadly diminished, work force is ruled by various forms of minimum wages councils. We are obliged to continue those councils because of the ILO. I am explaining why that argument is important. If today we——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straining the rules of order. We are not discussing the ILO, except in relation to the words used by the mover of the amendment.
      Mr. Budgen: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I hope that my hon. Friends will see this as another opportunity to express their deep resentment at the interference of the ILO. I hope that anyone who has heard, publicly or privately, any argument that this amendment is in breach of the ILO will vote for it. I hope that they will

      867
      do that in the belief that the decision as between class cohesion and individual liberty, the question as to whether postal or workplace ballots are practical and whether this amendment is enforceable, are subsidiary. The most important thing is that this Parliament should be able to decide what is right for our people.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Reg Prentice: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Although, like others, I shall speak mainly on the amendment dealing with postal ballots, the amendment dealing with codes of practice is also one on which the House would welcome a reaction from my right hon. Friend. With or without postal ballots, I should have thought that that contained the germ of an idea which should be pursued if possible.
      This is a good Bill. It will do a great deal to carry out improvements in the conduct of trade unionism in Great Britain which the trade unions ought by now to have made for themselves. It is their failure to improve their own procedures which has made it necessary for Parliament to legislate.
      If the Lords amendments are carried as they stand, the Bill will be better than it was when it left the House a few weeks ago, particularly in relation to this clause, but not quite as good as it might have been if Lord Beloff's amendment had stood. It seemed to me that he had the better of that argument, and so have my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth).
      I was intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). After many years in the House, including some in the Labour party, I attended many meetings with the hon. Gentleman, some of them at sub-committees of the national executive, of which he was chairman. I was always intrigued by his verbal facility. I have never heard such a remarkable phrase as the one in which he described himself as being a moderate old geezer. Sitting here, I thought that I probably agreed with the second and third words, but not with the first. Then he went on to explain—this is where the verbal facility became even more extraordinary—that being moderate meant that one did not try hard and did not work hard in one's organisation. The chaps who were militant, by definition, were those who worked hard; the chaps who took home the chores of being branch secretaries and the rest. That is extraordinary.
      When I consider, and invite the House to consider, the change in the leadership of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers when Lord Scanlon, as he now is, ceased to be president and Terry Duffy became president —there have been other changes of other senior officers and members of the national committee of the union and so on—I realise that it was a change from militant to moderate membership in the ordinary use of language. It was not a change from people who worked hard to people who had not worked hard. They had all worked hard in the union. It was a change brought about because postal balloting was substituted for workplace balloting after a courageous member of the union took the matter to court and the court ruled that that was what the union's rules had meant all along.
      868
      That led, of course, to a change in the union's policy, a change towards a leadership which has been more moderate in the ordinary sense of the word, more representative of the membership, less disruptive of the economy and which gives a better service to the members of the AUEW.
      Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Scanlon, or Mr. Hugh Scanlon as he then was, was elected by postal ballot of the AUEW? Heplayed a leading role in persuading the union to change from branch to postal ballot. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the AUEW has never had a workplace ballot?
      Mr. Prentice: The method of holding the ballot before the election of Mr. Duffy was laid down by the court after Mr. Wheakley had taken the matter to court.
      A similar change took place in the history of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, or the Electrical Trade Union as it then was. I am going back many years and speaking of the change led by the late Leslie Cannon and Frank Chapple against a Communist leadership, involving a change in the method of balloting, along the lines suggested by these amendments. Since that change, that union has given better service to its members and to the wider community in which it operates. I believe that those are two cases which are relevant to what is being discussed.
      I shall take up one further issue in the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. He spoke about the difficulties of having a complete register of members. It will not have escaped his notice, or the notice of other hon. Members, that Lords amendment No. 4 lays a duty upon every trade union
      "to compile, by the date appointed under Section 18(2A) of this Act, and thereafter maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members".
      I need not repeat the wording, but the trade unions have a duty to ensure that the register is accurate.
      If that had been an obstacle to accepting postal balloting, it will no longer be an obstacle when the amendment is incorporated in the Bill. If we are to have an up-to-date computerised membership record of every trade union, why not use that record as the basis of postal balloting?
      I wish to advance two arguments, one general and one particular, in support of the change. I shall speak, if I may, as someone who joined a trade union when I left school, voluntarily and not in a closed shop, and I have been a trade unionist ever since. I am sad at the declining influence and strength of trade unionism in this country. I believe that on balance trade unionism has done a great deal to raise the status and dignity of men and women at work. In the past 10 or 20 years it has been losing voluntary membership. It may have gained membership by new closed shop arrangements, particularly in the mid-70s, but it has lost membership in recent years. It has lost much more membership than would have been expected from rising unemployment. The main reason has been that the trade union leaders have not been talking sense to their members. The unions have thus attracted less loyalty from their members than in the past and consequently have had less influence on the community at large.
      The trade unions need to carry through many far-reaching reforms of attitude. It would not be in order to go into detail, but they would include becoming less party

      869
      political and more concerned about improving productivity and ensuring that their members enjoy the benefits of improved productivity. Many changes of that kind are needed, but the unions will not make them unless they become more democratic internally. To carry out the other reforms that are needed, they must first become more responsive to the rank and file in the real sense of the word — that is, the entire membership, not just branch officers, committee members, and so on.
      It is a pity that all the unions did not make changes along the lines of those made by the AUEW and the ETU. Most of them, however, have not done so and do not intend to do so. The Lords amendments will leave the existing power brokers in the unions with the option of changing to postal voting or continuing with the existing system. Naturally enough, most of them will go for the latter. We should be legislating to require a postal system unless the unions concerned can prove to the certification officer that they have special reasons for adopting some other procedure.
      I agree with the SDP spokesman about the present industrial situation. After the fiasco of the dock strike, there should be a major debate in the branches of the docks section of the TGWU and some heads should roll as a result. The dockers concerned were led into an entirely unnecessary strike and they and their families went without wages for a period of time—fortunately not very long—during which great damage was inflicted on the community, including fellow trade unionists and especially fellow members of the TGWU in the road and commercial section.
      Mr. Loyden: Before any dispute can take place in the docks and waterways section of the TGWU, of which I am a member, there must be a national committee meeting, followed by a recalled delegate conference composed of delegates elected by the docks branches. That is the form of democracy that exists in that union. Even after the national committee has met, the delegates from the docks branches must be recalled before any dispute can take place. In both scheme and non-scheme ports the recalled delegates ultimately make the decision, returning to their ports to get it confirmed by the membership. In my view, that is the proper form of democracy and decision making within the union.
      Mr. Prentice: As an ex-member of staff of the TGWU I know what the rules are, but the rule book was short-circuited in the most disgraceful way when the strike was called. The dock delegate conference met to call off the strike, but most of the dockers had already gone back to work that morning without waiting for the conference to take place.
      6.45 pm
      My argument, however, is that a real debate capable of leading to real changes should now be going on among the members of the relevant branches. They should be asking why things went wrong and why they were led into a disastrous strike which gained nothing for the ordinary docker. They cannot call Mr. Connolly to account, because he is appointed, not elected. That will not be changed by the Bill. For the same reason, they cannot take that walking disaster, Alex Kitson, to task. The national docks committee is elected from the area docks committees, which in turn are elected by the membership, but not by postal ballots. The elections are supervised by
      870
      shop stewards on the spot. Anyone who follows dockland matters will know that the Bill will not change the situation. Even if the Bill were already law it would not bring about the kind of inquest and consequent changes in leadership that should follow the dock strike.
      Mr. Mikardo: Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that if all the dockers got together and held a post mortem as he suggests they would not necessarily reach the same conclusion as he does? On the contrary, they might think that the strike was well justified. Has he forgotten that the dispute was started by an important member of the Port Employers Association breaking the contract into which he had entered as part of the dock labour scheme? If the union had signed a contract and then broken it, that would have made headlines in every newspaper in the country. Yet Conservative Members manage to discuss the entire strike without mentioning that it was the result of a breach of contract by an employer.
      Mr. Prentice: I had not intended to discuss the entire strike. I was simply suggesting that there should be an inquest by those affected. As for the breach of contract, there are procedures to deal with that. Strike action should have been the last resort, not the first resort. Of course, if an inquest were held it might not reach the same conclusions as I do. I am simply suggesting that the law should provide a framework to allow such an inquest to take place in circumstances of this kind. It is no use people grumbling in the bosom of their families or to their friends at the pub if they cannot do anything through their union machinery.
      If that is true of the dock strike, it is even more true of the miners' strike. After Scargill's inevitable defeat. there should be a massive inquest throughout the NUM. In this case, I believe that the majority of members of the union oppose the strike. Some 30 per cent. of them are bravely going to work in appallingly difficult circumstances and it is clear that many thousands of others are reluctant strikers who would rather be at work. If there had ever been 50 per cent. in favour of the strike, Scargill would have held the ballot. He funked it because he knew that he would lose. Nevertheless, it should be possible: afterwards, not just to hold an inquest, but to bring about changes of leadership at all levels of the NUM, especially the dismissal of Scargill, who is one of the most disgraceful trade union leaders in the history of trade unionism. That should be possible through postal ballots in which people can vote in secret without the bully boys now committing violence on the so-called picket lines and blackmailing miners' families being in a position to oversee in any way the conduct of the next round of ballots.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the clause to which the amendment relates is about balloting for union office, not about disputes.
      Mr. Prentice: In the next round of elections within the NUM for union officers and members of the national executive committee and the area committees, the membership will want to take recent events into account. Given the views of a large number of the members, they may well wish to make changes. They should have a chance to make those changes if they wish, and to do so in a way which is conducive to a fair and unfettered choice. All trade unionists should be able to do that.
      Mr. Julian Amery: Is my right hon. Friend advocating a truly democratic form of reselection?
      Mr. Prentice: Yes, I am. I shall resist the temptation to discuss other aspects of reselection. That debate will be continued elsewhere.
      I believe that thousands of NUM members will want to restore their union's self-respect. They will be best able to do that if they have the most democratic procedure—in other words, the postal ballot. That is a general principle, and I am sorry that the Bill falls short of that principle. It is a good Bill, and it is a better Bill with the amendments, but it could be better still. I wish that there were still time for the Government to think again and advise us to take a more radical step towards trade union democracy.
      Mr. Michael Foot: The speech that we have just heard was a remarkable one, even in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). As I heard him press the House to accept these amendments, even against the wish of the Government, and heard him suggest that he would like to go even further, I could not help recalling the remark of a famous Lord Halifax — a respectable Lord Halifax who lived centuries ago — that the impudence of a bawd is as nothing to that of a convert. The right hon. Gentleman has sought to show that he is even more extreme than the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) in the way in which he wishes to deal with the trade union movement which gave him every opportunity that he has ever had.
      The right hon. Gentleman attacked Arthur Scargill in strong personal terms. I dare say that Arthur Scargill can stand that, especially from the right hon. Gentleman. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and others who discuss the miners' strike in those terms that they will not be advancing the cause of a settlement of the dispute. I believe that the orchestrated outburst last year against the miners' leaders—Arthur Scargill in particular—did great damage to the possibility of achieving an early settlement.
      Sir Paul Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Foot: I am replying to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman.
      Sir Paul Hawkins: Do the right hon. Gentleman's pontifications about what would or would not help to settle the miners' strike have anything to do with the business that we are discussing?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must confess that I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall listen very carefully now.
      Mr. Foot: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection, even if it is unnecessary.
      The right hon. Gentleman continued to make comments about the docks strike and the terms of its settlement. My comments are relevant, because it is likely that even the Minister who replies will seek to discuss how these provisions may affect the immediate industrial situation. That is something that we are entitled to discuss.
      The right hon. Gentleman discussed the docks strike without referring to its origin. Nothing could have been more absurd. The strike originated in a breach of the agreement, and the settlement fortified the system which
      872
      prevails in the docks. The House should welcome that outcome just as dockers throughout the country have welcomed it.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: If the dockers felt that there had been a breach of the scheme, why was it not possible for them to discuss it? Why was it necessary immediately to go on strike?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was becoming rather anxious while the right hon. Member for Blaenan Gwent (Mr. Foot) was addressing the House. I become even more anxious when another hon. Gentleman attempts to persuade him to follow a path which takes us well away from the amendments on clause 2, which relates to the election of trade union officers.
      Mr. Foot: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your invitation to all who intervene in my speech that they should at the same time be in order.
      I have listened carefully to the whole debate, although I did not have the advantage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) had, of hearing the debates in Committee. However, when the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle moved his amendment, I did not think that we were supposed to take him seriously. I thought that he was there to make the Government look moderate. It may be that that purpose will be achieved.
      Similarly, I thought that some of the amendments moved in the House of Lords—where the manoeuvring is even more skilful—were designed to prove to the country how moderate is the Government's approach to these matters. However, despite their efforts to keep to the narrow road of moderation, the Government keep slipping into extremism. They have done it again in the other place, and in the measures which we are now asked to approve. It has been illustrated once again today that all these measures——
      Viscount Cranborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foot: I will give way in a moment.
      These measures are largely irrelevant to the industrial situation. Insofar as they are relevant, they are designed solely to impose restrictions on the rights of trade unionists—rights that have been accepted for generations and are enshrined in the International Labour Organisation charter. I know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle does not wish this country to abide by its undertakings under that charter, but some of us believe that when we commit ourselves to a proposition we should stand by it, unless we go to the organisation and ask to be relieved of it.
      The important principle established when we signed the ILO charter is relevant to the Bill. That principle was accepted by multitudes of countries all over the world. It is that there shall be no interference by Governments in the way in which trade unions run their affairs. Hundreds of countries manage to abide by it, but the Conservative Government are departing from it. The more we hear from Tory Members this afternoon, the less we can doubt that that is what is happening. The Government are breaking the charter. They are making the country break its word, and seeking to interfere more and more in the ways in which trade unions run their affairs.
      Mr. Budgen: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that, as far as possible, trade union law in this country should be decided by the ILO?
      Mr. Foot: No, I do not believe that trade union law should be settled by the ILO, but it is my view that when this country signs such charters—charters which have helped to raise union standards in this country and elsewhere—we should stand by that signature and not abandon it.
      7 pm
      It is not a question of handing over to the ILO. We seek to abide by provisions which we have agreed to, partly in the interests of people in this country and partly in the interests of people throughout the world. I subscribe to that principle. I know that it does not appeal to the hon. and neolithic Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who would not agree with any such proposition. Like Government Members at one stage, we are in favour of subscribing to the ILO charter. Perhaps the Minister will argue that the provisions that his immoderate hon. Friends wish to insert in the Bill will further infringe Britain's obligations under the charter.
      That is not the only reason why the Bill is irrelevant to the present industrial situation. The Department of Employment is engaged in producing Bill after Bill to interfere with the rights of trade unions and trade unionists instead of seeking to avoid disputes before they happen. If a proper Department of Employment had been operating, we should not have had a docks strike because there would not have been a threat to the dock labour scheme. If we had had a proper Department of Employment, we should not have had a coal miners' strike because it would have been foreseen.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member's speech is beginning to sound like a Second Reading or bad Third Reading speech. It has nothing to do with the amendments that we are discussing. He is presenting us with a load of homilies from the past about how Governments and miners should operate. His speech has nothing to do with the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the point. I was myself becoming a little anxious. I hope that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will relate his remarks to the amendments.
      Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair when the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) made a long speech, nearly all of which was about the docks and coal miners' strike. I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but, if it was in order, it cannot be out of order, with respect, to reply.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not in the Chair earlier, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) wishes me to follow the normal rules of debate and to ensure that the Standing Orders and procedures are adhered to.
      Mr. Foot: I shall do my best to abide by the rules which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, uphold. As you will know from our long association, I am eager to relieve any of the Chair's anxieties. I was trying to remove something worse than anxieties from the minds of Government Ministers. I thought it relevant to draw attention to the fact that we are about to spend hours and hours discussing the precise
      874
      mechanism by which Governments and judges are to interfere with trade union affairs when trade unions should be left to run their own affairs. Trade unions should be left to get on with their business and the Government should perform their proper role in industrial affairs by reestablishing mediation and conciliation, for which, in part the Department of Employment was established to assist.
      The Government have become enmeshed in infantile, interfering trade union legislation. As a result we have not had proper assistance from the Department of Employment to deal properly with industrial disputes before they become a crisis. Anyone who has followed the progress of the Bill will know how deeply the Government have got into a mess. If they follow the advice of some they will get into a deeper mess. I hope that the Government will rescue themselves from it.
      The Government are running grave risks. I warn the Government, as the House of Lords warned them, that they are in danger of repeating the mistakes made in the 1971 Act. When that Act was discussed warnings were given that the Government——
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the right hon. Member has respect for the rules of the House and for your judgment, but he has made no change in the drift of his speech which has nothing to do with the amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That shows that given an inch someone will take a yard. I am trying to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) carefully, but I am not assisted by points of order at frequent intervals. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the amendments.
      Mr. Foot: I did not have the advantage of being present during all of the Committee stage, but I have followed carefully what was said in another place and what gave rise to the Lords amendments and the amendments to them. One of the dangers, fully described in the other place, was that involved in the role of the certification officer. The more amendments that are moved to deal with the issue, the deeper the Government get into the mire of having to refer all issues to the certification officer. The more that the Government become entangled in the question whether there should be a workplace ballot, the more that they have to refer issues to the certification officer. The House of Lords explained that that was the legal ramification of the Government's proposals.
      During the passage of the 1971 Act, the Government were warned, but they took no notice, that they would destroy some of the institutions such as the central register of trade unions which was accepted as an impartial body. The Government were warned that they would undermine the position of the registrar of trade unions and destroy the whole system of registration.
      If the Government proceed to use the certification officer more and more to decide when an individual or union wants to appeal against a decision they will destroy their impartiality. They will destroy the credit of that office which is one of the instruments that we could use to try to get out of the mess left by the 1971 Act.
      If the Bill goes through, and if these amendments are added to what is offensive enough, the Government will again destroy faith in arbitration institutions such as the certification officer and in the idea that trade unions can get a fair deal in the courts. All that will be undermined,

      875
      and a new Administration will have to come in and start from the bottom to build it all up again. What folly it is for the Government to tear down the very institutions that should prevent the kind of industrial crisis that we now have. However, that is what the Government are doing, that is what this measure will make worse, and that is what these amendments will carry still further. Let us throw out the amendment and throw out the Bill at the same time.
      Mr. Renton: It is a great privilege for any Conservative Member to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), particularly when he speaks from the Back Benches. He is much better on the Back Benches than he ever was on the Front Bench. He was getting into a period of what I can only call vintage Foot in the last few minutes of his speech. Listening to him, it was hard to remember that it was he, as Secretary of State for Employment, who introduced two Bills that grossly increased the privileges of the trade union movement, from which much of the trouble we now have stems, and the effects of which it has been necessary for this Government slowly to undo. He did all of this while unemployment was doubling in his constituency.
      As I listened to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), I was reminded that the SDP and the Conservative Trade Unionists have vied with each other for some time in their determination to increase the number of postal ballots that are available to ordinary members of trade unions. When I heard, two or three weeks ago, of the amendments that were passed in the other place, I could not help thinking of those words of Gilbert in Iolanthe
      "The House of Peers, throughout the war,
      Did nothing in particular,
      And did it very well."
      In recent weeks, my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench must have wished that those words held true for the House of Lords in time of peace. The House of Lords in this instance has shown how wrong Gilbert could be, and how effective it can be by amending this Bill for the better.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he had considered the amendments introduced by Lord Beloff, managed to snatch compromise from the jaws of defeat, with his usual success. Today, he has introduced an amended Bill that is, most Conservative Members would agree, very much better on secret postal ballots than it was when it went from this place to the House of Lords. I am glad that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench have had the good sense to look at what the other place has done, to see some of the impracticalities in what it suggested as an immediate measure, but then to build on that to give us the amended Bill.
      This is a complicated Bill, and many of its clauses are not at all easy to understand. However, the insistence that there shall, in normal circumstances, be a postal ballot, unless the union thinks that is inappropriate, and that the ordinary member of the trade union, if he thinks that the trade union has not acted properly, shall be able to appeal to the certification officer are good points. Here I disagree with the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I think that the right of appeal to the certification officer by the ordinary trade union member is an enormous advance. It is the appeal to the High Court, with all the cost that that involves, which has put off many trade union members
      876
      from protesting against trade union procedural irregularities. There are not many who have the courage or the cash to go on fighting for years against irregularities in their trade union. The insistence on the right of appeal to the certification officer is an improvement.
      7.15 pm
      I am sorry that I was not present to hear the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). However, I like his idea of reinforcing what is in the amended Bill with a code of practice. That seems to make a great deal of sense. Most of us, unlike those who express fanatical fears from the Labour Benches, wish to improve the procedure in the trade unions. It will be possible for people to send the Secretary of State suggestions as to how the code of practice should work and, in particular, the practice of holding postal ballots could be improved.
      I hope, for example, that the EETPU will co-operate in working out the code of practice. I know that the Conservative Trade Unionists would be pleased to have the chance to play a part in this process. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think hard about the suggestion of a code of practice and will give us a strong reassurance that he will consider it seriously. Only a fool would pretend that the precise circumstances in which ballot papers are issued, who controls their issue and what happens to them after issue, are set out in a watertight procedure. It is quite the opposite.
      Hon. Members have already given instances of what can happen to ballot papers. Often, what happens is enough to make one's hair curl. Apart from the disputes that have been mentioned this afternoon, there was the water workers' ballot last spring. It is clear that in that ballot the union procedure was grossly abused, and most of those who were trying to conduct the ballot did not know what happened to the ballot papers or did not know the proper rule book procedure.
      The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who unfortunately is not in his place, has on many occasions in debates on employment Bills said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's intention to change slowly the immunities of the trade unions that it would not work and that such things are easier said than done. I remind him and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of the phrase used by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on trade and industry matters last week in the debate on the Gower report. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said:
      "self regulation is a privilege". — [Official Report, 16 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 106.]
      That remark applies equally well to the trade union movement. When that privilege is abused, it has to be enshrined and reinforced in statute. That is precisely what successive Conservative Ministers have done in the past five years. In my right hon. Friend's phrase, they have had to go with the grain. Equally, they have tried to ensure that, while self-regulation is allowed to stay, it is a privilege that must be strictly monitored. When that privilege is abused, it must be enshrined or supported by statute. I fail to see how Opposition Members can quarrel with that principle, which the Bill, much improved in the other place, seeks to follow.
      Mr. Evans: There was a curious omission from the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). He did not tell us whether he was elected as chairman of

      877
      the Conservative trade unionists group by postal, workshop or branch ballot, or whether ballots are used at all in that organisation.
      History will record that the two Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)— I was proud to be a member of both of the Standing Committees—will be remembered long after the Bills introduced by the Conservative Government have been thrown into the dustbin, where they belong, along with the industrial relations legislation.
      It is nauseating hypocrisy for Tory Members constantly to insist upon self-regulation for the City of London, despite the appalling scandals within that institution, but to deny to the British trade union movement self-regulation of its own affairs. I might add that British trade unionism is admired by trade unionists throughout the world.
      I rise at this stage in the debate because I am sure the House agrees that it is time to draw to a close our discussion on this series of amendments. We must consider 13 more sets of amendments. My right hon. and hon. Friends are quite prepared to sit all night while we discuss them, but I suspect that at about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning Conservative Members will be moaning and groaning to their Whips.
      I shall deal briefly with amendment (g), tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It is a disgraceful and outrageous attack upon thousands of honest volunteer trade unionists, who are working seven days a week to conduct the affairs of their unions. The hon. Gentleman should not denounce them in such emotional and sensational language.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that we know that there are spivs and crooks in the legal profession, but we do not carry on continuously as if every solicitor and barrister were a crook and a spiv. Yet the hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister, was only too prepared to launch an outrageous attack on honest working men and women who do a very good voluntary job.
      Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the British people decided that there was, sadly, a great deal of criminal conduct among spivs and crooks at the Bar, or among solicitors, it would be right for the House to deal with that? It would be monstrous if the ILO came along and said, "You cannot do that."
      Mr. Evans: I was merely making the point—I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will agree with me—that we are all aware that there are a few spivs and crooks in the legal profession, but we do not go on continuously as if every member of that learned profession was a spiv or a crook.
      The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle has clearly been taken from "Aims of Industry", as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to admit in his introductory speech. I also suspect that the amendment came from the managerial professional staff liaison group — the MPG — which circulated similar propositions to hon. Members a few days ago. I, for one, have always suspected that there were close links between the MPG and the Conservative Trade Unionists. The amendments were suggested by the MPG and tabled by Right-wing Tory Back Benchers. The MPG is as anti the TUC unions as are Right-wing Tories, the Liberals or the SDP. I am sure that every member of a TUC-affiliated union has taken cognisance of that.
      878
      The sum and substance of the amendments is that they will further restrict and diminish the freedoms of trade unions, which the Right wing of the Tory party—often aided and abetted by the Prime Minister—has been doing for the past five years. We utterly reject the concept of the amendments. If necessary, we shall vote against them in the Lobby tonight.
      Viscount Cranborne: We heard the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) speak about the importance of definitions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will define what he means by "Right wing", so that I can understand his speech a little better.
      Mr. Evans: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take a good, hard look in the mirror when he leaves the House, and he will see precisely what I mean by the phrase "Right wing". If he is still in doubt, I suggest that he reads some of his earlier speeches. Then he will know precisely what I mean.
      The SDP amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), aim to restrict the freedoms of trade unions, and to bring in outside bodies to manage and run trade union affairs. That never ceases to amaze me. I am convinced that the British trade union movement has proved conclusively over many years its ability to run its own affairs.
      If the trade union movement wanted to bring in outside bodies to count votes in elections—some unions do so now—why do we need that put into statute? Why can we not leave it to the trade unions? Why do we seek to regulate only trade unions with vicious measures like this? Why do we not regulate companies and have postal ballots for company directors, officers of learned societies or for local authority and parliamentary elections? Far from suggesting that we should have compulsory postal ballots for elections, the Government are trying to resist the use of postal ballots for local authority and parliamentary elections.
      I turn to the more serious amendments that we have tabled. First, I must make a major complaint to the House. The Bill introduces many substantial changes. It has five new clauses and 10 major amendments. The Government were still tabling amendments last Wednesday 18 July. It is disgraceful that a major Bill that will affect millions of men and women in all walks of life, which has been extensively debated in the Commons, with more than 100 hours spent on it in Committee and two days on Report, and altered substantially, should be given only one day for consideration of Lords amendments. We are entitled to far more time to consider the major changes in the Bill—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should not worry. There are plenty of Labour Members present to speak tonight.
      The fact that it has been necessary to make such widespread changes to the Bill justifies the charge that we made on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report that it was bad—and badly drafted, too. Those charges have been fully justified because the Bill has had to be extensively redrafted.
      7.30 pm
      We all know the reason for such Bills. This Bill is the product of the Prime Minister's paranoid hatred of trade unions, to which she testified in her speech last week when she denounced trade unions and trade unionists as the enemy within. It is a bit much when the Prime Minister

      879
      uses such emotive language. That same attitude was displayed towards GCHQ, but once again the Government's handling of trade union affairs has been judged unlawful by the courts.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the amendment or making a Third reading speech?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far I have not heard anything out of order.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the past few minutes not one word has been said about the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Hind rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. I heard him the first time, and I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave him then.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is the Chair that governs the conduct of hon. Members, not Back Benchers who drift in and out of the Chamber from time to time.
      The truth is that the Government flatly refuse to listen to reasoned arguments about trade unions, trade unionists and their affairs. However, some of the amendments that were accepted in the other place were taken from the arguments that we made in Committee. Some of the arguments that we put forward in Committee were denounced by Ministers at the time as being irrelevant, unacceptable, otiose, and so on, yet they have now quietly been worked into the Bill.
      Lords amendment No.1 is the Government's response to the Right-wing peers who sought to impose compulsory postal ballots for the election of members to unions' executive councils. However, all of us know that it is something of a con. There are many amendments, words, legalistic phrases, consequential amendments and new subsections, but when the verbiage is stripped away it is clear that in future there will be workplace ballots for the membership of executive councils unless the unions decide to hold postal ballots. We applaud that sensible and intelligent approach, which reflects our philosophy throughout.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): The hon. Member is in for a surprise.
      Mr. Evans: However, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us that he is going to renege once again. Throughout the Bill's passage he has reneged on his promises. In Committee and on Report we put forward that philosophy and suggested that the best way of proceeding was to try to set a framework in which trade union members could govern their own affairs.
      I personally favour ballots. My trade union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, holds ballots. However, it holds ballots not only for the executive council. Every member of the AUEW who holds
      880
      paid office is subject to election and re-election by the members, using a postal ballot. So no one in the AUEW will listen to any lectures by Tory, SDP or Liberal Members about democracy in the trade union movement. But, sadly, the AUEW has found that the number of members participating in ballots is steadily falling. We started from a high point of about 60 per cent. participation, but unfortunately that figure has now fallen to about 25 per cent.
      Conservative Members fail to understand that that lack of participation is due in part to the nature of the elections being held. For example, there may be seven candidates in an election for the entire executive council area of Scotland. The vast majority of the members of the AUEW will scarcely have heard of any of them. At best, they can obtain a brief resume of the candidate's life, and some information about his age, the length of time that he has been in the union and the branch offices that he has held. Unfortunately, union members tend to think that, as they do not know anything about the candidates, they would rather not vote for any of them.
      It is an incontestable fact that far more people participate in workplace ballots than in postal ballots. Despite all the allegations of some Conservative Members, the reason for that is that when union members discuss the candidates in their workplace, those who know something about them can give some of the details. All the evidence is that workplace ballots produce a much higher turnout. However, I stress that I personally am in favour of postal ballots. The Bill removes branch ballots. Conservative Members will say "Hear, Hear" to that. But Opposition Members, who have some knowledge of trade union affairs, recognise that there is a place for such ballots in trade union affairs.
      Who has asked the employer for his opinion about holding ballots at his place of work? What about the problems and expenditure that he will face? In multi-union plants, in which workers are represented by many unions, it is more than likely that there will be quite frequent elections. That means that the employer will lose quite a lot of time because his employees, instead of producing, will be voting. After all, those employees will have to receive and consider the ballot papers, discuss their contents and then have time in which to vote. Have the Government discussed the issue with the CBI or with the employers? Have they done anything to take the employers' arguments into account?
      What would the position be if an employer refused to allow ballots to take place on his premises? What would happen if an employer made it clear that his factory existed to produce goods, not trade union officers? That question must be answered. I suspect that so far no answer has been given.
      Far from improving the Bill, the other place has damaged it. It was not a very good Bill to start with, but it is now worse. If it is enacted in its present form, in what way will it be more successful than the Bills that were enacted in 1980 and 1982? In the recent industrial disputes, they have not had any impact. So why should anyone take any notice of this Bill?
      No matter how elections are arranged, or what methodology is employed, they are about getting individuals to vote. We have problems, for instance, in local government elections, where we are lucky to get a 30 per cent. turnout. Even in parliamentary elections we are lucky to get a 72 per cent. turnout. All hon. Members

      881
      had better keep quiet about the European elections, which were the lowest in Europe, with only a 28 per cent. turnout.
      Evidence for workplace ballots shows that we can get a 70 to 80 per cent. turnout. If, as the Government have constantly told us since November, the purpose of the Bill is to persuade trade union members to participate in union affairs and to give unions back to their members, a method that encourages the majority of members to take part in a ballot for union officials is the right one to adopt.
      These cobbled-together Lords amendments show how bad and ill-thought out the Bill is. We told the Secretary of State, when he took over the Bill from his predecessor, that it was a bad Bill. We suspect that the future will prove that he has made it even worse. The amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, if accepted, will cripple the Bill completely.
      Mr. Hind: I began by listening to the debate as an agnostic. It is interesting to note how support for the Bill appears to be dying down. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) talked about the amendment at great length. Only 10 Opposition Members who claim to feel strongly about the amendments are here. The rest have not even bothered to turn up to debate them.
      One of the most importat aspects of the debate, about which I feel strongly, is that the trade union movement — this was typified by the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—regards itself as a state within a state, sacred and untouchable by the law of the land and believes therefore that it should not be required by Parliament or anyone else to put its house in order and alter its regulations.
      The most important issue in the debate is that of postal ballots. It is significant that the debate about ballots, whether workplace or postal ballots has arisen in the House. It is necessary for the House to inflict on the trade union movement alterations to its rule book, because it is incapable of doing so itself.
      We have heard the classic arguments from the Opposition, such as, "Leave us alone, we shall manage to put our own industrial relations in order." Ballots on the National Union of Mineworkers' strike and the dock strike were mentioned. They are relevant to the debate only because they prove 100 per cent. that the trade union movement is incapable of imposing any form of democratic discipline on its schemes and members. If ever it were necessary to alter its rule book, it must surely be now.
      I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, (Mr. Leigh). He has a good point but I, like other Tory Members who have had much experience of trade union activities, am prepared to accept that there may be a slower and more reasonable way which will not drive the middle ground of the trade union movement into the hands of extremists, many of whom sit on the Labour Benches.
      Many Conservative Members will reluctantly support the Government because we foresee that eventually the workplace ballot must be shown to fail, so that we can justify to the general public that it is necessary to have postal ballots. We shall therefore eventually, before the end of this Parliament, have to impose postal ballots on the trade union movement and re-write its rule book.
      When we last debated this matter—I stand by what I said and did then—we sought to introduce a clause to
      882
      enable union members to opt into paying the political levy, rather than have to opt out of so doing. Any future Bill should cover both matters I have severe reservations about this clause. My spirit is with the amendment, but I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt and my support.
      7.45 pm
      Viscount Cranborne: Today I was approached in the friendly spirit in which such approaches are often made in the Tory party by a good friend in the office of the Patronage Secretary. He said with the wry and tolerant smile that I have come to expect from those in that office, "I see you have become an instant expert on trade union law." I was flattered by his animadversions on the subject. I should like to reply to him in public. Many hon. Members are called upon to make judgments on matters of which they may have little experience. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen longer before they scoff. That is inevitable, as it is in the nature of the House.
      I am the first to admit that many hon. Members have had little practical experience of everyday trade union matters. I submit that this is a proper subject for all of us to consider for many reasons and, above all, for one which has led me and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the excellent amendments tabled and debated with such eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
      Over the past decade many Conservative Members have watched a group of extremely courageous people fighting the results of the legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). It leads us to say, "These people, in order to fight their fellow trade unionists, have had to show immense courage and dedication." That is an indictment of British trade unionism. Indeed, it would be an indictment of any British institution.
      I listened to the opinions of courageous people, such as Mrs. Losinska of the Civil and Public Services Association, Mr. Frank Chapple of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Workers Union. All of them came to us and said, "We admire many of the things that the Secretary of State is putting in his Bill, but there is one matter of overwhelming importance which is not included and which is the key to his success." That forces me to listen, if only because of my respect —all Conservative Members have this respect—for the courage with which those people have fought for the rights which those involved in parliamentary elections take for granted, and rightly so.
      Those people say with the greatest possible emphasis that workplace ballots do not and cannot embody the safeguards which can make for a safe and democratic election in any union. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, all that he lacked to remind me irresistibly of Old Father Time shaking his hoary locks was a scythe and a lantern with which to tread us back over the paths of 1974 and 1976.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman would take us back to the feudal system.
      Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman had better watch out. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has already repaired some of the damage that I

      883
      might have done to my reputation by rebelling this evening. He called me a Right-winger, and that sort of remark can do nothing but help me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
      Those people who have condemned the absence of secret postal ballots in my right hon. Friend's otherwise admirable Bill, point out three matters. They say that there can be no secrecy, no freedom from manipulation, and no freedom from pressure in the elections that my right hon. Friend will allow to continue if the amendments are rejected. My right hon. Friend has produced many arguments during the past few days to show why the Bill, as it returned from another place, should remain as it is. I wish to refer him to two such arguments.
      First, postal ballots do not produce the size of turnout that makes for a good election. All of us want high turnouts in elections. We deplore the fact that the turnout in parliamentary elections is less than 80 per cent. The experience of the CPSA, which already has workplace ballots, is that there has been a regular decrease in voting since the introduction of that system; and, depending on how one measures the vote, the best estimate of the turnout in its previous election was between 28 and 31 per cent. That is not a distinguished figure when one considers how it compares unfavourably even with the turnout in local government elections.
      A high turnout is by no means a guarantee of a fair election. To take an extreme example, one need only consider elections behind the iron curtain to realise that high turnouts do not guarantee fair elections. We must also consider politics in such elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle proposes an enhanced role for the certification officer. He already has a role given to him by my right hon. Friend and in another place. If my right hon. Friend fears that if the certification officer is given the role envisaged in my hon. Friend's amendment he will be regarded as the 'Government's poodle — I suspect that that is his fear — he should reconsider whether the role of the prudent man or the man who is after justice suits him better. The man who is after justice might consider that there is nothing shameful in a Conservative Member putting forward a solution which enhances the possibility of a fair election. Conservative Members should stand pat on that, if on nothing else.
      It is too late for us to introduce the amendments which my hon. Friend and I have in mind, but I beseech the Government to consider two matters. The first is to consider how this system is working in a year or 18 months' time——
      Mr. Budgen: The Government will come out of the ILO.
      Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend refers to the ILO, but he must not tempt me down that path. I would only repeat what he said. His appeal to the chauvinists in the Conservative party, and the resistance by the chauvinists of the Opposition, was remarkable to behold.
      If my right hon. Friend can give us such an assurance this evening, it will be at least some comfort to know that a formal inquiry will ensure that a proper election can take place as a result of the Bill, or that it will have a better chance of doing so. My hon. Friend's final amendment does something extremely important. It transfers the onus of proof from the individual fighting the union establishment to the union
      884
      establishment justifying its conduct of a workplace ballot. I began my speech by talking about courage. We all know the enormous courage that it takes for an individual, whether anonymous or not, to complain about the procedures in some unions. It would be a further guarantee that one does not need courage to exercise the rights which all of us wish to believe our citizens possess. If the Government accepted my hon. Friend's amendment, it would show how much in earnest they were.
      I urge my hon. Friends to support this amendment when we divide the House this evening, because I look forward to being able to note an absence of comment in the daily press and in this place on how courageous it is for the members of trade unions to take on those unions if they believe that their practices are unfair. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, thank goodness, has said that she hopes that the brave people who go to work, although their fellow miners are on strike, will not be penalised as a result of the settlement. I hope that if it becomes normal practice, not an act of courage, to exercise one's rights to appeal, we can be assured that all is right in the state of Denmark. At present that is not so. If we are to do the right thing by the courageous people who have fought the good fight for 10 years or more, we must ensure that the amendments which will give them a chance are passed by the House tonight.
      8 pm
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that it is the wish of the House that we reach a conclusion on this matter, so I shall speak briefly.
      The amendments demonstrate to Conservative Members the value of the other place. Lord Beloff and his supporters have struck a blow for democracy and freedom, and we owe them a great deal for doing so. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government on improving the Bill. I shall nonetheless find it difficult to support my right hon. Friend's position. It is not because I dislike the Bill. On the contrary, I believe it is a good Bill, and the better for having been amended by the House of Lords. Nor is it because I disgree in any way with the administration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or indeed of my hon. Friend the Minister of State (Mr. Gummer), who is my near neighbour in Suffolk. I admire them both very much.
      But on the question of postal ballot, there is to my mind an issue of principle. The Bill will create the presumption that it will be the norm that henceforth postal ballots shall take place for the election of union leaders. The difference between us, I suspect, is that the Government are satisfied that the unions shall determine whether that postal ballot shall take place, whereas my hon. Friend's amendment will require it to take place unless the unions can show good reason why it should not.
      I concede that there will be many cases in which unions can and will make out a case for a postal ballot not taking place. But there is a great deal of difference between requiring a union to show cause that a ballot should not take place and requiring, as the Government would, some individual, some small person, subject to the kind of intimidation that we have all seen in the country, to make his way first to the certification officer and thereafter perhaps to the High Court to change a union's decision. I believe that that would put an unfair onus upon the individual. It is far better to leave the onus on the union to show why a postal ballot ought not to take place.

      885
      As I understand it, the Government have three principal objections to the amendment. The first is administrative difficulties. In the 20 years that I have been in the House, administrative difficulties have been given as a reason why there should not be postal ballots for holidaymakers or, indeed, for Britons abroad. But the Government, to their credit, have recently published a White Paper that provides for such postal ballots, despite the vast administrative labryinth needed to cover Britons who are abroad and those who are on holiday. If the administrative difficulties can be overcome in the case of postal votes for these people, they can and should be overcome in the case of postal votes for union leaders.
      The second principal objection, as I understand it from the Whips, is that the Government have already made a great step forward in requiring the compulsory register. That I accept. It is an important step forward, and it will be effective. However, if a union's leaders decide—the militants, the Marxist groups, the broad Left front—that it will not have postal ballots, the register will be of no account because the union will not use it, and will not be required to use it. Thus the step forward that the Government have made, which I recognise to the full, is effective only to the extent that the unions choose to use it. In my judgment, many of them will not do so.
      The Government's third principal objection has been touched upon already by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranbourne). It is the fear that the certification officer, like Lord Donaldson before him—and we all remember the experience of the Government of which I was a member—in effect would be run ragged by the unions in that virtually all of them would attempt to go to the courts and thereby to complicate matters. I understand that argument, but if the unions would make a monkey of the certification officer, how on earth can we expect anything different if individuals are expected to go to him with their personal cases? The argument that the certification officer is Thatcher's poodle will be made just as strongly in the case of individuals who go before him as it would be in the case of unions that go before him.
      On balance the Government have come a long way. Even if my hon. Friend's amendment proves to be unacceptable to the House, the Bill will still be a good one. The Government will still have achieved a great deal for union democracy. But I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to accept the amendment. If he cannot let him deal precisely with one argument. Over the past 20 perhaps 25 years, the militant Left has been seeking to obtain power in this country via the ballot box. But it has failed at every stage because the British people have rejected it.
      They have done so because in free secret ballots the British public will not accept the Fascist Left that is on the march. So what has the Fascist Left done? Failing at the front door, it has gone to the back door of union penetration. The strength of the militant Left has been achieved largely by the undemocratic nature of the elections of leaders of trade unions.
      It is precisely because I believe that the postal ballot is the one sure way of allowing the vast majority of union members to reject the hard Left, as the British people have rejected the hard Left, that I believe that as a matter of principle the amendment should be carried.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: I do not know whether this is a private argument on the
      886
      Conservative Benches or whether we can all join in. I do not know whether Conservative Members want to hog and monopolise the debate or whether any other hon. Member can join in. I had not intended to intervene, and I shall speak only briefly.
      I wish to correct a couple of myths that I have heard, not least from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I am a member of a union which lived by secret postal ballots. All our officials were elected every three years. Our executive was elected every year. Every offer from the employers in industrial negotiations was referred back to the members for secret postal ballot. In what we call the chapel., the chapel officials were elected by secret workplace ballot every three months. Indeed, I was one, and I had to be re-elected every three months. I never heard any complaints about those workplace ballots, and there was a high turnout.
      I believe that trade unions should be free and independent bodies. The trade unions should determine their own method of elections. I do not think that it is for the state to interfere and to impose one particular method. The Bill does that on the hypothesis that if there are postal ballots, there will be a higher turnout, and the result will be more moderate union leaders. There is no evidence for that. The suggestion comes oddly from the Conservative party, whose chairman is elected not by any secret postal ballot but by an electoral college of one. I do not know by what secret postal ballot the chairman of the Conservative Trade Unionists was elected. Perhaps someone could tell us the answer to that. Hon. Members were not elected by a secret postal ballot. No hon. Member, when selected as a candidate, was selected by secret postal ballot of all the members of the relevant party. These methods were not imposed in the selection and election of hon. Members.
      I wish to correct the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to some extent on his research. He perpetuates the myth that two groups exist in the unions—the Left wing and Right wing, or the militants and the moderates. It was suggested that the militants and the Left wing were afraid of elections and fought against them, whereas the moderates and the Right wing were all for them. If the hon. Gentleman studies the history of the trade union movement—I hope that he does—he will find that that is not true. In general, the Right wing—I do not accept these labels, but they are shorthand terms that we all understand—did not want officials to be elected at all. It wanted those officials appointed. In some unions the Right wing was a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Instead, the Left wing fought for elections in an attempt to change the officers.
      Mr. Leigh: Then why is the Left now opposing secret postal ballots?
      Mr. Leighton: I am not opposed to secret postal ballots. Indeed, my union operates them, although other unions do not. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) belongs to a union which lives by postal ballots, and he does not oppose them in principle. He is however, opposed to the state interfering in free independent unions and imposing by diktat the method of' election.
      Let us consider the experience of the four unions which now operate postal ballots. In two of them—the EETPU and the AUEW engineering section—the Right wing has

      887
      come out on top. But members of other unions have fought for free postal ballots, including the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union.
      Mr. Leigh: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Leighton: If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about that union, he will confirm that the Left wing has thrived and prospered under postal ballots. I do not seek to make any specific point. I am merely trying to educate Conservative Members so that they understand these things better.
      Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glaford and Scunthorpe)rose——
      Mr. Leighton: I shall give way in a moment.
      In the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the Left wing fought for secret postal ballots, including both types of militant—those with a capital M and those with a small m. They achieved postal ballots, as a result of which that union now has Militant officials. I give that example to show that it does not follow that secret postal ballots will necessarily result in the election of Right-wing leaders.
      In addition, those four unions—two with Right-wing leaders and two with Left-wing leaders — achieved virtually the same percentage vote in their elections.
      Mr. Holt rose——
      Mr. Leighton: I was about to give way to the author of this myth.
      Mr. Leigh: I am not for a moment saying that secret postal ballots will prevent the election of a popular Left-winger, as in the case of the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union. I am saying that such ballots will ensure that unpopular Left-wingers are prevented from being elected. Such ballots will prevent intimidation by the bully boys, as could and does happen in workplace ballots.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Leighton: When the hon. Gentleman moved his amendments, I did not gain the impression that only unpopular Left-wingers would not be elected. The hon. Gentleman put a different gloss on it.
      The National Union of Seamen is an interesting case. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to study the history of a union and learn about ballot rigging, he should look at that union. Those who fought against ballot rigging and for the extension of postal ballots to more officials were helped in their election campaign by being mentioned by the then right hon. Member for Huyton. The Left wing in that union succeeded in extending secret postal balloting, and it is now prospering and thriving as a result.
      The CPSA has been mentioned as a union which has workplace voting. It was said that initially such workplace ballots achieved a 40 per cent. turnout. I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has returned, because he is an expert on the CPSA. He will confirm that initially there was a 40 per cent. vote. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that afterwards that vote dropped — [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) will not prevent the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle from listening to the valuable things that I am saying. It is true that the CPSA vote dropped to 25 per
      888
      cent., but my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North will confirm that, after the AUEW introduced postal voting, its voting turnout dropped in subsequent years.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that it was dreadful that only 25 per cent. of members should vote in a workplace ballot, so I shall give way to him if he can tell me which union achieves a 25 per cent. vote under a postal voting system. It seems that the hon. Gentleman does not know.
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman deliberately seeks to misunderstand. It may be true that in certain circumstances — perhaps in all circumstances — a workplace ballot achieves a higher turnout than a secret postal ballot. If, as in the case of NALGO, that is due to one man voting 129 times by picking unused ballot papers out of dustbins, what exactly does the hon. Gentleman's point prove?
      Mr. Leighton: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is blushing. That is the most wriggling, unpersuasive argument that I have heard. The hon. Member for Stockton, South, who was a consultant for that union, will tell us whether it is possible for one man to vote 100 times, although I know that there were once irregularities in that union.
      I shall, however, read Hansard tomorrow and send the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle the appropriate cutting, because he argued that in workplace ballots the turnout dropped to 25 per cent. whereas it would be higher under the postal ballot system. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot name one union which operates postal voting and which achieves anything like a 25 per cent. turnout. It is not surprising, if the hon. Gentleman gets those simple facts wrong, that he reaches the wrong conclusion at the end of the day.
      The workplace ballot is valid and legitimate. When the National Union of Mineworkers elected Mr. Scargill in a workplace ballot there was a turnout of 80 per cent. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding agreement. It is convenient to vote at the workplace. I was elected through a proper system of ballot boxes in the canteen. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to tell free and independent trade unions how to conduct their affairs, or to say that one method is better than another.
      I urge the hon. Gentleman further to study the fascinating subject of trade union elections. No other institution in Britain consults its members more systematically, regularly or frequently than does the trade union movement. It sets us all a good example.
      Mr. Best: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that the Left wing is in favour of secret postal ballots, and that they did not lead to either the Right or the Left being elected. He makes a point in favour of the amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) mentioned courage during his excellent speech. I shall not be faint-hearted tonight. However, ultimately my hon. Friend has another place to which he can go—I do not, but I shall not be deterred because of that. I am given extra heart by the comments of Opposition Members who wish to retain the Bill as it stands and reject the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
      Both the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East said

      889
      that turnout was more important than unimpeded democratic rights. The gravamen of their speeches was that the all-important matter was turnout. The logical conclusion is that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North would argue for compulsory voting in national elections, such as there is in Australia. He gave the impression that elections in trade union matters were too much trouble—too much trouble to distribute the ballot papers, too much trouble for people to take cognisance of those standing for election, and too much trouble to learn a little about the matter. As one of my hon. Friends said from a sedentary position, they want everything done for them. I am, therefore, persuaded in favour of the amendment.
      Although it is awkward to have certain matters articulated in the publicity of this place, I think that my hon. Friends would regard me as a moderate. However, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) appears to believe me to be a militant Right-winger. Such a description could be of assistance in certain cases, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, I fear that what little good the description may have done me has been undone by the fact that it came from the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Gentleman painted a fascinating scenario. With respect to him, I shall go into the Lobby tonight with a far greater sense of adventure than I have during the past five years. He likened this place to a trade union. When we go through the Lobbies tonight, that will be akin to a workplace ballot. In likening this place to a trade union, the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no intimidation—which we know to be true—and no pressure—which we all know. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's analogy has some validity.
      I am forced to suspect the Opposition's wish to oppose the amendment and their over-support for the Bill as it stands. If I had any doubt previously on how I should vote, that doubt has been resolved by the comments of Opposition Members which I did not find persuasive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take offence if I say he is the white queen of the Labour party, and that if he says something three times we must believe it to be true. I suspect that most of us will not fall for that.
      Mr. Mikardo: I do not wish to comment on the hon. Gentleman's observations about my speech. I find it strange that someone who says that he does not wish to be offensive, can then make an extremely offensive remark. However, I shall not lose any sleep over the hon. Gentleman's burblings.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that turnout is not the most important matter. However, he should not be surprised that a great deal of attention has been paid to turnout, because throughout the Committee and Report stages the Minister did not make one speech that did not concentrate on turnout. I am sorry that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have followed that idiotic example.
      Mr. Best: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he is obviously on the horns of a dilemma. He seeks to criticise the Minister for concentrating on turnout, yet he deploys that argument in opposing the amendment. My remark about the white queen was not intended to be offensive, as he will discover if he reads "Alice in Wonderland". Indeed I am surprised that he has not read it, because it is compulsory reading for the Labour party.
      890
      The Bill is important; it is a tribute to the Government that it is before the House tonight. It redresses so many wrongs. It is intolerable in a democratic society that people achieve and remain in office without being subject to the democratic will of those whom they purport to represent. It is a matter of individual freedom. Anyone would be moved by the representations that we heard earlier today from moderate members of trade unions—all of whom are staunch Socialists. One hon. Member spoke of his experience of six trade unions and the need for secret postal ballots. Other hon. Members referred to the engineering section of the AUEW, which is in favour of postal ballots.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, North is in great difficulty. He says that he is in favour of secret postal ballots, but at the same time he is seeking to dissuade his hon. Friends from supporting the amendment. If, as is envisaged in the Bill, the courts can order a postal ballot, why is it not right for a secret postal ballot to exist ab initio? That is a fundamental point which has not been fully addressed this evening. Indeed, it was my noble Friend Lord Gowrie who said:
      "The Government wish to do everything practicable to ensure the spread of postal balloting … the best safeguard against intimidation and malpractice … wherever possible the union member should be allowed to cast his vote away from the … workplace."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 1984; Vol. 453, c. 277.]
      What is wrong with postal ballots? It has been suggested that they would put us in difficulty with the ILO.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the handout from the Conservative party's research department helpfully pointed out that in the other place Government spokesmen argued against the amendment on the ground that it represented an unacceptable degree of state interference in union affairs in contravention of our obligations to the ILO?
      Mr. Best: My hon. Friend has made his point. I have some care and regard for international obligations that Britain enters into. We should look carefully at those obligations before we seek to contravene them. By the same token it must be right that there are at times— I hope many — when we in Britain can add something beneficial to the corpus of international law rather than merely accepting its formation by others and as it stands at present. That is what the House should be doing tonight. We should be saying that the ILO convention is not necessarily holy writ which should be observed at all costs, but that it is capable of being ameliorated.
      Postal ballots are the only safeguard to individual rights. They are the best way of conducting trade union elections. Those are not my words and views alone but those of the personification of the Conservative party in the Chamber tonight.
      Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) for that gracious introduction. I hope that I shall in no way seek to intimidate him tonight but that, by his vivid intelligence, he will be able to appreciate the force of the points that I seek to make in support of the Lords amendments that are before the House and in inviting the House not to accept the range of amendments that have been tabled to the Lords amendments.

      891
      Many speeches have kindly welcomed the return of the Bill. It has been much enhanced by the amendments that have been made in another place. I shall refer to certain improvements that any fair-minded person would recognise as a major achievement and improvement in the corporations of industrial law. The debate has dealt particularly with the arrangements for ballots for the election of members of the principal executive committees of trade unions. The Bill includes the important provision that for any strike or other industrial action to have immunity there should have been a ballot beforehand. Nobody in Britain, after the recent events in the ports or the continuing events in the mines, is in any doubt about the appropriateness and value of that provision. I know that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I hope for every hon. Member, when I say that the sooner that that becomes the law of the land the better. The Bill also includes arrangements for periodic ballots for political funds which we debated at some length on Report and earlier.
      Quite apart from the merits of the arguments, not the least of my considerations is my wish that the Bill should become the law of the land at the earliest possible date. It will not have escaped the attention of those of my hon. Friends who have taken a close interest in the Bill that, provided that we are able to agree with their Lordships in their amendments, the Bill can achieve the Royal Assent and part II of the Bill will take effect two months after that. That is a not unimportant consideration at present and I am most anxious to see that we achieve it.
      As the Bill has been away from the House for a while and as some of my hon. Friends may not have it freshly in their minds, it is important to understand that the whole basis on which we have embarked on this further reform, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and carried forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is a step-by-step approach by which we are steadily establishing not impossible hurdles for people to overcome, not inevitably and incredibly complex laws and regulations which then give an excuse for the militants and extremists to plead the impossibility of observing, but what by any fair and reasonable test ought to apply in any democracy and free institution. The legisation has sought to balance that against what my right hon. and hon. Friends will defend to the death—the freedom of the individual and the proper rights and freedom of that individual in a free society.
      Although we had a little jovial xenophobia from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in his cracks about the ILO, and in the remarks of my hon. friend the Member for Ynys Mon, the complexity of international law to which Britain is a signatory under convention 87 is contained in this simple sentence:
      "Workers and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes."
      I do not regard that as a gross interference with our national law but as something that certainly every Conservative Member would wish to see established and available more widely around the world. I hope that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends in paying
      892
      tribute to the work that the ILO is doing in its condemnation of the treatment of Solidarity in Poland because it is in the universal application of that freedom and the freedom of the individual that we seek to support it.
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) berated my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for his criticisms. I know that my hon. Friend will not confuse the denunciation, were it to be so, of a convention covering wages councils with the question of secession from the ILO, which is a separate matter. I am sure that he does not wish to deride the value of international organisations. I am sure that he will remember with me our appreciation of the fact that it was the European Court of Human Rights that pilloried the right hon. Gentleman for his fundamental breach of the convention when, by his own closed shop legislation, he affected the freedom and rights of choice of individual members.
      It is against that background that I put this important issue to my right hon. and hon. Friends. We must balance the proper freedoms of individuals if they wish to combine together in their own associations and to fix their own rules with the responsibility that they have to society to see that those rules and organisations are conducted in conformity with basic democractic principles.
      I demand for society and express through the House the right to certain basic standards and principles. It is Parliament that gives privileges to trade unions. It gives them immunity from prosecution in industrial action. Therefore, Parliament is entitled to see that certain minimum tests are observed in that situation. That does not infringe the basic freedoms that people shold enjoy in Britain.
      I have already referred to society's right to ask — indeed, to expect—that those who lead trade unions are properly elected by proper democratic principles. If society is to be disrupted by strikes and other forms of industrial action, it is right that the simple and basic test of a vote and a secret ballot before such action is taken is observed and implemented if society is to confer on that action immunity from prosecution. The tests that we are imposing in the Bill are not objectionable. They pass the test that I put before the House for they are manifestly reasonable and acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the British people.
      The amendments from another place have at their heart a concern that we all share. I trust that all hon. Members are concerned about the fairness of union elections. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) moved the amendment one or two Opposition Members chose to heckle him when he presented any evidence of intimidation, mischief and malpractice. I do not think that there is a Member of this place who has taken any close interest in industrial matters who does not know that in some union elections there is abuse and malpractice and, in some instances, gross intimidation. It is difficult for any Opposition Member to suggest that that is never so when we observe the behaviour that is taking place and the lengths to which individuals are prepared to go in the miners' dispute to impose their will on what may often be an unwilling majority.
      Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State has made a grave allegation. We are discussing the election of trade unions'

      893
      executive councils and the right hon. Gentleman has talked about intimidation. Can he give the House one example of intimidation in the election of any executive council of any trade union?
      Mr. King: One of the features of successful intimidation is the success with which intimidators are able to cover their tracks. There is a host of malpractices in the conduct of union elections and some of them have appeared in print. However, I do not intend to take up the time of the House by dealing with them individually. I hope that the House in its entirety is committed to freedom and fairness in trade union elections.
      Mr. Foot: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. King: I should like to complete this part of my speech before doing so. There is evidence of intimidation, mischief and malpractice, and distortions can flow from low turnouts. I have no evidence of any postal ballot that has achieved a higher turnout than a workplace ballot.
      The real evil that the Bill is designed to eliminate, and which it specifically proscribes as it returns from another place, is the branch ballot. It is unfortunate that the debate has tended to suggest that we are confining ourselves to the relative merits of the postal ballot and the workplace ballot. The majority of union elections are conducted by means of the branch ballot. The Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs provides a good example of the results of branch ballots. The president of the ASTMS was elected on a 2 per cent. poll of the members. Branch ballots are often held in the back rooms of pubs at late hours on November nights.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is making the most extraordinary statements. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) wants to intervene in his speech. It is my understanding that the entire House wishes to hear my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order. Many extraordinary statements are made in the House.
      Mr. King: I give way to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
      Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has made serious charges of malpractice. When he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), he could not produce one instance of malpractice. This is a repetition of what happened in another place when similar charges of malpractice were levelled. They were challenged time and again by Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord McCarthy, who asked Government spokesmen to substantiate their charges. Like the Secretary of State, they could not substantiate what they had said. Will the right hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to withdraw?
      Mr. King: I did not wish to deal in detail with allegations of malpractice. I am more interested, in establishing the most appropriate basis—I thought that in this instance I would have the support of the right hon. Gentleman—for eliminating the possibility of intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman might care to study a few appropriate chapters in Mr. Sid Weighell's book entitled "On the Rails". The right hon. Gentleman should study
      894
      some of his evidence and comments. I do not wish to enlarge on allegations of malpractice, for it is not ray purpose to vilify trade unions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) has said, it is the Government's purpose to establish principles on which we can achieve fairer elections. The abuse of the open meeting and the show of hands and the abuse of the branch meeting——
      Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House that anyone speaking from the Front Benches shall address the Chair? You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the reporters find this practice helpful. The right hon. Gentleman will persist in addressing the other end of the Chamber.
      Mr. King: That is a fair comment to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to you and the hon. Gentleman.
      The abuse of the branch ballot and the holding of meetings at inconvenient times at inconvenient places such as the back room of a pub on the night a European cup final is being shown on television, a meeting that may well be badly advertised and which ensures that only a minute number of members attend, are practices that do not encourage full participation. Such practices do not lend themselves to participatory democracy in trade union elections. The prime objective of our proposals is to eliminate the branch ballot. That practice will be ruled out by the Bill.
      I must accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle grossly overstated the difference between the Bill's provisions and the amendments which he is proposing. I think that he was considerably less than gracious to those in another place who considered the Bill in great detail and tabled a number of amendments. We should pay tribute to their work. Opposition Members are all too ready to pay tribute to their Lordships when they like what they do and all too ready to criticise hem when their actions do not suit their position.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was suitably appreciative of what the noble Lords did in that respect. There is a difference between the Lords amendments and the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and other hon. Members who have spoken. The amendments to the Lords amendment ask for mandatory postal ballots — not universally—with exemptions for those circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to have a mandatory postal ballot. The proposals that I recommended to the House have a presumption in favour of a postal ballot. There will be a workplace ballot only if that ballot can pass the tests of being free, fair, convenient, secret, free from intimidation, and involving the marking of a piece of paper. Those are the clear tests. Those who believe that the workplace ballot is inevitably capable of massive manipulation do not appear to include Mr. Scargill in the number. It is significant that Mr. Scargill seems now not to have the same confidence that he has the power to rig the outcome of the ballot.
      I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle recognises a problem involving exemptions. Who is to grant them? On what basis, rules and detailed procedures are those exemptions to be granted? Are not the courts of the land sufficient?

      895
      That is the key to the Government's proposals. Must we set up another body? It has been suggested that the Secretary of State of whatever Government are in power will have the power to determine the rules of election of individual trade unions. It has been suggested that the state officer in the shape of the Certification Officer—that is the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle — should determine the exact arrangements for elections in individual trade unions. I believe that that would lead to considerable difficulties. It provides considerable scope for "militants" on the Left as well as the Right to challenge the rulings of such a certification officer. I believe that that measure would make the whole procedure much more complicated.
      Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. King: May I explain the merits of the proposals that we are putting forward, and then my hon. Friend might like to comment.
      I do not believe that some of my hon. Friends have quite understood the full ramifications of the range of amendments that have been tabled by their Lordships and the way in which they interact significantly to encourage the presumption in favour of the postal ballot. I refer to the amendment supported by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) who believes that the insertion of "the employer" is necessary. That is not so. The measure is intended as a protection for the trade union. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were carried, intimidation by an employer would become the liability of the trade union, and I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do that. I would not recommend to the House that that amendment should be accepted.
      Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with my point about the position that could arise if an employer refused to co-operate during the workplace ballot?
      Mr. King: The employer has a duty under section 2 of the Employment Act 1980 to make facilities available for workplace ballots if they are conducted in conformity with the requirements of that Act. I shall give the full details to the hon. Gentleman. I understand this point.
      The amendment supported by the hon. Member of Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) will omit the words, "so far as reasonably practicable".
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that amendment. His measure would automatically disqualify the AUEW and the EETPU from every postal ballot that now exists. Those of my hon. Friends who have consciously taken the decision, as I have, to prefer the method of postal ballots must accept the fact that, despite their belief that a postal ballot is the perfect answer, the AUEW estimates that 200,000 of its members who are entitled to vote never receive a voting paper and 25,000 members who are not entitled to vote receive a voting paper. That is one of the difficulties of maintaining a register. That is why the phrase
      "so far as reasonably practicable"
      must, in all honesty, be left in the Bill.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I reassure the Secretary of State that we do not intend to press that amendment. I simply wanted to put down a marker on the form of the words that has been debated in the other place and in Committee.
      Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      896
      At the core of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is the question of the code of practice. My hon. Friend invites the House to encourage the insertion of a requirement for a code of practice which will have minimum criteria and preclude certain practices. I believe that the House understands that I am not keen to include in the code of practice points that I can have in the Bill. Those minimum criteria which I have just spelt out to the House are in the Bill as part of its legal requirements. I do not see the point of repeating them in a code of practice.
      Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend has asked me to comment. I shall, therefore, take this opportunity to congratulate their Lordships on improving the Bill. Surely that does not stop the House from improving the Bill still further, especially by removing the central fallacy which still remains after their Lordships' amendments. The point is that a trade unionist concerned about intimidation must himself go to the High Court via the certification officer. Should there not be a duty on the trade union leadership to justify a workplace rather than a postal ballot? I do not see why the Bill should not be improved in that respect.
      Mr. King: I shall seek to explain that point to my hon. Friend, but I certainly accept his first point that the House has, of course, an absolute right to improve the Bill further if it believes that the grounds justify that improvement.
      I have sought to make clear the position on the code of practice. Hon. Members have referred also to an independent agency which would issue ballot papers, have those papers returned to it, count the votes, issue the results, and presumably in some way patrol the address list and check the accuracy of registers of members. In other words, that agency would effectively take over the trade union the running of all trade union elections for principal executive committees. Our slogan was "Giving the unions back to their members". It was not to give the unions to a state agency to run. I do not believe that that is the right approach. I shall explain why the further measures that we have included genuinely help union members in their responsibilities within their union.
      Some of my hon. Friends have not understood how strong and effective is the phrase that the union
      "is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements … would not be satisfied."
      by not holding a postal ballot. The effect of that is to oblige any union that is not prepared to adopt a postal ballot to consider whether a workplace ballot — the only alternative that the legislation allows — can possibly need all the stringent, democratic safeguards that the Bill provides.
      9 pm
      Can a workplace ballot be secret? Can the union guarantee that none of its members will be at risk of intimidation or that there will be no other constraint on the voter's freedom to vote for the candidate of his choice? Can a workplace ballot be free of malpractice or manipulation? Above all, will the workplace ballot give members the opportunity to vote at a time and place convenient to them? Only if all those requirements are satisfied will it be safe for a union to opt for a workplace ballot. That is a serious decision that they must reach, because the next proposal that I recommended to their Lordships as a Government amendment is now incorporated in the Bill. If the unions decide to go for the

      897
      workplace ballot, consciously deciding that they can meet those requirements, they are open to challenge. Any union member in advance of the ballot can go to the certification officer or the courts. They will have to be satisfied that the union has thought the matter through fully.
      If the union does not succeed and is found not to have complied with the requirements, and is taken to court, the requirement that I have inserted in the Bill, which is a significant enhancement of the Bill since it left this place, is that a court then not "may" but "shall" require a re-run of the election. It will have the power to quash the previous election and require the re-run to be held by postal ballot, unless it determines that it is inappropriate to work in that way. There is an onus to hold a postal ballot.
      Mr. Best rose——
      Mr. King: The next step we have taken — I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) who is aware of what a significant step forward this is — and one which will be widely welcomed is that we have provided that a trade union member who has a problem and previously may have felt inhibited and worried about going to the courts can now go to the certification officer to have his complaint investigated, provided that he has shown that he is a valid union member and have his anonymity preserved, if necessary.
      If the complaint is upheld, the certification officer will be able to issue a legal declaration which will plainly be of assistance to the member when pursuing a just complaint. I do not see that as something that should frighten trade unions. We know that people have unjustified grievances and the certification officer may help in weeding out the frivolous and irrelevant complaints.
      In addition,—I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members welcome this further step forward—there is the requirement for the establishment of accurate registers of their members by every trade union. I make no apology for having included this proposal in the Bill. It seems to me incredible that organisations with assets of £50 million, £40 million or £30 million, and with members subscribing £25, £50 or £100 a year can turn round and say that they have no record of membership. That is something which will be of great benefit to unions. The duty to compile the register will start with the Royal Assent. I hope that, with the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that could be next week. It would be an important step forward.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister was asked earlier by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) whether that register would be confidential to the trade union or whether it would be available to the public. Will the Minister answer that question?
      Mr. King: It will not be available to the public, but it will be the trade unions' duty to keep such a register, and a union member will be entitled to seek access to it to see whether his entry was properly included. I hope that the House will feel that that is the proper answer.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: Can the Minister tell the trade unions whether under the Employment Act 1980 the Government will provide the means for them to set up these registers and administer them as part of the balloting?
      Mr. King: We have no such proposals. The evidence from unions that have set up these registers has shown that by using modern methods of establishing registers they have improved the collection of subscriptions, which has benefited them. I do not see the need to fund them in that way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn picked up a phrase in an article about who the courageous ones are now, and who the cowards. I have never regarded the question of the approach that we adopt as a question of courage or cowardice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will remember, we tramped through the Lobbies night after night in 1970 and 1971 in the bravest show of determination to achieve trade union reform that this country has ever seen. What are the results? I have to tell my hon. Friends—some of whom wish to go further than we think would be sensible or effective—that we went much further in 1971. We did not just appoint a certification officer with power to establish the rules for elections. We set up a registrar with an oversight over all the rules of a trade union. What did that achieve? Our proposals ran into major obstruction. The step was ineffective.
      I want to bring democracy., fairness and better practices to trade union elections. I believe that, if we take the further steps that some of my hon. Friends wish to take, we will play into the hands of the militants who seek more complicated and difficult arrangements because they could challenge them endlessly in the courts. I want to see clear, fair and effective measures which would be of real help to trade union members in this country who are entitled to such help. We want to give union members the opportunity to vote.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), must find himself in an embarrassing position tonight. I have a quotation for him.
      "Those who oppose the change will have to explain how.in the name of democracy they can deny the chance to vote to the people who make up the party … Do those who oppose the proposals for direct membership voting think that the great majority of party members cannot be trusted to make a judgment?"
      That is a reference not to a trade union but to a party. The letter is signed "Yours fraternally, Neil Kinnock". It was published today, and sent to hon. Members as part of the campaign for one man, one vote in the Labour party.
      The least that we can do is to carry that campaign into trade union elections as well. I believe in the measures in the Bill. I invite my hon. Friends to support them in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 467.

      Division No. 424]

      [9.08 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fallon, Michael

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beith, A. J.

      Fry, Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Body, Richard

      Greenway, Harry

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gregory, Conal

      Bruinvels, Peter

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

      Budgen, Nick

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Grylls, Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Dicks, Terry

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Dover, Den

      Hughes, Simon (Southward)

      899

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Johnston, Russell

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Thurnham, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Wainwright, R.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wallace, James

      Murphy, Christopher

      Warren, Kenneth

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Penhaligon, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Mr. Keith Best and Mr. John Butterfill.

      Sims, Roger

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Ancram, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Anderson, Donald

      Chope, Christopher

      Arnold, Tom

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

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Clarke, Thomas

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Clay, Robert

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cohen, Harry

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Coleman, Donald

      Baldry, Anthony

      Colvin, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Barron, Kevin

      Conway, Derek

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Coombs, Simon

      Bell, Stuart

      Cope, John

      Benn, Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Corrie, John

      Benyon, William

      Cowans, Harry

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Craigen, J. M.

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Critchley, Julian

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Crouch, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Crowther, Stan

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blair, Anthony

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Deakins, Eric

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Dewar, Donald

      Boyes, Roland

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Dixon, Donald

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dobson, Frank

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dormand, Jack

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bright, Graham

      Douglas, Dick

      Brinton, Tim

      Dubs, Alfred

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Durant, Tony

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Browne, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Buchan, Norman

      Eggar, Tim

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Ellis, Raymond

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Butcher, John

      Evennett, David

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Ewing, Harry

      Caborn, Richard

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Farr, Sir John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Campbell, Ian

      Faulds, Andrew

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Favell, Anthony

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Carlisle. Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Field. Frank (Birkenhead)

      900

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Flannery, Martin

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Hunter, Andrew

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Irving, Charles

      Forman, Nigel

      Jackson, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Foster, Derek

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Foulkes, George

      Jessel, Toby

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      John, Brynmor

      Fox, Marcus

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Franks, Cecil

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Freeman, Roger

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Garrett, W. E.

      Key, Robert

      George, Bruce

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Golding, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Knowles, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Knox, David

      Gould, Bryan

      Lambie, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lamont, Norman

      Gow, Ian

      Latham, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Grist, Ian

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Lester, Jim

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Hannam, John

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Hardy, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Lilley, Peter

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Litherland, Robert

      Harris, David

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Harvey, Robert

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Lord, Michael

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Loyden, Edward

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Luce, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Hayhoe, Barney

      McCartney, Hugh

      Haynes, Frank

      McCrindle, Robert

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Heddle, John

      MacGregor, John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      McGuire, Michael

      Henderson, Barry

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Hickmet, Richard

      McKelvey, William

      Hicks, Robert

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Maclean, David John

      Hill, James

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

      Hind, Kenneth

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hirst, Michael

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      McWilliam, John

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Madden, Max

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Madel, David

      Holt, Richard

      Major, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Howard, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Maples, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Marek, Dr John

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Marland, Paul

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Marlow, Antony

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Mates, Michael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      901

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Rogers, Allan

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rooker, J. W.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Meacher, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Rowe, Andrew

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rowlands, Ted

      Michie, William

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mikardo, Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ryman, John

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Moate, Roger

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Shersby, Michael

      Moore, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Silvester, Fred

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mudd, David

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Needham, Richard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Nellist, David

      Snape, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Neubert, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Newton, Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Speed, Keith

      Norris, Steven

      Speller, Tony

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Spencer, Derek

      O'Brien, William

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Squire, Robin

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Steen, Anthony

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stern, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Park, George

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Stokes, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Parry, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Patchett, Terry

      Sumberg, David

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Pawsey, James

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Thompson, Donald (Calder v)

      Pike, Peter

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Porter, Barry

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Powley, John

      Tinn, James

      Prescott, John

      Torney, Tom

      Price, Sir David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Tracey, Richard

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Trippier, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Trotter, Neville

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rathbone, Tim

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Redmond, M.

      Viggers, Peter

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Waddington, David

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Renton, Tim

      Walden, George

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Waller, Gary

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Walters, Dennis

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Ward, John

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Wareing, Robert

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Watson, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Watts, John

      902

      Weetch, Ken

      Woodall, Alec

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Welsh, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Wheeler, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      White, James

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Whitfield, John

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Whitney, Raymond

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wood, Timothy

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment (d) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 11, after 'him', insert
      'by an independent body approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer'.—[Mr. Wrigglesworth]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 469.

      Division No. 425]

      [9.24 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Johnston, Russell

      Best, Keith

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Body, Richard

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Budgen, Nick

      Murphy, Christopher

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Penhaligon, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Dover, Den

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Fallon, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Sims, Roger

      Fry, Peter

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry

      Wainwright, R.

      Gregory, Conal

      Wallace, James

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

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Ground, Patrick

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Grylls, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hickmet, Richard

      Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. A. J. Beith.

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Amess, David

      Blair, Anthony

      Ancram, Michael

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Anderson, Donald

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arnold, Tom

      Bottomley, Peter

      Ashby, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Ashton, Joe

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Boyes, Roland

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Bright, Graham

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Brinton, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Baldry, Anthony

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Barron, Kevin

      Browne, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Buchan, Norman

      Bell, Stuart

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Benn, Tony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Burt, Alistair

      Benyon, William

      Butcher, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Butler, Hon Adam

      903

      Caborn, Richard

      Flannery, Martin

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Campbell, Ian

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Forman, Nigel

      Canavan, Dennis

      Forth, Eric

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Foster, Derek

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Foulkes, George

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Carttiss, Michael

      Fox, Marcus

      Cash, William

      Franks, Cecil

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Chope, Christopher

      Freeman, Roger

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

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Gale, Roger

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Clarke, Thomas

      George, Bruce

      Clay, Robert

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Cockeram, Eric

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Golding, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Coleman, Donald

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Colvin, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gow, Ian

      Conway, Derek

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Coombs, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Cope, John

      Grist, Ian

      Corbett, Robin

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Corrie, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Cowans, Harry

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hannam, John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Hardy, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Crouch, David

      Harris, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Dalyell, Tam

      Harvey, Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hawksley, Warren

      Dewar, Donald

      Hayes, J.

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Dixon, Donald

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Dobson, Frank

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Dormand, Jack

      Heddle, John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Douglas, Dick

      Henderson, Barry

      Dubs, Alfred

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hicks, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Hill, James

      Durant, Tony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hirst, Michael

      Eadie, Alex

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Eastham, Ken

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Eggar, Tim

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Ellis, Raymond

      Holt, Richard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Hordern, Peter

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Howard, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Ewing, Harry

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Farr, Sir John

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Fatchett, Derek

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Favell, Anthony

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      904

      Irving, Charles

      Michie, William

      Jackson, Robert

      Mikardo, Ian

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Jessel, Toby

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      John, Brynmor

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Moore, John

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Key, Robert

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Mudd, David

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Knowles, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Knox, David

      Nellist, David

      Lambie, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Lamont, Norman

      Newton, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Latham, Michael

      Norris, Steven

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Lawrence, Ivan

      O'Brien, William

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Onslow, Cranley

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Leighton, Ronald

      Osborn, Sir John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Ottaway, Richard

      Lester, Jim

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Park, George

      Lightbown, David

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Litley, Peter

      Parris, Matthew

      Litherland, Robert

      Parry, Robert

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Patchett, Terry

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Lord, Michael

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Loyden, Edward

      Pawsey, James

      Luce, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Pendry, Tom

      McCartney, Hugh

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McCrindle, Robert

      Pike, Peter

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Pollock, Alexander

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Porter, Barry

      MacGregor, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Powley, John

      McKelvey, William

      Prescott, John

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Price, Sir David

      Maclean, David John

      Proctor, K. Harvey

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

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Raffan, Keith

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      McTaggart, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      McWilliam, John

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Madden, Max

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Madel, David

      Renton, Tim

      Major, John

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Malone, Gerald

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Maples, John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Marek, Dr John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Marland, Paul

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Marlow, Antony

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Mates, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Rogers, Allan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Rooker, J. W.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rost, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Merchant, Piers

      Rowlands, Ted

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      905

      Ryder, Richard

      Thome, Neil (llford S)

      Ryman, John

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Thurnham, Peter

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Tinn, James

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Torney, Tom

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tracey, Richard

      Sheerman, Barry

      Trippier, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Trotter, Neville

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Viggers, Peter

      Silvester, Fred

      Waddington, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walden, George

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waller, Gary

      Snape, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Ward, John

      Soley, Clive

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Speed, Keith

      Wareing, Robert

      Speller, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spencer, Derek

      Watson, John

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Watts, John

      Squire, Robin

      Weetch, Ken

      Steen, Anthony

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Stern, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      White, James

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Whitfield, John

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Stokes, John

      Winnick, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wolfson, Mark

      Straw, Jack

      Wood, Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Woodall, Alec

      Tapsell, Peter

      Woodcock, Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

    New Clause

      MODIFICATION OF SECTION 2 REQUIREMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 3, insert the following new clause—
      " .—(1) Where a trade union proposes to hold an election and is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 2 of this Act would not be satisfied in relation to that election if subsection (6A) of that section were to apply as modified by this section, it may proceed as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6A) there were substituted—
      "(a) have made available to him—

      (i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and

      (ii) at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him;

      or be supplied with, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and
      (b) be given—

      (i) a convenient opportunity to vote by post (but no other opportunity to vote);

      906

      (ii) an opportunity to vote immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours and at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him (but no other opportunity); or

      (iii) as alternatives, both of those opportunities (but no other opportunity)."

      Read a Second time.
      Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out from 'union' to end of line 25 and add
      'wishes to vary the method of voting specified in subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act the trade union shall submit to the Certification Officer a claim for exemption from the requirements of that subsection and shall show to the satisfacton of the Certification Officer that the alternative method is at least as fair, democratic and efficient as that specified in that subsection; and the Certification Officer shall, if he is so satisfied, allow the election to be held in the manner proposed by the trade union.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, make by a statutory instrument subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, regulations specifying the procedure for claiming exemption under this section from the requirements of subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act.' .—[Mr. Wrigglesworth.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 459.

      Division No. 426]

      [9.40 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Johnston, Russell

      Bendall, Vivian

      Kennedy, Charles

      Best, Keith

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Body, Richard

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Murphy, Christopher

      Budgen, Nick

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Butterfill, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Dover, Den

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Fallon, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Sims, Roger

      Fry, Peter

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry

      Wainwright, R.

      Gregory, Conal

      Wallace, James

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

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Ground, Patrick

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Grylls, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hickmet, Richard

      Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. A. J. Beith.

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Adley, Robert

      Barron, Kevin

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Alexander, Richard

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bell, Stuart

      Amess, David

      Benn, Tony

      Ancram, Michael

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Anderson, Donald

      Benyon, William

      Arnold, Tom

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashby, David

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ashton, Joe

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Blair, Anthony

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Baldry, Anthony

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Boyes, Roland

      907

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Ellis, Raymond

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Evans, John (St, Helens N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Evennett, David

      Bright, Graham

      Ewing, Harry

      Brinton, Tim

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Farr, Sir John

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Favell, Anthony

      Browne, John

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Buchan, Norman

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fisher, Mark

      Burt, Alistair

      Flannery, Martin

      Butcher, John

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Caborn, Richard

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Forman, Nigel

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Forth, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Derek

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Fox, Marcus

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Franks, Cecil

      Carttiss, Michael

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Cash, William

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Freeman, Roger

      Chapman, Sydney

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Chope, Christopher

      Gale, Roger

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

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      George, Bruce

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Clarke, Thomas

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Clay, Robert

      Golding, John

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Cockeram, Eric

      Good lad, Alastair

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Gorst, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Gould, Bryan

      Coleman, Donald

      Gourlay, Harry

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Gow, Ian

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Conway, Derek

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Coombs, Simon

      Grist, Ian

      Cope, John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Corbett, Robin

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Corrie, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cowans, Harry

      Hannam, John

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hardy, Peter

      Craigen, J. M.

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Critchley, Julian

      Harris, David

      Crouch, David

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Crowther, Stan

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Harvey, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Deakins, Eric

      Hayes, J.

      Dewar, Donald

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Dixon, Donald

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Dobson, Frank

      Heddle, John

      Dormand, Jack

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Douglas, Dick

      Henderson, Barry

      Dubs, Alfred

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hicks, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Hill, James

      Durant, Tony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hirst, Michael

      Eadie, Alex

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Eastham, Ken

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Eggar, Tim

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      908

      Holt, Richard

      Marland, Paul

      Hordern, Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Howard, Michael

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Mates, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Meacher, Michael

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Merchant, Piers

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Michie, William

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mikardo, Ian

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Irving, Charles

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Jessel, Toby

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      John, Brynmor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Moate, Roger

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Moore, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Mudd, David

      Key, Robert

      Neale, Gerrard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Needham, Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Nellist, David

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Knowles, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Knox, David

      Newton, Tony

      Lambie, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Lamont, Norman

      Norris, Steven

      Latham, Michael

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Onslow, Cranley

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Leighton, Ronald

      Osborn, Sir John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Ottaway, Richard

      Lester, Jim

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Park, George

      Lightbown, David

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Lilley, Peter

      Parris, Matthew

      Litherland, Robert

      Parry, Robert

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Patchett, Terry

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Lord, Michael

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Loyden, Edward

      Pawsey, James

      Luce, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Pendry, Tom

      McCartney, Hugh

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McCrindle, Robert

      Pike, Peter

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Pollock, Alexander

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Porter, Barry

      MacGregor, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Powley, John

      McKelvey, William

      Prescott, John

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Price, Sir David

      Maclean, David John

      Proctor, K. Harvey

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

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Raffan, Keith

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      McTaggart, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      McWilliam, John

      Redmond, M.

      Madden, Max

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Madel, David

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Major, John

      Renton, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Malone, Gerald

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Maples, John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Marek, Dr John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      909

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Rost, Peter

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Tinn, James

      Ryder, Richard

      Torney, Tom

      Ryman, John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Tracey, Richard

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Trippier, David

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Trotter, Neville

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sheerman, Barry

      Viggers, Peter

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Waddington, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Walden, George

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Waller, Gary

      Silvester, Fred

      Walters, Dennis

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Ward, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wareing, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Soley, Clive

      Watson, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Watts, John

      Speed, Keith

      Weetch, Ken

      Speller, Tony

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Spencer, Derek

      Welsh, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Wheeler, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Whitfield, John

      Squire, Robin

      Whitney, Raymond

      Steen, Anthony

      Winnick, David

      Stern, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Woodall, Alec

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stokes, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Straw, Jack

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Sumberg, David

      Tapsell, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

    New Clause

      REGISTER OF MEMBERS' NAMES AND ADDRESSES
      Lords amendment:No. 4, insert the following new Clause—
      ".—(1) It shall be the duty of every trade union—

      (a) to compile, by the date appointed under section 18(2A) of this Act, and thereafter maintan a register of the names and proper addresses of its members; and

      (b) to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the entries in the register are accurate and are kept up-to-date.

      (2) The register may be kept by means of a computer.
      (3) Any duty falling upon a branch under this section by reason of its being a trade union shall be treated as having been discharged to the extent to which the union of which it is a branch has discharged that duty instead of the branch."
      Mr. Gummer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment.
      Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 43.
      Mr. Leigh: I do not wish to move amendment (a).
      Mr. Ron Davies: I rise to oppose the Lords amendment. During the previous debate the House was treated to an example of the most crass, prejudiced and offensive smears that I have witnessed from Conservative Members. Their approach to the problem of trade unionism is to engage in smear and to trail lies and innuendo in an attempt to gain public support for their approach to industrial relations legislation.
      I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to denounce, or at least to reject, the words of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who referred to the Government inflicting industrial relations legislation upon the trade union movement. I was also disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not remind Viscount Cranborne, the heir to the Sixth Marquis of Salisbury—
      Mr. Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During today's debate hon. Members have referred to the other place as the House of Lords, they have referred to peers without giving them their title of noble and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has just referred to an hon. Member by his name. I hope that we shall retain our traditions.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member was referred to by his title, which is not in order.
      Mr. Davies: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. I accept that I should have referred to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne).
      The hon. Gentleman is the heir to the Marquis of Salisbury and the Opposition need no lesson in democracy from someone who, in due course, will be elevated to the other Chamber, and who will take it upon himself to legislate on industrial relations.
      Viscount Cranborne rose——
      Mr. Davies: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my comments. I have already apologised to the House for the way in which I referred to the hon. Gentleman. I shall, of course, in future refer to him as the hon. Member for Dorset, South.
      Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman said that he needed no lessons in democracy from the likes of me. Were it not for the unelected other place, the gratitude of his party would have been misplaced. He should be grateful to the other place for the favour that it has done his party in rejecting certain pieces of Government legislation.
      Mr. Davies: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any gratitude on the part of Labour Members is temporal and will be replaced by a determination to ensure that the rules of democracy apply not only to the trade union movement but to the processes of government in Britain.
      I oppose Lords amendment No. 4 on three grounds. First, the legislation was framed on the basis of the Government's minimalist approach. It was framed on the basis that the Government seek to ensure——
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Trade Union Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
      The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 23.

      Division No. 427]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dicks, Terry

      Alexander, Richard

      Dover, Den

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Alton, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Eggar, Tim

      Amess, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Ancram, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Arnold, Tom

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Ashby, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Farr, Sir John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Favell, Anthony

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baldry, Anthony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forth, Eric

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Marcus

      Beith, A. J.

      Franks, Cecil

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Benyon, William

      Freeman, Roger

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Freud, Clement

      Best, Keith

      Fry, Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gale, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Body, Richard

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Gorst, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gow, Ian

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Greenway, Harry

      Bright, Graham

      Gregory, Conal

      Brinton, Tim

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

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Ground, Patrick

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Budgen, Nick

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butcher, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hannam, John

      Butterfill, John

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Harvey, Robert

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Cash, William

      Hawksley, Warren

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hayes, J.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Chope, Christopher

      Henderson, Barry

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

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hill, James

      Conway, Derek

      Hind, Kenneth

      Coombs, Simon

      Hirst, Michael

      Cope, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Corrie, John

      Holt, Richard

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hordern, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Howard, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      912

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Parris, Matthew

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Irving, Charles

      Pawsey, James

      Jackson, Robert

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Penhaligon, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Pollock, Alexander

      Johnston, Russell

      Porter, Barry

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jones, Robert CIV Herts)

      Powley, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Price, Sir David

      Key, Robert

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Raffan, Keith

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Knowles, Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Knox, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lamont, Norman

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Lang, Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Latham, Michael

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lightbown, David

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lilley, Peter

      Ryder, Richard

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lord, Michael

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      MacGregor, John

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Silvester, Fred

      Maclean, David John

      Sims, Roger

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

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Madel, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Malone, Gerald

      Speller, Tony

      Maples, John

      Spence, John

      Marland, Paul

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mates, Michael

      Squire, Robin

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steen, Anthony

      Merchant, Piers

      Stern, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshlre)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stokes, John

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Moate, Roger

      Sumberg, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tapsell, Peter

      Moore, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mudd, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Murphy, Christopher

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Newton, Tony

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thurnham, Peter

      Norris, Steven

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Tracey, Richard

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Trippier, David

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Trotter, Neville

      Osborn, Sir John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ottaway, Richard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      913

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Whitney, Raymond

      Viggers, Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Waddington, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wainwright, R.

      Wood, Timothy

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Woodcock, Michael

      Walden, George

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Waller, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Walters, Dennis

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Warren, Kenneth

      Watts, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. John Major.

      Wheeler, John

      Whitfield, John

      NOES

      Ashton, Joe

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Skinner, Dennis

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Ellis, Raymond

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Wallace, James

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Weetch, Ken

      Kennedy, Charles

      Winnick, David

      Marek, DrJohn

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nellist, David

      Mr. Bob Clay and Mr. Terry Lewis.

      Parry, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Question accordingly agreed to.

  Trade Union Bill
  Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I take this opportunity to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his encouragement to me during the past 10 or so minutes.
  Before the interruption I was giving my reasons for opposing Lords amendment No. 4. I said that I had three principal reasons for doing so. The first reason to which I was drawing the attention of the Minister of State was the fact that in debates on the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee the hon. Gentleman said time after time that the principal purpose of the legislation was to use the minimalist approach to ensure, first, that elections to the national executive committee of trade unions were held in accordance with what he determined were fair and accepted practices, and, secondly, that in the event of any industrial action being contemplated by a trade union that union would have to legitimatise its action by the use of a ballot. In justification of that case, the hon. Gentleman said that he strongly favoured, personally and on behalf of the Government, what he called the minimalist approach.
  At no time during the debates on Second Reading and in Committee, and during consideration by the other Chamber, was any thought given to launching an attack on the internal organisation of British trade unions such as is encapsulated in Lords amendment No. 4. I put it seriously to the Minister that the content of the amendment takes the Government a long way from their original intention. The amendment is not about democracy. It is not seeking to achieve the objectives which the Government have set for themselves. On the contrary, the measure is moving in another direction. Because the other place has set the Government in that other direction, we are considering consequential amendments Nos. 41 and 43. Amendment No. 43 amends the long title of the Bill.
  914
  10.15 pm
  My second objection is that the proposal that trade unions should be required by law to set up a register of their members, including their names and addresses, offends all principles of natural justice, and I shall return to that point. There will be many practical difficulties. The net effect of the amendment will not achieve greater participation, ensure wider democracy, or a wider enfranchisement of trade unionists in elections for their national executive committees or in a strike ballot. It will achieve the disruption of British trade unionism. It will impose an intolerable burden upon the voluntary officers of the trade union who, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) said earlier, bear a heavy burden in ensuring that trade unionism functions on the basis of the voluntary efforts of its members.
  The origin of the amendment will come as no surprise to hon. Members. The Minister will appreciate that the Government had an uncomfortable time when the legislation was considered in the Lords. The Government were forced to accept postal ballots and they beat a hasty retreat from the principle of enforced or mandatory postal ballots when they realised the enormity of the task upon which they had embarked and the problems they would face if the legislation were passed unamended.
  When the Government had taken the steps necessary to retreat from that position — that is why we had the previous debate—they had to salvage something from the proposals. They had to have something to offer their more extreme supporters, whom we have seen in full cry this evening. They had to offer them a guarantee of the Government's determination to embark on further and more bitter legislation.
  That offer is contained in Lords' amendment No. 4, which stands independently. It is not linked to the proposal for mandatory postal ballots. The Government are aware of the difficulties which they are creating. On 19 June, speaking in the Lords' debate, Lord Beloff said:
  "The other reason which apparently moves the Government is that it is difficult to keep proper records". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 1984; Vol. 453, c. 258.]
  Clearly, proper records are required for a postal ballot. I am prepared to believe that the Government would have taken Lord Beloff to one side and explained the Government's anxiety about the practical difficulties. If the Government were in a position to do that on 19 June and persuade Lord Beloff of the wisdom of their case and of the immense burdens that will be placed on trade unions, why are they not prepared in July to come to the House of Commons and say that those arguments are equally valid? I hope that the Minister will answer that point. I have my views on why the Government should have embarked on the amendment on the way that they have.
  We have seen the way in which the Government have changed the long title of the legislation with Lords' amemndment No. 43. They have left their principles of minimal involvement and of ensuring what the Minister called time after time in Committee "minimum standards of democracy". They have gone a long way from that. I shall remind the Minister what he said in January in Committee, and I shall remind the Minister later of other words that he used.
  On 17 January the Minister of State said:

  915
  "It is worth underlining that the Government prefer a minimalist approach … which means the least possible interference". — [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 January 1984; c. 484.]
  How can the Minister of State say that in January and now, in July, after the deliberations in the other Chamber, come here and say that he and his Government wish to require British trade unions to embark on a programme of listing by name and address all their individual members?
  Given the best will in the world, that will pose a challenge that will be beyond the organisation of the British trade unions. The chaos that will ensue will be the responsibility of the Government. They will be called upon to reconcile their oft-stated objective of pursuing a minimalist approach with their requirement that the trade unions should accept this onerous and intolerable burden.
  No new evidence was offered in the House of Lords for a changed approach. That being so, we are entitled to ask the Minister what other consultations he has had. Has he consulted the TUC? Has he consulted the largest trade unions? Has he consulted his friends in the management and professional liaison group? Has he consulted any of those groups about the problems which may ensue from the legislation? I suspect that he has not. Certainly the Minister has not undertaken any public consultation. He has not asked the hon. Members who opposed him in Committee whether they have any observations to make. The debates in the House of Lords did not demonstrate that there was a case to be made.
  Finally, we are entitled to ask whether the Minister has received any unsolicited representations. We are told time and time again that the Government receive complaints and letters, that there is a seething mass of discontent within the trade union movement and that people are crying out for protective legislation. If the Minister is prepared to advance such arguments on Second Reading and in Committee, we are entitled to ask what unsolicited representations he has received which prove that there is an overwhelming demand in the trade union movement for legislation to require lists of names and addresses of trade union members to be drawn up. I suspect that the Minister will have no answer to that question.
  The reason why the Minister is now supporting the Lords amendments is the same as the reason why we had the earlier debate. The Bill received a mauling in Committee. Incidentally, I am in something of a quandary now, because I pointed out to the Government some of the deficiencies in the legislation and now those deficiencies have been corrected, and yet I still oppose the Bill in principle. That is one of the difficulties of parliamentary democracy.
  Because the Government were savaged in Committee and in the House of Lords, they have to find a sop to throw to their Back-Bench Members. Those hon. Members are now conspicuous by their absence. Earlier today they treated us to a disgraceful display of brawling and braying in support of mandatory postal ballots, but now that we are discussing the practicalities they are absent. The Minister has to find a sop for those on the Right wing of his party without whom he would not be able to get the legislation through the House. That is the reason for his change of heart.
  My second objection is based on the principle of natural justice. It may be that the Department of Employment does
  916
  not wish to talk about the principles of natural justice. The treatment of the rights of trade unionists at GCHQ showed how the Department viewed those principles. The Department had to be reminded of them.
  I remind the Minister of a statement in a Green Paper issued by his Department in January last year. It said:
  "The Government is conscious that any legislation must take into account the wide variety and complexity of existing electoral arrangements."
  What has changed since then to lead the Government to impose this uniform, mandatory practice on all trade unions regardless of their history, their constitutions, their existing practices, their rule books and all the principles of electoral reform enshrined in their rule books in past decades? What has changed the Government's mind and led them to bring in this draconian measure which I believe is a breach of the principles of natural justice?
  Government supporters claim to have received telephone calls from trade unionists complaining of intimidation and the denial of their rights, but although they have been challenged many times to produce evidence, none has been forthcoming. The only objective, independent study was the Donovan report about 15 years ago, which concluded:
  "Dependent as trade unions are on voluntary labour to a large extent it cannot be expected that their elections will be conducted impeccably in every detail."
  In the light of that, why have the Government decided to impose this obligation on trade unions but on no other organisation? No parallel obligation is to be imposed on employers or on the Conservative party. One of my hon. Friends reminded me earlier of a letter from the Conservative party soliciting funds from a former supporter. I say "former" not because the supporter had defected, but because he had died five years earlier. Is it reasonable for the Government to impose on the trade union movement standards of probity and propriety which they cannot observe in their own political organisation?
  More important in terms of natural justice are our obligations to the ILO. It was a source of merriment to Conservative Members earlier that the Opposition should take our international obligations seriously, but some of us believe that if we have obligations for the protection of workers here and elsewhere we should respect those obligations. The fifth report of the ILO committee of experts sitting last year concluded in paragraph 172:
  "The committee considers that legislation which regulates in detail the internal election procedures of trade unions is incompatible with the rights of trade unions recognised by Convention No. 87."
  Does the Minister accept that if he argues for the Government's proposals he is arguing that we should abrogate our international responsibilities? Will he at least confess that the Government have had to make an abject concession to the Right wing of the Conservative party and express his regret that this means that our international obligations have to go by the board?
  The practical implications for trade unions are among my principal reasons for opposing the amendment. The House of Lords said in effect that it did not matter if this onerous burden was placed on trade unions because modern technology could resolve the problems. It is difficult for Members of this House and members of British trade unions, many of whom have spent a lifetime coping with the problems of maintaining a register with pen and pencil, to accept lectures about computers from unelected Members of the House of Lords.

  917
  The Minister will be interested to hear that, speaking on this very amendment, Earl De La Wan described his experience with computers as follows:
  "I know what it was like getting 1·25 million television subscribers on to a computer. It was jolly difficult; and, my goodness, did we not make some mistakes over the first two years, did not the customers squawk, and did we not get their accounts wrong? Of course we did".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 1984; Vol. 453, c. 274.]
  The noble Lord was speaking in favour of the amendment.
  The consequences for the trade union movement if the amendment is not rejected will involve not only the customers squawking or the accounts being wrong but the trade unions being hauled up before the courts for not being able to comply because, in the nature of their organisation, they are unable to comply with an unreasonable request and imposition.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. John Golding: My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties of unions. Has he considered what happens if members refuse to give their addresses? Flow does a union in a free society force its members to give their proper addresses? Is it open to a union, particularly in a closed shop, to expel members if they refuse to give their addresses? If a union has that sanction, how can it operate under the legislation?
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that observation, but I cannot answer the question. The legislation puts responsibility on the trade unions, but not on individual members. It does not place responsibility on employers. Many employers are the sole holders of the names and addresses of trade unionists. I refer to the 70 or 80 per cent. of trade unionists who pay their contributions through the check-off system.
  The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag when replying to the earlier debate. I am not sure whether he was aware of what he was saying, but in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) he said that individuals would be entitled to go to the certification officer or to the trade union and demand a list of names and addresses of trade unionists. The Minister should not look surprised, though there is no provision in the Bill for that. If the Secretary of State is to treat the civil rights of British trade unionists in such a cavalier manner, the movement is not safe in his hands.
  I have a shrewd idea that the Minister will say that, given good will, trade unions will be able to overcome the problems. I remind the Minister of Thatcher's first law, enunciated at the 1922 Committee last week. She said:
  "Just when you think nothing else can go wrong —something will."
  That is exactly what will happen with this amendment. An individual will find that he is missed off the register, that his name is recorded correctly, but that his address is recorded incorrectly and that his papers have been sent to a previous address. He will not receive a ballot paper. He will then go to the certification officer and the trade union.
  I remind the Minister of a further statement that he made in Committee. He said:
  "I understood from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he considered that the Government should encourage the use of computers as an integral part of the Bill."
  The amendment states that the register may be kept by means of a computer. The Minister continued:
  918
  "I see that as an attempt at interference … I have rarely heard in a debate a proposal which is further removed from reality."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 January 1984; c. 496.]
  I have no doubt that the same Minister will put the case for acceptance of the amendment.
  There are many practical difficulties. I have received representations from the Transport and General Workers Union. It has 500,000 members, a turnover of 1,000 members a day, and well in excess of 1,000 branches. These branches are largely run by volunteers, holding down a job if they are fortunate enough to have one, and trying to cope with their other social responsibilities. The Minister is telling us that such people will be required to comply with the provisions of this amendment, on penalty of being called to a court of law.
  This amendment makes legislation which is unacceptable and impractical and which will lead to litigation. It is a proposal which will lead to the disfranchisement of more trade union voters than it will enfranchise. It will lead to disruption, and it will be a diversion. The Minister is aware of that. The purpose of the amendment is to appease those recalcitrant Members without whose support this legislation will not get through, and it is intended to cause discord and disarray within the trade union movement so that it will be less able to resist the onslaughts by the Government on the economic and social welfare of the 10 million trade unionists in this country. I urge the House to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has spoken at some length, as he did in Committee. Yet again, he has painted a picture of trade unions that is curiously at odds with the perception of trade unions by a larger number of people. We were given an image of trade unions as bodies that are so simply run and so crudely organised that it is impossible for them to keep a list of the names and addresses of their members. My parish church has no difficulty in keeping a list of its members, and earlier this evening we heard that many trade unions have journals that they send out at regular intervals to their members, presumably in some scattered way, as they have neither the names nor addresses of the people to whom they are to be delivered.
  Mr. Golding: How many people are there in the hon. Gentleman's church? Is he not aware that union journals are often distributed at the base of the organisation of the trade union movement—the workplace?
  Mr. Rowe: My parish has a rather small membership, of perhaps 500 to 600. I agree that that is disappointingly small for a parish church in an area as large as mine.
  Mr. Gummer: For the elucidation of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who was not present at the time, will my hon. Friend point out that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said clearly that, although his Members were not allowed to ballot by post, all were sent a copy of the union journal direct to their home addresses by post. The point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is ill founded.
  Mr. Rowe: We were asked what has changed since the legislation started its way through Parliament. One answer is that during that period a trade union leader who set out from the beginning to say that if the general election produced a result of which he disapproved it would be

  919
  necessary to take to the streets to reverse that result has done precisely that. Although all his members' names and addresses could not be listed, he has nevertheless managed to organise thousands of people to travel all over the country for no other purpose than to intimidate those who want to work. Yet Opposition Members say that that organisation is so incompetently run that it cannot list its members' names and addresses. That is one of the things that has changed.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should control himself.
  Mr. Rowe: I find it much easier to control myself than the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers finds it to control his members.
  It was also said that the Conservative party found it difficult to organise centrally a list of its members' names and addresses. That was somehow thought to be an adequate reason for trade unions not being able to do it. There are two things to be said about that. First, the Conservative party is busily engaged in computerising its membership. Secondly, it does not claim to want to exercise the sort of power that the trade unions gladly welcome.
  It is interesting to note that, when it suits Opposition Members, the trade union movement is portrayed as a small, hole-in-the-corner voluntary organisation that is incapable of organising its affairs, but that it is often also portrayed by them as the exclusive voice of the working class which is capable of holding the country to ransom at the drop of a hat.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman seems very concerned about trade unions, democracy, and so on. But when will the Tory party elect its chairman?
  Mr. Rowe: Members of the Standing Committee will have heard that question asked and answered before. Again, two things have to be said. First, the chairmanship of the Conservative party is the chairmanship of the office which is the leader's office. [Laughter.] That has always been so. For the Opposition Members to laugh as though I had made some extraordinary admission is absurd. Anybody with even a slight grasp of history—unlike the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—would understand that, because that has been the position since the chairmanship of the Conservative party was inaugurated. It may, however, be of interest to the hon. Gentleman—not that much appears to be of interest to him — that there is also a chairmanship within the Conservative party that is elected——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman was provoked, but his speech does not have a great deal to do with the amendment.
  Mr. Rowe: I apologise, of course, Mr. Speaker, for trying to give Opposition Members some information.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the courts are unlikely to intervene in the administration of a trade union—even if they are asked to do so—on the basis of one or two misdirected ballot papers, because everybody understands that one cannot expect 100 per cent. success when directing mail or anything else to many people where there is a rapid turnover.
  920
  All those things are perfectly clear, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that it is not the Government's intention to take trade unions to court to punish them for being unable to do what any sensible person would concede could not be done with 100 per cent. success. But that does not mean that we should not make an attempt to ensure that organisations which wield the sort of power that trade unions seek to organise should operate in a way that almost every other organisation in this country does regularly and without difficulty. If trade unions are incapable of recording the names and addresses of their members, it is time that they went home.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) raised some important points which the House must consider seriously, because this amendment will have a profound impact upon the trade union movement. I was amused by the hon. Gentleman throwing back at the chairman of the Conservative party his replies to some of the points that I made in Committee. But the hon. Gentleman undermined his case by exaggerating the difficulties which the trade union movement will face.
  Under this legislation, it is inevitable that such a register will have to be established, and I have believed for a long time that it is desirable for unions to have records of their membership if they are to give them the service that they deserve in 1984 and, indeed, in the latter part of this century. There is no doubt that the introduction of registers will have a profound impact upon the administration of trade unions, upon the volunteer force that has been mentioned, and upon the central and regional organisations that must keep the records and service the membership register, which is a substantial job.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly exaggerated his case, because of course we have trade unions which already have efficient computerised records of their membership. The first and best example is the EETPU; if the hon. Gentleman wishes, he can obtain from that union a document which I have here and which describes its computerised system, how it has operated, and how it has been an effective means of administering its membership and of contacting its members over the years.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the EETPU's structure and organisation is highly centralised? That highly centralised structure is different from the devolved structure of, for example, the Transport and General Workers Union. It may be perfectly feasible for the EETPU to accept within its constitution a computerised system, but it would not be feasible for a different union with a different decentralised structure.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Gentleman is again exaggerating the point. As he says, the EETPU is a rather more centralised union than are many others; but the hon. Gentleman must know that modern technology makes it possible for a decentralised union to keep its records well up to date, either with mini-computers round the country or with on-line facilities, as can be demonstrated by many organisations that have such registers. If 12-year-old children can have computers in their homes, I see no reason why branch secretaries and others should not do the same. Indeed, that is what the trade union movement needs to do. It needs to be ahead of the rest in new technology, especially in its own administration.

  921
  The Minister tried to reject my main point in Committee, but he has now changed his mind and come round to the view that these registers should be established and computerised. I raised that matter with the Secretary of State. The House and the Government are imposing upon the trade union movement the installation of registers. If the Government are asking for that, they should provide the resources for the movement to introduce those facilities. The Government, rightly in my view, have introduced provision for financial assistance for balloting in the trade union movement because they said that, as the House was imposing this upon the trade union movement, financial assistance should be given to unions that wished to carry out such ballots to entice them to go down that road. That was a good proposal, and I regret that the trade union movement has not taken up that offer to carry on ballots.
  I was interested to note that the Labour Front Bench in the House of Lords was also strongly of the opinion that the trade union movement should take up those funds and use them for balloting. I hope that under the Bill it will do that. However, the trade union movement should also be able to use development funds from the Government to install the facilities and the systems that will be necessary to implement the legislation. An unfair burden is put not only on the volunteers but also on the purses of trade unionists and on the central administration of trade unions if that resource is not provided by the Government.
  I ask the Minister in his reply to tell us that he will reconsider this in an attempt to persuade the trade union movement to modernise its facilities and to carry out these ballots and the administration of the register in an up-to-date and efficient way that will satisfy not only its members but the House and the general public. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that, and tell us that he is willing to bring forward proposals to provide funds for trade unions to make these changes.
  Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on his first appearance on the Front Bench at least on the Floor of the House. We sparred hard in Committee, and it is a pleasure to start again.
  It was odd that, in his comments about computers, the hon. Gentleman should have failed to remark that my comments to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) specifically covered his suggestion that the Government should in some way provide money and, as it would seem from his speech, the equipment, on a development basis for trade unions. I said that that would be a very odd departure from practice, and I still say that. It was odd that he did not mention that in his extensive quotations from my speech at that time.
  However, that is nothing like as odd as the basis of the argument that the hon. Gentleman now puts forward. He is arguing that it is an onerous and intolerable burden upon a trade union to get the name and address of someone who pays at least £40 or £50 a year to be a member. It is an odd concept that one should ask £40 or £50 a year from someone but that one cannot keep his name and address. It is not a question of quill pens. It is a question of a world in which the simplest computers cost small sums of money, and can be used not only by 12-year-olds but by 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds. Such computers could keep the branch records which would lead on to a centralised list. It seems an odd argument to suggest that that is onerous and intolerable.
  922
  It is even odder that that should be so in a movement that finds it perfectly possible to find the names and addresses of its members if it wants to. I notice that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is no longer present. In his speech, he let the cat out of the bag. He said that it was possible to send his union newspaper by post to every member. He did not explain why the newspaper was not available at the back of the branch meeting so that members could collect it on their way out. The reason is that a sufficient number of people do not go to the branch meeting to pick up the newspaper. Evidently it is possible to hold ballots at the branch meeting but not for the Journal to be distributed at the branch meeting.
  It becomes even odder when one finds that in the middle of the Journal are to be found the election addresses. They can go by post. It is possible to have a register of the members of ASTMS so that they can receive the election addresses, but, unless they write in specifically—and 240, I believe, did so out of the total membership—they may not have a postal ballot. Is the answer that it is possible to have the kind of register suitable for sending out the bi-monthly journal but not possible to use the register for the purposes of holding a ballot?
  It seems much more likely that Labour Members try to use this excuse because they do not want a ballot. The fact that unions need a ballot is very noticeable, because, despite the fact that on a number of occasions I have asked the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar why at the last ASTMS election 98 per cent. of the members did not vote, he still has not given me an answer. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has complained that I have asked him so often that he is fed up with the question. However, I bet that 98 per cent. of the members got their Journal. It seems that some unions are happy to have the names and addresses of their members so that they can get the money and send out their newspapers but are not interested in those names and addresses when it comes to giving democracy.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Does not the Minister accept that the root of our objection is that the Government are now, by statute, requiring unions to prepare the register? It is perfectly acceptable for trade unions to prepare a mailing list of their members. Naturally and obviously, every trade union wants to do so. Earlier the Secretary of State quoted the AUEW membership figures. It is widely acknowledged that the AUEW has a good system, but it is 20 per cent. inaccurate. Does not the Minister accept that by its very nature this proposal will remove the voluntary decision of a union to keep such a register and will replace it with a strict statutory code, breach of which will bring a union before the courts?
  Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to advance the argument that trade unions wish to be voluntary bodies on that basis, he must also accept that they do not need the special protections which the law provides. If the argument is that these are merely organisations of the cricket club variety, let them be such organisations without the special legal privileges. However, if unions want those privileges, it must be accepted that they are given to the members of the unions, not to a small, elite group which runs them—not to the 2 per cent. who voted in the ASTMS elections, but to the 100 per cent. who ought to have had the opportunity to vote.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Appalling.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but it is true. It is appalling that 98 per cent. did not vote.
  Mr. Golding: The Minister said that 98 per cent. of ASTMS members received the Journal. I bet the Minister £5 that that figure is incorrect.
  Mr. Gummer: I would simply say that the 98 per cent. who did not vote had much more chance of getting the Journal than they did of casting a vote, because the Journal was sent to them. If the hon. Gentleman can prove that the ASTMS Journal was not sent out to all the members on the list, I shall be happy to provide him with the £5 for which he asks.
  Mr. Golding: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way no further. I have offered the hon. Gentleman the £5, and no doubt he will prove that the Journal was not sent out to some members on the union's list.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Caerphilly would be much more effective if he could convince me that by opposing this Lords amendment he is suggesting that members of a trade union should not be given the opportunity to vote and should be denied the opportunity to have a ballot because it is too onerous and intolerable a burden, that the practical difficulties are too great and that it is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what has changed since we had these debates in Committee. What we have had since then is a series of examples where trade unions have taken action without asking their members whether they wanted to do so.
  Let us take one example about votes, which we shall discuss in greater detail later — the dockers in Felixstowe. — [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear that the dockers in Felixstowe were taken out on strike without a vote, but asked for a vote before they returned to work.
  Mr. Loyden: That is not true.
  Mr. Gummer: Felixstowe is in my constituency. Were the dockers allowed to vote before they went on strike?
  Mr. Loyden: Conservative Members are displaying ignorance. After the recall docks delegates conference, which is the appropriate constitutional body, I spoke to a Felixstowe steward who had to return to Felixstowe to inform the dockers of the decision of the conference, and the dockers had to decide whether to support the recommendation.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman means that the delegate returned to Felixstowe and told the dockers that they did not have a vote because the matter had already been decided by the conference. All that verbiage means is that the Felixstowe dockers did not get a vote——
  Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should we not maintain the debate on the amendment
  924
  before the House, rather than embark upon a debate that will take place on the next series of amendments? The Minister is out of order.
  Mr. Gummer: Opposition Members asked what had changed between the debates in Committee and the debates tonight. Throughout the country there have been opportunities for ballots that have not been taken. Therefore, many people have reached the conclusion that only by insisting on a proper register can we ensure that proper votes are taken in an atmosphere where ballots are used instead of intimidation and violence.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister asked why Opposition Members object to the register. I thought that I had given the Minister the reasons why we had objected to the register. We are now dealing with amendment No. 4, which is not about postal ballots. However much the Minister may wish to impress his right hon. and hon. Friends, he must accept that the amendment has nothing to do with ballots; it requires a trade union to keep a register of names and addresses, regardless of whether it is used for a ballot.
  Mr. Gummer: The amendment is required because Opposition Members say that ballots cannot be held because unions do not have registers of names and addresses. Therefore, we shall make it necessary for unions to have names and addresses. If someone refuses to give his name and address, he cannot take part in the ballot and the trade union will have done all that is reasonably practical and will not be liable under the law. It is a question of reasonable practicability. It is only because Opposition Members claim that unions do not have names and addresses that the register becomes necessary.
  I was especially pleased to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly refer to international obligations. If he accepts our international obligation, no doubt the Opposition will accept the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the British Rail closed shop. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is all right for Opposition Members to say that, but it is interesting how they pick and choose their international obligations.
  Let me read the ILO statement. Clause 169, on election procedures, says that the legislation in some countries
  "contains certain rules intended to promote democratic principles within trade union organisations or to ensure that the electoral procedure is conducted in a normal manner and with due respect for the rights of members in order to avoid any dispute arising as to the result of the election. Provisions of this kind clearly do not involve any violation of the principles of freedom of association."
  That is precisely what we are enacting in the Bill. We are simply saying that individuals, if they are to vote, ought to have a ballot paper, in which case it would be helpful to have a name and address to which to send that ballot paper. It would also be useful if the name and address were kept up to date centrally. That is what we are doing, and that is in complete conformity with the ILO.
  Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade union movement has no problem in keeping a record of its members when it comes to collecting the levy for the Labour party and in estimating how many votes it has in the block vote for the Labour party conference?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The trade union movement has no difficulty in getting the names and addresses of its members when it wants to get money out of them, to send its publication to them, to exclude them because it happens not to like what they do, and to get the political levy out of them. It is only when it comes to giving them a democratic right that it seems to be so extremely difficult.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised an important point when he showed that it is not impossible to get the names and addresses of members in other organisations. There are many charities with fewer resources than those of the trade union movement which keep central records of large numbers of members on computers which are cheap to run and buy. It is not sensible for Labour Members to say that that is impossible.
  As we have heard the argument of Labour Members it has become increasingly obvious that they want to stop a democratic ballot of all the members of a trade union. I find that odd because I read in The Guardian today a letter from the leader of the Labour party in which he lays down how democracy ought to operate in the Labour party. I have many quotes other than those raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As this is a letter supporting a motion put forward by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)——
  Mr. Evans: What has that to do with trade union registers?
  Mr. Gummer: When it comes to trade unions, Labour Members want to deny the vote to their members, but when it comes to talking about the Labour party they are desperate to extend the vote to the members — [Interruption.] Some of them are. The question before the House this evening is how that register ought to be kept. the register is an essential part of democracy in the trade unions. If the leader of the Labour party is able to beat off his Left wing tomorrow, he will have to have a register as well. He will have to find a way of keeping the members' names and addresses, otherwise the Labour party will not be able to have one man, one vote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The
  hon. Gentleman must keep to the amendment.
  Mr. Gummer: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The question before the House is simply whether we want democracy in the trade unions. The Conservative party supports the members of the trade unions. The Labour party supports those who are unelected by their members.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 169.

  Division No. 428]

  [11.09 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Ashby, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Alexander, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Ancram, Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Arnold, Tom

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  926

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Gale, Roger

  Baldry, Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Beith, A. J.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Benyon, William

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Best, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gow, Ian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Greenway, Harry

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Ground, Patrick

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Grylls, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Browne, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Harris, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harvey, Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Butcher, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hayes, J.

  Butterfill, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Henderson, Barry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

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

  Hirst, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Richard

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hordern, Peter

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howard, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Coombs, Simon

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Cope, John

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Corrie, John

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Jackson, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Eggar, Tim

  Johnston, Russell

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evennett, David

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Farr, Sir John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Favell, Anthony

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Key, Robert

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knowles, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Knox, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Lamont, Norman

  Franks, Cecil

  Lang, Ian

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Latham, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Fry, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  927

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lester, Jim

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lilley, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Ryder, Richard

  MacGregor, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Maclean, David John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

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

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Madel, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Major, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Malone, Gerald

  Shersby, Michael

  Maples, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Marland, Paul

  Sims, Roger

  Marlow, Antony

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speed, Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Speller, Tony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spencer, Derek

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Squire, Robin

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Steen, Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Stern, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Moore, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mudd, David

  Stokes, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Sumberg, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Neubert, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Norris, Steven

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Osborn, Sir John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Tracey, Richard

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Trippier, David

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Trotter, Neville

  Parris, Matthew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Waddington, David

  Penhaligon, David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Pollock, Alexander

  Walden, George

  Porter, Barry

  Wallace, James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waller, Gary

  Powley, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Ward, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Watson, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Watts, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wheeler, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Whitfield, John

  Renton, Tim

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wiggin, Jerry

  928

  Wolfson, Mark

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wood, Timothy

  Woodcock, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Yeo, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Garrett, W. E.

  Anderson, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Ashton, Joe

  Golding, John

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Gould, Bryan

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Barnett, Guy

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hardy, Peter

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bell, Stuart

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Benn, Tony

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Blair, Anthony

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  John, Brynmor

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Buchan, Norman

  Lambie, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Campbell, Ian

  Litherland, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Loyden, Edward

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Clarke, Thomas

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Clay, Robert

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McKelvey, William

  Cohen, Harry

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Coleman, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Marek, Dr John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cowans, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Meacher, Michael

  Craigen, J. M.

  Michie, William

  Crowther, Stan

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dalyell, Tam

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Deakins, Eric

  Nellist, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dixon, Donald

  O'Brien, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dormand, Jack

  Park, George

  Dubs, Alfred

  Parry, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Patchett, Terry

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Eadie, Alex

  Pendry, Tom

  Eastham, Ken

  Pike, Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ewing, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Redmond, M.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Flannery, Martin

  Rogers, Allan

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Rooker, J. W.

  Foster, Derek

  Rowlands, Ted

  Foulkes, George

  Ryman, John

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  929

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J,

  Tinn, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Torney, Tom

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Weetch, Ken

  Spearing, Nigel

  Welsh, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  White, James

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  930

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. John McWilliam.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 16 agreed to. — [Some with Special Entry.]

  Trade Union Bill
    Clause 7

      INDUSTRIAL ACTION AUTHORISED OR ENDORSED BY TRADE UNION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO A BALLOT
      Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 7, leave out "reference to" and insert "the support of".
      Mr. Gummer: 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. 18 to 21 and 23.
      Mr. Fatchett: This group of amendments, like those that we debated earlier, is further evidence of the confusion in the Government's legislation. In the eight months since Second Reading they have fundamentally changed the principles and the detail of the Bill. On Second Reading the Secretary of State—sadly, he is no longer with us—said that part II concerned strike ballots and effectively allowed trade unions the choice of balloting the members before calling them out and keeping the immunity allowed by the law or calling a strike without a ballot and forfeiting the immunity. He said that the choice was clear. If there was a ballot, regardless of the result, the union enjoyed the immunities. If there was no ballot, the union lost the privilege of the immunities. The Lords amendments which the Government now support fundamentally change that principle. There is now the third requirement that a majority must be obtained of those voting in the ballot, so the Government have substantially shifted their position.
      One might suppose, charitably, that the change has been made because the Government listened to the arguments in Committee, but all the evidence points in the opposite direction. As the Secretary of State attended fewer than 20 per cent. of the Committee sittings, he probably never heard the arguments anyway. Indeed, he has disappeared again now that we have reached the important subject of strike ballots. He has presumably not disappeared at this time of night to carry out functions such as settling industrial disputes with which the Department is normally associated, but he has left other Ministers in the team to carry important matters of principle for the Government.
      Replacing the absentee Secretary of State we have a moonlighting Minister of State—an individual capable of carrying out not just one but two jobs, including that of chairman of the Conservative party. The reason for the changes made in the Lords amendments may indeed be not the logic of the argument advanced to justify them but the Minister's recognition of the pressure from the militant wing of his own party. His hold on the chairmanship is extremely tenuous and it cannot make him feel very secure to see the newspapers regularly tipping others to take over the job. I believe that in supporting the amendments he is playing for the militant vote within the Conservative party which we saw in raw operation earlier.
      The vote was not based on reason or any understanding of industrial relations—it was a raw, class vote. It was a body of opinion within the Conservative party — I suspect that the Minister of State, in his more rational moments, is ashamed of it—that was clearly anti-trade
      932
      union and anti working people. That body of opinion, stimulated by certain Conservative Members, and represented outside the House by the Institute of Directors, is the real policymaker in the Conservative party.
      11.30 pm
      The reality of the Department of Employment is that it is no longer making industrial relations policy; it has transferred those functions to its own extremist Back Benchers and, outside the House, to the Institute of Directors. Those are the people who are putting forward the amendments, and the Government are going along with it in an obedient Pavlovian way—they are not thinking about industrial relations; they are simply responding to the diktat of the extremists outside the House. Those are the reasons for this batch of amendments. The chairman of the Conservative party is giving way to the pressure in his own organisation.
      The official reason for the amendments is that they are a reaction to the coal strike—lessons have been learnt from experience. Lord Gowrie, in the other place, put that forward as the official reason for the amendments. On many occasions tonight there has been a great deal of heat from Conservative Members about industrial disputes, but not on one occasion did they come forward with a suggestion of how to resolve certain industrial disputes. The figures for industrial disputes show that in the first six months of 1984, the number of working days lost went up by nearly 300 per cent. That shows that this Department of Employment, under these Ministers, gives a low priority to settling industrial disputes. The Government are keen to exacerbate and create industrial disputes. Such an attitude has been shown by Conservative Members this evening.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The difference is Scargill.
      Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman says that the difference is Scargill. Is that a sensible way to make legislation? Do we now introduce legislation for each and every full-time union official? Will there be legislation to deal with Moss Evans? Will there be legislation to deal with Terry Duffy in the AUEW if there is legislation to deal with Arthur Scargill? In the amendments, there is not a clause that says that they are the Arthur Scargill amendments, but we take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that that is so. They are to deal with the miners' dispute and the problems that beset the Government as a result.
      I believe that the heat that has been generated on the Conservative Benches and the reaction every time Arthur Scargill's name is mentioned simply show that the Government believe that the more they shout, the more they will appear to be in control. The reality of the miners' dispute is that the Government have lost control; they are on the way to defeat. They know it, and that is why they want to make a great deal of noise.
      Let us look at the arguments. The Government say that if a union does not hold a strike ballot or does not carry that ballot with a majority, it will lose immunities. Those immunities exist partly under the Trade Disputes Act 1906. They have been severely restricted by the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982. Employers have the power to use the jurisdiction of the courts to show the limitations that have been placed on the immunities of trade unions. The amendment can work only if employers and Government are prepared to take trade unions to court under the 1980 and 1982 legislation.
      Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how many working days were lost in the first six months of this year following strike ballots, and how many were lost when there were no strike ballots?
      Mr. Fatchett: If, in view of his other responsibilities, the Minister has time, I am sure that he will be delighted to answer that question. The hon. Gentleman will want to know how these amendments will reduce the number of days that are lost through industrial action. It is possible under the 1980 and 1982 Acts to take trade unions to court, as their immunities have been restricted severely. Why have the courts not been used in the miners' dispute? There can be only two logical answers. Perhaps the Government have interfered and told employers and the nationalised industries informally, "Do not use the industrial relations legislation because we have created a bomb that will blow up if anyone dares use it." The Bill is therefore pinned on legislation that the Government dare not use. We know that. They have intervened day after day in the coal dispute. The other conclusion, which is more flattering to the Minister as he might not want to claim that he has interfered in his capacity as chairman of the Conservative party, is that employers have decided not to use the legislation.
      Employers might be more sensible than we sometimes give them credit for. They might realise that the legislation that the Government have put through might not help but rather will make industrial relations more difficult to manage. Either conclusion shows that, in 1980 and 1982, the Government introduced legislation that was of little use in industrial relations except to poison and sour the atmosphere in workplaces throughout the country. Conservative Members know that. They want a Scargill clause so that they can go back to their Conservative associations and say, "We have put into this Bill an amendment that will stop what is happening in the coal dispute."
      I put it to the Minister, what will these amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not listening."] He does not need to listen because he always gives the same reply. He might do us the courtesy of listening as he might want to tell us what in these amendments will help us to resolve the dispute in the coal industry. He has let the cat out of the bag, as he has said nothing in that regard. These amendments will do nothing to help resolve the coal dispute. Would it not be more sensible if, instead of wasting the Government's and the House's time, the Minister and his Department tried to resolve industrial disputes? That is the Department's traditional role. When the chairman of the Conservative party is a Minister and the Conservative party thinks that it will get political advantage from industrial unrest, there is no incentive for the Department of Employment to resolve industrial disputes. The Department should be negotiating a settlement, but we have a Government who are introducing futile and pointless amendments that will exacerbate the problem as they provide the raw meat for Conservative Members to say that they have their Scargill clause.
      We shall oppose these amendments for several reasons. We believe that, in principle, the introduction of compulsory strike ballots is against the concept of voluntarism which has traditionally existed in British
      934
      industrial relations. Again, the Government are telling the unions what they have to do, rather than allowing the unions and their members to decide for themselves.
      Time and again, we have heard from Conservative Members and from Ministers that the Bill is about giving the unions back to their members. Part II and the amendments take the unions away from the members and impose on them a form of operation which the Government insist on. We oppose the compulsion; we believe in voluntarism.
      Our main reason for opposing the amendments is that they represent an ill-conceived reaction to the Government's forthcoming defeat in the coal strike. They are a Pavlovian reaction, built on class hatred rather than an understanding of industrial relations. The amendments are devoid of logical thought and analysis, but they are replete with class hatred and hostility.
      Mr. David Penhaligon: This is the part of the Bill which worries me most. I fear that we shall not have strike ballots—which I favour—but ballots on whether members support the union in going back for another round of negotiations with the management. There is a reference to a 28-day gap between the holding of a ballot and the start of a strike.
      The amendments merely make sense of the clause. One says that there must be a majority in favour of a strike. I confess that I assumed that that was what the original drafting meant. I applaud whoever spotted the defect in the other place. I did not hear it mentioned in Committee here.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman was not there.
      Mr. Penhaligon: I was there—too often.
      The other amendments merely make the position clearer and I see no reason why we should oppose that.
      However, I am not convinced that the arguments that I made in Committee are invalid. Still I believe that the Government are making a mistake and are producing a scenario which will increase the likelihood of strikes. as opposed to reducing them which I suspect is their desire. If the Opposition had argued that case, instead of continually pointing out that the Minister of State is the chairman of the Conservative party—which most of us know by now—we might have made more progress on the points that deserve attention.
      The Government have got it wrong, but at least the amendments ensure that the clause makes sense, and there is no reason to oppose them.
      Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchelt) on his speech from the Opposition Front Bench and thank him for his solicitous approach to my chairmanship of the Conservative party. I hope that he will have many more years in which to continue being so solicitous.
      I also thank the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for giving us a rare moment of unanimity when he mentioned that he had attended the Committee too often. However, he missed our argument on the point that he raised. We discussed whether we should write into the Bill a requirement for a majority in a ballot.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, Central mentioned the reason why the change has been made, but he passed over it quickly. We felt that there was no need to provide that there had to be a majority. We felt—I believe that I said it—that no trade union leader who failed to get a

      935
      majority would call people out on strike. Since then too many trade union leaders have done precisely that. A whole series of loyalist miners who support the NUM have continued their ban on overtime for which they voted, but have refused to go on strike because they voted against it. They will win the miners' strike. They are the real members of the NUM, not those who have been taken out on strike without the ballot which the NUM constitution requires. I am talking about Nottinghamshire, where the vote was 20,188 to 7,285 against a strike. The union then called the men out and they refused to strike.
      11.45 pm
      I have some more embarrassing figures for the Opposition. In the midlands the figure was 7,556 to 2,804. Again the union called the men out on strike. In south Derbyshire, 2,303 miners did not want to strike and 453 did want to strike. Every man was called out on strike by the union which held the ballot. In Cumberland and north Wales the figures were 383 to 109 and 595 to 276. In each case a ballot was held and the union, having lost the ballot, called the men out on strike and have since used intimidation and violence to try to overturn the decision of the ballot. That is what has changed.
      I say to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that his party grew on the demand for democracy, that ordinary people should have a fair and decent way of life and be able to vote. He should be supporting the Nottinghamshire miners, the Derbyshire miners, the Staffordshire miners, the Cumberland miners and the miners of north Wales instead of the only miners who did not have a ballot and who were called out on strike without that ballot.
      Mr. Fatchett: It is strange that we should have to listen to lessons in democracy by the Conservative party, given its record of resisting every extension of the franchise and democratic rights. Conservative Members know that and will continue to resist the demands of working people. The Minister loves to quote figures. How will the amendments resolve the strike? That is the crucial question. He can play with all his figures for the benefit of his Back Benchers. I understand his reason, but what will he do about resolving the strike and how will the amendments contribute to that?
      Mr. Gummer: That intervention neither apologises for the gross misuse of democratic rights demonstrated by the figures that I used nor condemns the intimidation and violence against those who have honourably balloted. It did not admit that if this legislation had been in place before ordinary men and women would have had a proper way of ensuring that they had that ballot, because the union would not have put itself at risk by not having the ballot.
      I hope that the House will recognise, and make sure that others recognise, that once again the Labour party has failed to condemn the violence and support the ballot, and it has failed to condemn the intimidation and support the votes. Once again, it has backed the miners who have not voted against the miners who have voted. That is the truth of its opposition to the amendments. In those circumstances, in a democratically elected assembly such as this House, it is sad that the hon. Member for Leeds,
      936
      Central should choose the first occasion on which he appeared on the Front Bench not to condemn violence and support the ballot.
      This matter does not only concern the NUM. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman about the effects of the past three weeks on the port of Felixstowe, in my constituency. There dockers were brought out on strike without a ballot. However, they were asked to vote to go back after the strike.
      Mr. Blair: It is not true.
      Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman said that it is not true, I shall report to him the words of the convener at the meeting. I have his words because most of the people at the meeting were the dockers at Felixstowe who vote for me. In the last general election campaign the Labour candidate was not asked to speak to the dockers because they said that the Labour party policy on docks was not one that they could support in any circumstances. I was invited to talk to the dockers and they pointed out the one member of the Labour party that they could find. The dockers in Felixstowe were told what the union had decided and that they could not vote on it because it was a matter of accepting what the union had decided. That was a decision on a strike that was connected with the dock labour scheme, which does not apply to the port of Felixstowe. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that the dockers should have had a vote.
      There was then the vote before the strike at Dover. In that case, the vote was so disputed that everybody but the shop stewards thought that the result was two to one against the strike, and it was declared a vote for the strike.
      Mr. Blair rose——
      Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way.
      Only recently, there was a decision by the TGWU to expel a group of 21 drivers in Wales—who were not asked whether they wanted to go on strike, but were told to do so—because the union decided that they should have accepted the demand that they strike rather than cross a picket line. Despite the hilarity of Labour Members, they cannot overcome the serious change that has taken place since we debated this matter in Committee. Despite the fact that in Committee we believed that if one had a vote the trade union leaders would accept that if they could not get a majority for a strike they would not call a strike, there are now a whole series of cases in which, when such leaders fail to get a majority, they have brought people out on strike and then used violence and intimidation to keep them out on strike. Labour Members show themselves to be dishonourable in refusing to condemn intimidation and support the ballot.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 150.

      Division No. 429]

      [11.54 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Ancram, Michael

      Baldry, Anthony

      Arnold, Tom

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Ashby, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Beith, A. J.

      937

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gorst, John

      Benyon, William

      Gow, Ian

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Best, Keith

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Greenway, Harry

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Body, Richard

      Ground, Patrick

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bright, Graham

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Brinton, Tim

      Harris, David

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Harvey, Robert

      Browne, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hayes, J.

      Budgen, Nick

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Heddle, John

      Butcher, John

      Henderson, Barry

      Butterfill, John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hicks, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cash, William

      Hill, James

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hind, Kenneth

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hirst, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

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

      Holt, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howard, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Conway, Derek

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Coombs, Simon

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Cope, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Corrie, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Crouch, David

      Jackson, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jessel, Toby

      Dicks, Terry

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dover, Den

      Johnston, Russell

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Durant, Tony

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Kennedy, Charles

      Evennett, David

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Fallon, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Farr, Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Favell, Anthony

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Knowles, Michael

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Knox, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lamont, Norman

      Forman, Nigel

      Lang, Ian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Latham, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Fox, Marcus

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Franks, Cecil

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fry, Peter

      Lester, Jim

      Gale, Roger

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Lightbown, David

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Lilley, Peter

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Lord, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lyell, Nicholas

      938

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Ryder, Richard

      MacGregor, John

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Maclean, David John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

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

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Madel, David

      Shelton, Wiiliam (Streatham)

      Major, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Malone, Gerald

      Shersby, Michael

      Maples, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Marland, Paul

      Sims, Roger

      Marlow, Antony

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Mates, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Speed, Keith

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Speller, Tony

      Merchant, Piers

      Spencer, Derek

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Squire, Robin

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Stern, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Moore, John

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Sumberg, David

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Neale, Gerrard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Newton, Tony

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Norris, Steven

      Thurnham, Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Tracey, Richard

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Trippier, David

      Osborn, Sir John

      Trotter, Neville

      Ottaway, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Viggers, Peter

      Parris, Matthew

      Waddington, David

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Pawsey, James

      Walden, George

      Penhaligon, David

      Wallace, James

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Waller, Gary

      Pollock, Alexander

      Ward, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Powley, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Watson, John

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Watts, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Raffan, Keith

      Wheeler, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Whitfield, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Whitney, Raymond

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Renton, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wood, Timothy

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Woodcock, Michael

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Yeo, Tim

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rost, Peter

      Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Rowe, Andrew

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      939

      Barnett, Guy

      John, Brynmor

      Barron, Kevin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bell, Stuart

      Lambie, David

      Benn, Tony

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Lester, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Litherland, Robert

      Blair, Anthony

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Boyes, Roland

      Loyden, Edward

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McCartney, Hugh

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      McGuire, Michael

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Caborn, Richard

      McKelvey, William

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McNamara, Kevin

      Canavan, Dennis

      McTaggart, Robert

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McWilliam, John

      Clarke, Thomas

      Madden, Max

      Clay, Robert

      Marek, Dr John

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cohen, Harry

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Coleman, Donald

      Michie, William

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Conlan, Bernard

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Cowans, Harry

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Nellist, David

      Craigen, J. M.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Crowther, Stan

      O'Brien, William

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dalyell, Tam

      Park, George

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Parry, Robert

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Patchett, Terry

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Deakins, Eric

      Pendry, Tom

      Dewar, Donald

      Pike, Peter

      Dixon, Donald

      Powell, Raymond (Ogrnore)

      Dobson, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Dormand, Jack

      Redmond, M.

      Dubs, Alfred

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Eadie, Alex

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Eastham, Ken

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Ewing, Harry

      Rooker, J. W.

      Fatchett, Derek

      Rowlands, Ted

      Faulds, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Flannery, Martin

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Foulkes, George

      Snape, Peter

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Soley, Clive

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Garrett, W. E.

      Straw, Jack

      George, Bruce

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Golding, John

      Tinn, James

      Gould, Bryan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Wareing, Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      Welsh, Michael

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Winnick, David

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Woodall, Alec

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Robin Corbett.

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lord amendments Nos. 18 to 26 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      BALLOTS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 27 in page 13, line 9, at beginning insert
      "In section 4(1) of the 1913 Act (ballots to be in accordance with rules approved by the Certification Officer) for the words from 'every member' to the end there shall be substituted 'the requirements of subsections (1A) to (1F) below would be satisfied in relation to a ballot taken by the union in accordance with those rules."
      (1A) After subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1913 Act there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(1A) Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all members of the trade union.
      (1B) The method of voting must be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting.
      (1C) Every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

      (a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and

      (b) so far as is reasonably practicable, be enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself.

      (1D) So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

      (a) have made available to him—

      (i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and

      (ii) at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him; or be supplied with, a voting paper; and

      (b) be given—

      (i) a convenient opportunity to vote by post (but no other opportunity to vote);

      (ii) an opportunity to vote immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours and at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him (but no other opportunity): or

      (iii) as altematives, both of those opportunities (but no other opportunities).

      (1E) The ballot must be conducted so as to secure that—

      (a) so far as is reasonably practicable, those voting do so in secret; and

      (b) the votes given in the ballot are fairly and accurately counted (any inaccuracy in counting being disregarded for the purposes of this paragragh if it is accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result of the ballot).

      (1F) In this section—
      "post" means a postal service which—

      (a) is provided by the Post Office or under a licence granted under section 68 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981; or

      (b) does not infringe the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 66(1) of that Act only by virtue of an order made under section 69 of that Act; and

      "working hours", in relation to an employee, means any time when, in accordance with his contract of employment, he is required to be at work."—[Mr. Alan Clark.]
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) in line 4, leave out '(1F)' and add '(1H)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
      Amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to the proposed Lords amendment.
      Lords amendment No. 28.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: We thought that it would be inconsistent to move the provision for personal ballots for the election of the national executive committees of trade unions without having a similar provision for postals ballots

      941
      on whether trade union political funds should exist. All the criticisms that were made in the earlier debate about workplace ballots for places on the national executive committees apply equally to ballots on the provision of political funds. The amendments have been tabled to be consistent on the two proposals contained in the Bill.
      Included in this group of amendments is the proposal to which the Secretary of State referred earlier in connection with the phrase "reasonably practicable". As the Minister knows, this matter was debated at some length in the other place and in Committee. A number of other phrases that could have been used have been suggested by the noble Lords and by hon. Members. I should like the Minister to explain to the House why the term "reasonably practicable" has been chosen, rather than some of the other terms suggested in debates in the other place and in Committee.
      The basic principles involved were discussed in the debate on the first group of amendments. However, the House will see that there is an overwhelming case for having postal ballots. Given that the other place inserted that provision in the Bill more adequately than was originally intended, we believe that it should go further so that we have the same provisions as the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) proposed for executives.
      I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to this suggestion, and I look forward to his explanation in support of the Government's decisions before I decide whether to press these amendments to a Division.
      Mr. Blair: We now come to part III, dealing with political funds and objects. In a pernicious and partisan Bill, this is surely the most pernicious and partisan part. The first two parts provided a demonstration of the Conservative party's simple prejudice against the trade union movement. No better evidence has been provided than by the Secretary of State for Employment, who, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) to give one example of trade union malpractice in trade union elections, told the House—apparently seriously — that as people who committed these defaults were very good at covering them up, he could give no evidence of any such malpractice. It was a speech which would have done credit to the brief of a member of the department of the Soviet director of public prosecutions.
      However, in part III, added to the simple prejudice against the trade union movement is a measure of party advantage. This part of the Bill is a disgrace and should be an embarrassment to any sensible, objective Government. Such embarrassment has not deterred this Government, as their ability to withstand the ordinary pressures of propriety is practically infinite, yet it has caused them embarrassment. The best proof of that is the absence from the Chamber of the most notable absentee from the Committee when we discussed part III—the Minister of State Department of Employment.
      The hon. Gentleman is also chairman of the Conservative party, elected on a ballot of one and a 100 per cent. turnout — we clp not know whether it was workplace or branch—and whose embarrassment over this part of the Bill rightly and properly caused his absence from any consideration on it. That embarrassment has been caused because this part of the Bill represents the first attempt since 1927 — apart from that the first attempt
      942
      ever—by one political party to pass legislation whose purpose is directly to limit and staunch the funds to a political party of opposite views — [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is not rubbish.
      Indeed, I pray in aid the words spoken when my hon. Friend who now represents Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) introduced the Companies (Regulation of Political Funds) Bill to place restrictions on company donations to the Conservative party. He was opposed by no less an alumnus than the present Secretary of State for Transport, who said:
      "There has been a balance in the sense that, since the war, Labour Governments have done two things. One was a return to a position of contracting out for the unions and the other was to make companies publish in their accounts the amounts given to political parties. So, for two moves aimed, as it were, to the advantage of the Labour Party, I am proud that there has been no move by Conservative Governments in the opposite direction —in some way seeking to get their own back—by restricting trade union funds made available to the Labour Party".
      Later the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "Over the years, over the battlefield of industrial dispute in these matters, a balance has been worked out which may not be entirely fair one way or the other, but it is a kind of rough justice solution. It would be as wrong for the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his Bill as it would be for the Conservative party to seek to limit the ability of the Labour party to raise funds from the trade unions and to upset that balance."—[Official Report, 20 June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 218–211.]
      That is what the Secretary of State for Transport said in 1978. What has changed since then—other than that the Government, with their majority, care less about justice, rough or otherwise, than they did then?
      The reason for the embarrassment is not only that it is a deliberate attempt to injure the Opposition in their funding. It is blatant one-sidedness. Not one valid reason has been offered for the restriction on political funds and the ability of trade unions to give political funds to political parties which should not apply equally to companies and corporations.
      Mr. Roger Gale: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. It gives me the opportunity to put to him the question which I put to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who is not here tonight—on three occasions. By what arrogance does the hon. Gentleman suppose that this measure is an attempt to starve the Labour party Of funds? The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), in a debate long past, will recall that we discussed the possibility that trade union members might wish to contribute to a political party other than the Labour party. I have now put my question four times. I shall put it a fifth time. Why does the Labour party assume, with such arrogance, and in view of the large number of trade union members who did not support the Labour party at the last election, that they would wish to contribute only to Labour party funds and that, therefore, this measure is an attempt to starve the Labour party of funds?
      Mr. Blair: I simply pose this question to the hon. Gentleman and anyone who doubts the truth of what I have been saying. Let us suppose that the trade union movement had been giving massive amounts of money to the Conservative party, or that it had supported the Conservative party. Does anyone think that this legislation would have seen the light of day? It is an affront to our common sense and common reason.
      It is worth remembering that trade unions, for a long time at the end of the last century and until the Osborne

      943
      case in 1908, had no restrictions on what they did with their money. They operated in exactly the same way as unincorporated and incorporated associations. It was only because of the 1908 case that restrictions were placed on the way in which trade unions handled their funds. That decision was very much criticised at the time and was sought to be reversed in the Trade Union Act 1913.
      The vital point about the 1913 Act is that it was a compromise between Osborne's case and a return to the pre-Osborne days—the days when trade unions were treated in the same way as any other unincorporated or incorporated association. The argument during the passage of that measure was not about whether greater restrictions should be placed on trade unions but whether any restrictions at all should be placed on them.
      I remind the alliance that at that time the liberal party spokesmen were amongst those who were strongest in favour of returning to the pre-Osborne days and freeing the trade unions from restrictions altogether.
      The only reason that has been advanced for the difference between companies and trade unions is that a shareholder may sell his shares and leave the company. Therefore, it is said, the shareholder is able to put himself out of a company which has contributed to a political party which he does not support. Surely that is answered by the simple point that the shareholder has only the drastic option of selling his shares and leaving the company altogether, but a trade unionist can opt out of paying the political levy and still retain all the benefits of the trade union. The only point that is made to show that restrictions can also apply to companies on analysis supports my case.
      Mr. Penhaligon: I would happily support an arrangement whereby the ballot as a necessity was abolished but everybody opted in. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?
      Mr. Blair: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the amendment. This part of the Bill imposes such restrictions. There must be parity of treatment. When the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) talks about wanting the money, I recall not so long ago that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly willing to take the money of the trade union movement. We shall look for something based a little more on principle than simply a change of party allegiance to justify his switch of vote on this matter.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to reply, but we are dealing with the conduct of the ballot.
      Mr. Golding rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is related to the amendment.
      Mr. Golding: When I sent the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) a cheque from the political fund of the POU he thanked me for it, with no reservations at all.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is an hon. Member allowed to make inaccurate and untrue statements in the House?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any hon. Member is responsible for the statements he makes in the House. We should return to the amendment.
      Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I heard the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) refer to my hon. Friend the member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) as a liar.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen do not need the Chair to tell them that if such a statement is made it should be withdrawn, but I did not hear it.
      Mr. Blair: It is only a trade union which must have a separate political fund, which must apply that fund in respect of specified political objects, which must permit those who wish not to abide by the resolution of that trade union to have a political fund to opt out, and which is circumscribed by special rules in the litigation of grievances under that political fund. Only a trade union is treated in that way. Other unincorporated institutions such as a women's institute can give as much money as they like without restriction. The Bill represents a further tightening of the screw in that matter.
      To avoid the charge of engaging in a piece of deliberately political legislation, the Government have sought to argue—I am sure that they will not maintain it—that part III merely updates the Trade Union Act 1913. That is the Government in their role as modernisers of antiquated legislation. It was never a convincing role. It is plain that the 1913 Act dealt with the issue of further ballots on trade union funds and, therefore, there was no reason to have periodic ballots. It is clear that the political objects of the Bill will be much enlarged to strike at political parties and sources of opposition to the Government within the trade union movement. It is the amendment which gives the final lie to any lingering illusions about the intentions of part III.
      Under the 1913 Act there is adequate provision for the certification officer to ensure that a political ballot on the political fund is conducted in a fair manner. He must be satisfied of that before he can allow the ballot to go ahead. There is no reason to think that there has been dissatisfaction with the way in which the ballot procedures have worked. Only two complaints have been made about breaches of ballot rules. That being so, what reason can there be for the new balloting procedure?
      Two consequences flow from the new procedure. Instead of the certification officer having a general discretion on the method of balloting for the political fund, there will be the strict method that is set out in the Government's proposed procedures. Under the new procedures, any counting inaccuracy is to be disregarded except in so far as it affects the result. But any other inaccuracy of however small an amount could upset the entire political fund. That is the importance of the amendment. Any act of negligence on the part of a branch official in giving out the ballot papers could invalidate the political fund.
      The second consequence, which is linked to the first, is that the challenge to the political fund could be made at any time. A ballot could take place after the enactment of the Bill, and in the run-up to a general election an application could be made to the courts alleging failure to adhere to the ballot rules. In the midst of an election the certification officer could be dragged into the dispute to decide whether the money given by a trade union to the Labour party, for example, pursuant to the resolution of a political fund, could be set aside.

      945
      There is only one amendment that is more extreme than that which has come from the other place, and that is the responsibility of the alliance. The Government have had the sense to realise that the words
      "so far as is reasonably practicable"
      have to be introduced in some way to the communication of the ballot paper, but the alliance has sought to withdraw them. If the alliance's amendment were to be accepted, the duty placed on the political fund would be absolute. If anyone is in any doubt about the attitude of the alliance towards the trade union movement, he should consider its amendment carefully.
      The amendment is a recipe for mischievous litigation. Anyone who doubts that should pay careful regard to the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at (a meeting which is a monument to democracy) the Conservative party conference. In encouraging people to take action against the trade unions in relation to the political fund, he said:
      "All that you have to do is to give the money that will enable them to do it."
      That is what the Secretary of State wishes to force on the trade union movement.
      If Conservative Members think that now that they have broken the compromise that was arrived at with the 1913 Act the issue of political funding is no longer on the agenda, or can be concluded by the Bill, they are much mistaken. In seeking to end the compromise, they are reopening the whole issue of political funding. The political funding of their party by companies is something to which the next Labour Government will turn their attention. This is a partisan and prejudicial measure. It is a disgrace for the House to debate legislation that is plainly designed to inhibit the effectiveness of another political party. The House should reject the measure conclusively.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Golding: The Post Office Engineering Union has had a political fund since the early 1960s, not because its members wanted to affiliate with the Labour party but because they clearly believed that it was in their interests to secure a voice in Parliament and representation in Parliament. Why did they want that? They saw that many interests opposed to their interests were represented in the House of Commons.
      Recently, much has been made of the way in which those Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill all represented commercial interests.
      Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement? That is incorrect. I am one Member who has no commercial interest whatsoever.
      Mr. Penhaligon: What is wrong with the hon. Gentleman? Everyone else did.
      Mr. Gale: I was offered it, but I turned it down.
      Mr. Golding: I think that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has made the point. Certainly, the majority of Conservative Members who served on that Committee were representing commercial or other interests. I am one of those Opposition Members who have said, "I do not think that the representation of interests is necessarily bad."
      If manufacturers are entitled to have spokesmen in the House, so too, are workpeople. If merchants are entitled to have spokesmen in the House, influencing Ministers
      946
      and speaking for the merchant class, so too are craftsmen. It is apparent that not only has the direct representation of interests grown on the Tory Benches in recent years, but Conservative Members have been making substantial sums from running consultancy services providing a wide range of parliamentary facilities to outside commercial interests. That fact is well-documented.
      If Conservative Members can, for money, provide a voice in Parliament for private industrial concerns, why cannot workpeople be so represented? That is an issue. To workpeople, Parliament can be important not only in the obvious subjects, such as health and safety and basic trade union legislation, but in the settlement of certain aspects such as pensions, pay and pay policy. The standard of living of workers is determined as much by what happens in Parliament as by negotiations between trade union officials and employers. In so far as the trade union movement is concerned with the protection of and improvement in the conditions of work for working people, there is no way in which trade unions can secure their objectives just through industrial bargaining between employers and trade union officials. To protect themselves they must ensure that their interests are represented in Parliament. It will be a sad day for trade unions if they lose the representation in Parliament that they have had during this century, at least.
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: No one would deny trade unionists the right to have representation in the House if they so wish. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the members of that trade union should be given the choice in a ballot as to whether they wish it?
      Mr. Golding: Trade unions cannot have a political fund unless there has been a ballot. The Government are saying that there must be regular ballots in the trade unions.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Why not?
      Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman says "Why not?" Perhaps the same argument should apply to industrial companies, and the same principles should apply to the institutions to which Conservative Members belong. Conservative Members have one rule for themselves and another for our institutions. They intend to apply different special rules because we represent working people. That we resent deeply.
      If this amendment becomes part of the legislation, Opposition Members will have an obligation strongly to argue the case for parliamentary representation for trade unions.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: As no one party appears to remain in power indefinitely, is not the argument that the hon. Gentleman is advancing one in support of unions such as the National Union of Teachers which supports members in several political parties?
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: Why the Labour party?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully and trying to relate what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is saying to the particular amendment. We are now becoming wide of the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will bring us back.
      Mr. Golding: I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the difficulty with a debate like this is that

      947
      the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who should be on the Conservative Benches, asked "Why the Labour party?" The Conservative and Liberal parties decided in the 19th century that they did not want to be contaminated by working-class methods. Hon. Members below the Gangway and Conservative Members decided that there should be no organised trades union involvement in their parties. That is true today.
      Mr. Best: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if it were not for the Conservative party and Benjamin Disraeli in 1875 there would be no trade unions?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That shows how the House can go astray when we get away from the particular amendments. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme must bring us back to the amendment.
      Mr. Golding: My Front Bench will want me to close as quickly as possible, but I make no apology, because for almost 20 years I have been in charge of the administration of a union political fund. I strongly believe that that fund has done—with some exceptions—a useful job.
      There is one reason why one must all the time put a question mark against relying solely on postal ballots. We are not elected to this House by postal ballot. Electors must attend a polling station to cast their votes. One thing that is missing from an entirely postal balloting procedure is debate. Democracy is as much about debate as about voting and trade unionism is as much about discussion of the issue as about the final casting of votes. It is important that the case should be made and argued within the union before the vote is taken. I have no doubt that if that is done members of the trade unions will choose to keep their political funds so as to keep their parliamentary representation.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): The amendments alter the Trade Union Act 1913 to bring the arrangements for political fund ballots laid down in section 4(1) of that Act into line with clauses 3 and 11 of parts I and II of the Bill.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box, to which I attribute the rather excitable and fairly orthodox Second Reading speech that he dealt out and his tendency to avoid the detail of the amendment. I have no desire to raise the temperature of the House, so I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman very far in his assertion that the proposals constitute an attack on trade union funds. I merely remind him, as he has been reminded so many times in the 160 hours or so of debate on the Bill, that if union members wish to contribute to political funds the Labour party has nothing to fear. If union members do not wish to contribute to political funds, I am sure that Labour Members would not wish their party to be supported by contributions that are not voluntarily subscribed.
      Mr. Blair: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. ClarkNo, I shall not give way. I have made the point so many times that I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, even in the somewhat excitable and enthusiastic atmosphere of his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, should have overlooked the frequency with which that curious anomaly had been pointed out to him.
      948
      The simple object of the Lords amendments was to ensure that ballots held under the 1913 Act could not slip below the minimum standards that Parliament has deemed it right to set for trade union ballots in the Bill. I am surprised that Labour Members quarrel with that as they recognise that the 1913 Act provides for union members to be given an equal right and a fair opportunity to vote as well as providing for secrecy to be properly secured. It says nothing explicit about the conveninece of voting arrangements. Crucially, therefore, it does not preclude the possibility of political fund ballots being held at branch meetings away from the workplace.
      Mr. Sheerman: Who wrote this?
      Mr. Clark: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has played a significantly low-key role in the debates on the Bill. He is occasionally wheeled out to shadow the renewal of orders, but otherwise his profile in employment matters has been minimal. Nevertheless, I would claim that the text that I am reading, to the extent that I am reading at all, relates to the amendments rather than to the rather wide and excitable Second Reading context of most of the other contributions to the debate.
      The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to the test of practicability, and to whether it was appropriate in this context. I have a note for him that will, at this 11th hour—indeed, well past it —elucidate the problem that he raised.
      The test of reasonable practicability is necessary to cater for things that may go wrong in a postal ballot but which are clearly beyond the union's control. In a ballot of several hundred thousand union members there will inevitably be cases where a voting paper simply cannot be got to a member, or cannot be got to him in time. It may be that there is a postal delay, the member is away or there is some other mishap. It is not the Government's intention that the union should be liable in such circumstances, but the test of reasonable practicability will not remove liability from the union in any circumstances where failure to meet the test in the Bill results from failure within the union.
      Mr. Blair: As the Minister wishes to be textual, perhaps I can be textual with him for a moment. If he says that the Government's intention is that any error in a union ballot paper will make the union liable, does he mean by "liable" that the political fund resolution is null and void? I assume that that is what he means by "liable". That is the only sanction. Am I right in thinking that if any mistake is made deliberately, by negligence or inadvertence by the union in dealing out the ballot papers, unless that mistake is referable simply to inaccuracy in counting, it will render the political fund resolution as being of no effect?
      Mr. Clark: Where an error was deliberate, it would have that effect, but where it was inadvertent or accidental, it would not.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: My particular interest in questioning the term "reasonably practicable" was that I wondered why the Government were relying upon the use of both those words. Alternatives might have been "practicable measures" or "with reasonable care", but to rely upon both reasonableness and practicability seems to be laying it on rather heavily. I know that that has been discussed elsewhere.
      Mr. Clark: That may be the case in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but I am afraid that he will have to be content with the wording as it stands.
      It would be a distortion of democracy if decisions on the future of political funds were taken on 2 per cent. turnouts at branch ballots. We would be failing in our duty were we to ignore the statements of leaders of unions such as ASTMS that they will win political fund ballots because only the activists will bother to vote.
      There is absolutely no reason why unions should not operate political funds, but not on the say-so of a tiny minority of so-called activists. The Government's position is perfectly respectable, midway between the laissez faire of the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the extreme posture of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am confident that the Government's position will meet with the approval of the House.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact that we have discussed these matters on previous occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 155.

      Division No. 430]

      [12.49 am

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, Michael

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Arnold, Tom

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ashby, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Aspinwall, Jack

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

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baldry, Anthony

      Conway, Derek

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Coombs, Simon

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cope, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Corrie, John

      Benyon, William

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Crouch, David

      Best, Keith

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dicks, Terry

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Body, Richard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottomley, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowden, A: (Brighton K'to'n)

      Evennett, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Fallon, Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Farr, Sir John

      Bright, Graham

      Favell, Anthony

      Brinton, Tim

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Browne, John

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Forman, Nigel

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Budgen, Nick

      Forth, Eric

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fox, Marcus

      Burt, Alistair

      Franks, Cecil

      Butcher, John

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Freeman, Roger

      950

      Fry, Peter

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Gale, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Maclean, David John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Madel, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Major, John

      Gorst, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Malone, Gerald

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Maples, John

      Greenway, Harry

      Marland, Paul

      Gregory, Conal

      Marlow, Antony

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

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Mates, Michael

      Ground, Patrick

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Merchant, Piers

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Harris, David

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Harvey, Robert

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Moate, Roger

      Hayes, J.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Mudd, David

      Heddle, John

      Murphy, Christopher

      Henderson, Barry

      Neale, Gerrard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Hickmet, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Neubert, Michael

      Hill, James

      Newton, Tony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hirst, Michael

      Norris, Steven

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Holt, Richard

      Osborn, Sir John

      Hordern, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Howard, Michael

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Parris, Matthew

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Pawsey, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pollock, Alexander

      Jackson, Robert

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jessel, Toby

      Powley, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Raffan, Keith

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Rathbone, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Renton, Tim

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knowles, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Lamont, Norman

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lang, Ian

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Latham, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Ryder, Richard

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lester, Jim

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lightbown, David

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lord, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shersby, Michael

      951

      Silvester, Fred

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sims, Roger

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Viggers, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waddington, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Speed, Keith

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Speller, Tony

      Walden, George

      Spencer, Derek

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Ward, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Squire, Robin

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Watson, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Wheeler, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Whitfield, John

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Sumberg, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Woodcock, Michael

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thurnham, Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Trippier, David

      Trotter, Neville

      NOES

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Eadie, Alex

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Eastham, Ken

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Barnett, Guy

      Ewing, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Fatchett, Derek

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Faulds, Andrew

      Beith, A. J.

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Bell, Stuart

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Tony

      Flannery, Martin

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Derek

      Blair, Anthony

      Foulkes, George

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Boyes, Roland

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Garrett, W. E.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      George, Bruce

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Golding, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Gould, Bryan

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hardy, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Clarke, Thomas

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clay, Robert

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      John, Brynmor

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Johnston, Russell

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Craigen, J. M.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Crowther, Stan

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Leighton, Ronald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Litherland, Robert

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Deakins, Eric

      Loyden, Edward

      Dewar, Donald

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dixon, Donald

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Dobson, Frank

      McGuire, Michael

      Dormand, Jack

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dubs, Alfred

      McKelvey, William

      952

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Rost, Peter

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rowlands, Ted

      McTaggart, Robert

      Ryman, John

      Madden, Max

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marek, Dr John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Michie, William

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mikardo, Ian

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Snape, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Nellist, David

      Straw, Jack

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      O'Brien, William

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tinn, James

      Park, George

      Wallace, James

      Parry, Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Patchett, Terry

      Wareing, Robert

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Welsh, Michael

      Pendry, Tom

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Penhaligon, David

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Pike, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Woodall, Alec

      Prescott, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Redmond, M.

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Robin Corbett.

      Rogers, Allan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 35 agreed to.

      Clause 15

        POLITICAL OBJECTS
        Lords amendment: No 36, in page 18, line 5, leave out
        "at which business of a political party is transacted"
        and insert
        "the main purpose of which is the transaction of business in connection with a political party"
        1 am
        Mr. Alan Clark: 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 amendment No. 37, amendment (a), and consequential amendment No. (1).
        Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whom I congratulate on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, said that part III was the major part of the Bill. He is correct: Clause 15 is the centrepiece of the Governments legislation. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-underLyne (Mr. Golding) said about what is involved.
        The arguments involved in Lords amendment No 36 were dismissed by Ministers. It is meant to be helpful, but it is vague and could be troublesome. The problem is caused by the words in front of the proposed new words which state:
        "on the holding of any conference or meeting by or on behalf of a political party".
        The words could cause problems.
        For instance, I raised the case of a delegation of workers from the steel industry, miners, agricultural workers or, in the case that I presented at some length in Committee, sugar workers, who attend a party conference to lobby delegates, or even Ministers. It is obvious that the business

        953
        in which they are participating is in connection with a political party. It would have been better to use a phrase such as "on behalf of a political party", to clear up the doubt. I should be grateful if the Minister will clear up this point.
        There is another, similar, point. For instance, there may be meetings of public sector union workers, such as the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union, with which the Under-Secretary had one or two problems in Committee, or the National Union of Public Employees, or the National and Local Government Officers Association, or anybody else who works in the public sector, to discuss the abolition of the county councils or the Government's rate capping legislation, or any such subject that is of major concern to them Undoubtedly the words:
        "in connection with a political party"
        could be construed as the purpose of that meeting. Would the expenditure of that meeting be held to be of a political nature and therefore have to come out of a union's fund? At present, whenever a union holds or organises a meeting the purpose of which is to protect the jobs of workers in that sector, or to look to their pay and conditions, it comes from the general fund.
        I ask this because of the rather loose wording of this part of the Bill. Would not the union be charged from its political fund in this case? The problem with the case that I have outlined is that some of the unions in the public sector do not have political funds. If they do not have such funds, presumably they could not hold the meetings, and therefore would be denied the right to protect or promote the interests of their members.
        I assume that Lords amendment No. 37 seeks to be helpful. As the Minister is aware, in committee we pressed the strongest part of our argument on this part of the Bill. As clause 15(f) was originally worded, it was of a nature that would have caused a gold mine for solicitors and barristers arguing the case as to what this subsection meant. Now, some important words have been removed. I shall read them because they are important. They say:
        "which, taken as a whole (any one forming part of a collection or series being considered on its own) seeks to persuade any person to vote or, as the case may be".
        There were many hours of debate on this point about the "collection or series", which could take place over a 12-month period. The last one of these could be held to be of a political nature, and therefore, everything that had gone before that would be caught by the Bill and would have to be charged to the union's political funds.
        The Government have removed those words, and we welcome that, but the clause is still vague, because what has been substituted are the words:
        "the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate".
        It goes on to add the remaining words in clause 15(f):
        "or … not to vote for a political party or candidate."
        A great deal of vagueness remains, and there is the probability of troubles in the future, in the interpretation of the phrase:
        "not to vote for a political party or candidate".
        We all know the meaning of the terms, which anybody could put forward in an election campaign, "Don't vote Labour" or "Keep the Socialist out".
        They are quite clear, and we understand them. But what about slogans such as "Vote No to Nationalisation", or "Hands off the Building Industry"? Such slogans have
        954
        been used in general election campaigns but not by trade unions. Opponents of the Labour party have spent vast sums on such campaigns.
        We had a long debate on the campaign of the National and Local Government Officers Association, "Put People First". The Government were determined to frame the legislation to ensure that such campaigns were caught by it. The Minister shakes his head, but in Committee he admitted that the NALGO campaign would be caught by it.
        Mr. David Lightbown: So it should be.
        Mr. Evans: That is not the point. I want to know whether a NALGO-type campaign would be caught by the new terms of the Bill. It is essential that trade unions should be informed at this thirteenth hour of what is in the Bill. It is not good enough to leave the issue to litigation, so that people have to go to court to ascertain what is meant. I put it as strongly as possible that the NALGO campaign was a perfectly legitimate and proper campaign for a trade union to carry out in seeking to defend its members, their jobs, conditions of employment and quality of life.
        If NALGO had been caught by this Bill in 1983, it would have been unable to mount its campaign, because it does not have a political fund. One of the largest trade unions in the country would have been unable to defend its members. If that is the purpose of this legislation, the Government should say so tonight. The trade unions in that category can then take the necessary steps to defend their members. I hope that the Minister will answer that point, and say definitely whether a NALGO-type campaign will be caught by the Bill.
        It is an absolute disgrace that multi-national oil companies and foreign organisations will be able to spend as much money as they want attacking the Labour party and its plans and proposals without anyone intervening while restraints are being placed on trade unions that seek only to defend their members against attacks by the Government. The Under-Secretary will recall the massive Campaign Against Building Industry Nationalisation which must have cost several million pounds, and which was run during a recent general election by firms in the building industry. All of that money was legitimate and could not even be charged to the Tory party, yet the campaign was aimed directly at the Labour party. Such campaigns will not be affected. The Government have not taken any steps towards introducing some equity into the situation. It is the naked class politics that have been referred to so often during the Bill's passage —[Interruption.] Even Ministers are not very loud in their condemnation, because they know that that is true. The Bill involves naked class politics.
        It would seem that any trade union that in any way criticises any aspect of Government policy—whether it is privatisation, rate-capping, public expenditure cuts, the abolition of local authorities—
        Mr. Nicholas Soames: Cruise.
        Mr. Evans: I was not referring to cruise. The Government are doing great damage to the public sector and are removing many jobs. Apparently whenever criticism is offered of this Government or their policies, that is regarded by the Government as political., so it

        955
        should be charged to the political fund. That is the one-sided approach of the Government: if any approach is unacceptable it should be denigrated and ended by whatever means possible.
        1.15 am
        Amendment (a) is even-handed and clears the position easily. It makes the terms of clause 15 crystal clear. There would be no need for further argument, and all unions would know exactly where they stand with regard to expenditure from their political funds. It would remove the negative expression of not to vote, whatever that means; I suspect that it will be argued many times in court what the term, "not to vote for a candidate or a political party", means. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State, even at this late hour, will give the amendment a fair hearing and will recognise the fairness of the proposition that I am putting to the Government, which would remove the present doubt with a positive statement, which would read that it would be action taken on the publication or distribution of any literature, documents or films, sound recording or advertisement, the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate. That is very easily understood, and there would be no recourse to litigation. It is the duty of the House to attempt at all times to make its legislation clear.
        The purpose of the political fund would be to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate. Of course, that would be the Labour party. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State can reply to the debate and answer the important questions that I have asked and then inform the House that he is quite happy to accept my amendment and the consequential amendment that would be necessary to make sense of the Bill.
        Mr. Alan Clark: Both these amendments were moved in response to Opposition concerns expressed in Committee. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) still displays such ingratitude. Amendment No. 36 deals with what appears to be a perfectly reasonable point: that meetings for purposes primarily to deal with union business, but where party political matters make up a minor part of the agenda, should not be caught. My noble Friend the Earl Gowrie agreed that it would be unreasonable for such meetings to be financed out of political funds. This amendment makes it clear that only meetings which are held primarily to transact party political business need be paid for from political funds.
        The hon. Member for St. Helens, North raised the question of lobbyists. The answer is that their expenses can be paid out of the general fund. Unless the meeting that they attend is primarily to transact party political business and unless they take part in the meeting itself, they can be paid for out of general funds. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has had his turn at the Dispatch Box. It was singularly tasteless, out of key and a great disappointment of those of us who thought that he had made a number of constructive contributions in Committee that he should have felt the obligation to refer five times in 15 minutes to class hatred. That obligation is a matter that only he can decide. Perhaps on the second occasion at the Dispatch Box, he will make a more rational and reasoned contribution.
        956
        By the sub-amendment and the consequential amendment, the Opposition continue to say — and the hon. Member for St. Helens, North has been perfectly frank about this—that communications which encourage people not to vote for a political party should not have to be financed from political funds. As do all his hon. Friends, he continues to harp on the celebrated NALGO campaign, and to assert the canard that the entire NALGO campaign was unlawful, and it could not be financed out of a general fund. The answer to that, which he has been given in the past on many occasions, is that the campaign as such was perfectly lawful, and it could be paid for out of the general fund. Certain advertisements in it were in contravention even of the 1913 provisions, and would have to be paid for out of the political fund now.
        The intention of NALGO in this instance is relevant. It sent me a report that it commissioned on this campaign. First, it made a statement, in discussing the campaign, for the effect that its
        "sole purpose was to influence public opinion, and that a general election was an ideal time to do that. … the advertising was re-programmed to be completed before election day."
        That raises a clear presumption that the intention was to influence how people voted. As to the effect of the campaign, it said:
        "What was unmeasurable … was whether NALGO's contribution to the political debate at that time had some influence in spite of the big shift in the public's apparent concern about the quality of the public services. In other words, without NALGO's contribution the political swing might have been even bigger."
        In the light of such comments, it is not possible that there could be any further question about the main purpose of these advertisements. However, a campaign that is generally devoted to a general alteration of conditions and issues can be paid for out of the general fund. There is a clear distinction between the component parts of the NALGO campaign — in particular, the advertisements with which the House is familiar, with the facsimile ballot paper in the corner, and so on—and the general theme of the campaign which would be paid for out of the general fund.
        I emphasise that it is no more than common sense that communications which encourage people not to vote for a political party are no less party political than those which encourage people to vote for a political party. I ask the House to reject the amendment to the Lords amendment.
        Lords amendment agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 18, line 9, leave out from "advertisement" to "not" in line 12 and insert
        "the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate or to persuade them"—[Mr. Alan Clark.]
        Read a Second time.
        Amendment (a) proposed, in line 3, leave out 'or to persuade them'.—[Mr. Evans.]
        Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 300.

        Division No. 431]

        [1.25 am

        AYES

        Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

        Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

        Bagier, Gordon A. T.

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Blair, Anthony

        Barron, Kevin

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Beckett, Mrs Margaret

        Boyes, Roland

        Bell, Stuart

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Benn, Tony

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        957

        Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

        Litherland, Robert

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Caborn, Richard

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

        Loyden, Edward

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        McCartney, Hugh

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Clarke, Thomas

        McKelvey, William

        Clay, Robert

        Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

        Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Cohen, Harry

        McTaggart, Robert

        Coleman, Donald

        Madden, Max

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Marek, Dr John

        Conlan, Bernard

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Corbett, Robin

        Meacher, Michael

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Michie, William

        Cowans, Harry

        Mikardo, Ian

        Craigen, J. M.

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Crowther, Stan

        Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        Nellist, David

        Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

        O'Brien, William

        Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Deakins, Eric

        Park, George

        Dewar, Donald

        Parry, Robert

        Dobson, Frank

        Patchett, Terry

        Dormand, Jack

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Dubs, Alfred

        Pendry, Tom

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Pike, Peter

        Eadie, Alex

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Eastham, Ken

        Prescott, John

        Evans, John (St. Helens N)

        Redmond, M.

        Ewing, Harry

        Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Faulds, Andrew

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

        Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

        Rogers, Allan

        Fisher, Mark

        Rooker, J. W.

        Flannery, Martin

        Rowlands, Ted

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Ryman, John

        Foster, Derek

        Sheerman, Barry

        Foulkes, George

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Fraser, J. (Norwood)

        Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Skinner, Dennis

        George, Bruce

        Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

        Godman, Dr Norman

        Snape, Peter

        Golding, John

        Soley, Clive

        Gould, Bryan

        Spearing, Nigel

        Hamilton, James (M'well N)

        Straw, Jack

        Hardy, Peter

        Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

        Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

        Tinn, James

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

        Wareing, Robert

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Welsh, Michael

        Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

        Williams, Rt Hon A.

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Winnick, David

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Woodall, Alec

        John, Brynmor

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Don Dixon.

        Leighton, Ronald

        Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Baldry, Anthony

        Alexander, Richard

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Batiste, Spencer

        Amess, David

        Beith, A. J.

        Ancram, Michael

        Bendall, Vivian

        Arnold, Tom

        Benyon, William

        Ashby, David

        Berry, Sir Anthony

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Best, Keith

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

        Bottomley, Peter

        958

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Hancock, Mr. Michael

        Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Hannam, John

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Hargreaves, Kenneth

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Harris, David

        Bright, Graham

        Harvey, Robert

        Brinton, Tim

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

        Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

        Browne, John

        Hayes, J.

        Bruinvels, Peter

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Heddle, John

        Budgen, Nick

        Henderson, Barry

        Bulmer, Esmond

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Burt, Alistair

        Hickmet, Richard

        Butcher, John

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Butler, Hon Adam

        Hill, James

        Butterfill, John

        Hind, Kenneth

        Carlisle, John (N Luton)

        Hirst, Michael

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

        Cash, William

        Holt, Richard

        Chalker, Mrs Lynda

        Howard, Michael

        Chapman, Sydney

        Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

        Chope, Christopher

        Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

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

        Hubbard-Miles, Peter

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Cockeram, Eric

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Colvin, Michael

        Jackson, Robert

        Conway, Derek

        Jessel, Toby

        Coombs, Simon

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Cope, John

        Johnston, Russell

        Corrie, John

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Jones, Robert (W Herts)

        Crouch, David

        Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Dicks, Terry

        King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

        Dorrell, Stephen

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Dover, Den

        Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

        Durant, Tony

        Knowles, Michael

        Dykes, Hugh

        Knox, David

        Eggar, Tim

        Lang, Ian

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Latham, Michael

        Evennett, David

        Lawler, Geoffrey

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Fallon, Michael

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Farr, Sir John

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Favell, Anthony

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Fenner, Mrs Peggy

        Lester, Jim

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

        Fletcher, Alexander

        Lightbown, David

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Lilley, Peter

        Forman, Nigel

        Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Lord, Michael

        Forth, Eric

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Fox, Marcus

        McCrindle, Robert

        Franks, Cecil

        McCurley, Mrs Anna

        Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

        MacGregor, John

        Freeman, Roger

        MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

        Fry, Peter

        MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

        Gale, Roger

        Maclean, David John

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

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

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Madel, David

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Major, John

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Malins, Humfrey

        Gorst, John

        Malone, Gerald

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Maples, John

        Grant, Sir Anthony

        Marland, Paul

        Greenway, Harry

        Marlow, Antony

        Gregory, Conal

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

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

        Mates, Michael

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Ground, Patrick

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Mayhew, Sir Patrick

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Merchant, Piers

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        959

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Renton, Tim

        Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Moate, Roger

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Mudd, David

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Murphy, Christopher

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Neubert, Michael

        Rost, Peter

        Newton, Tony

        Rowe, Andrew

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Norris, Steven

        Ryder, Richard

        Onslow, Cranley

        Sackville, Hon Thomas

        Oppenheim, Philip

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Ottaway, Richard

        St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

        Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Page, Richard (Herts SW)

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Parris, Matthew

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Pattie, Geoffrey

        Shersby, Michael

        Pawsey, James

        Silvester, Fred

        Penhaligon, David

        Sims, Roger

        Pollock, Alexander

        Skeet, T. H. H.

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Powley, John

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Speed, Keith

        Raffan, Keith

        Speller, Tony

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Spencer, Derek

        960

        Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Squire, Robin

        Walden, George

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Wallace, James

        Stern, Michael

        Waller, Gary

        Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

        Ward, John

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Sumberg, David

        Watson, John

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Watts, John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Wheeler, John

        Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

        Whitfield, John

        Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Thurnham, Peter

        Wood, Timothy

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Woodcock, Michael

        Tracey, Richard

        Wrigglesworth, Ian

        Trippier, David

        Yeo, Tim

        Trotter, Neville

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Viggers, Peter

        Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

        Waddington, David

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Lords amendment agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 45 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

    Merrivale and Brooksby Schools, Nottingham
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
    1.37 am
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Having waited patiently for some five or six weeks, I am grateful, even at this late hour, to have the opportunity to bring this subject before the House. I can only apologise for that, but I hope that the matter will commend itself to the House and to the Secretary of State for action at some time in the not too distant future.
    For the proper protection of the rights of parents and local interests our Education Acts provide that notices are issued where authorities are proposing to close existing schools. The Education Act 1980 brought in notices to cover nursery provision. Those notices cover not only closure but change of status, character and the establishment of new schools. Their purpose was to give as much information as possible to people likely to be affected by them so that if they wished to do so they could make objection.
    It was expected, foolishly, as I shall explain and illustrate later, that any proposals under notices would have been discussed with the staff, the parents and governors before a decision was arrived at and then, if it were decided so to do, to issue notices. It was expected that when the Secretary of State made a decision on notices he would have the power to approve or reject them, and limited powers to modify. If there were objections, the Secretary of State became, or should have become, the final arbiter and his decision was binding, save that it was possible for alternative proposals to be submitted.
    That is a brief but, I hope, correct statement of the background to the incidents affecting two schools in my constituency, Merrivale nursery and Brooksby primary, which illustrates the abuse of the procedures that can arise. If the abuse is left unchecked, it will allow somewhat arrogant authorities to drive a coach and horses through the democratic processes and procedures that I have described.
    There has been a vicious and unwarranted attack upon the parents who send their children to Merrivale nursery school because of the known quality of its education. By the avoidance of notice procedures, the parents who send their children to the Brooksby primary school cannot respond to the council's case.
    Merrivale nursery school is about to be the subject of a third closure notice in less than three years. One of the Labour county councillors has said, "The governors were consulted on the first occasion. If they are consulted again they will only give the same answer." On that occasion the Labour chairman of governors gave a casting vote under his group's instruction and expressed to me his great unhappiness at having to do so. Councillor Heppall, another Labour councillor, made what I consider to be an outrageous statement. He said that, nursery places should be provided in areas of social need, not in areas where Conservative votes are.
    Councillor Riddell, the chairman of the county education authority, the most arrogant chairman of education that I have ever had the mischance to meet, has
    962
    suggested that Merrivale is a centre of excellence and a maverick institution that should have been closed long ago. He added:
    "Conservative councillors are obviously fighting for their section of the electorate in opposing this closure … it is obvious that the Government only want nursery education to be available to those parents who can pay for it."
    Individuals who make remarks of that sort about education should not be permitted to serve. They are an affront to the democracy that they are meant to defend.
    In the county's submission to the Secretary of State was the following sentence:
    "Merrivale has served essentially the needs of those who can transport their children to the nursery by car, from those areas lacking in nursery provision."
    That was meant to be a criticism.
    The county authority will today have received a petition from 800 parents, and I trust that in due course the petit ion will be presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Councillor Riddell has stated that the spirit of the Act can be ignored. He has said clearly that the authority will continue presenting to the Secretary of State section 12 closure notices until such time as the parents get fed up and give in. That is a circumstance that was never envisaged when the Act took its place on the statute book, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to at least insisting that there be a time gap between one closure notice and another.
    The Brooksby school is opening to local authorities a more subtle and sinister way of avoiding the normal democratic processes. I am given to understand that there is another case in Lancashire where effectively a school has had its title picked up and planted some six miles away, and the school therefore technically has not been closed. In that case, no section 12 notice was required. In my case in Nottingham, the title is not six miles, but perhaps half a mile, away. Nevertheless, that school originally had access, allowing the parents to avoid the main road. That extra half mile places a dangerous main road between parents and the school.
    I do not argue the case for or against this closure. I suggest that if a local authority has empty premises within its area and can merely take the title of a school and move it to another place, that is effectively a school closure—at least for the parents. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Act. Effectively, the school has been closed and no section 12 notice has been made. The parents have no right of appeal.
    I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not under normal circumstances have accepted such practices, and I hope that he will find the time in the not too distant future to give the parents the protection that they deserve.
    1.46 am
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I have listened with great interest and care to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brando-Bravo) about the saga of Merrivale school and Nottinghamshire LEA's attempts to close it. In the time available to me, I shall attempt to answer at least some of my hon. Friend's points.
    I understand the anger and frustration of my hon. Friend's constituents that, despite the fact that in a short space of time I have twice rejected proposals to close Merrivale, Nottinghamshire LEA now intends to make a third attempt. My hon. Friend is free to condemn the

    963
    authority, and has vigorously done so. He will understand, however, when I say that I am not at liberty to do the same. As he knows, the holder of my office acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering proposals made under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980. This means that I am limited in what I can say about proposals which may come before me for decision, lest I am seen to be prejudicing that decision. Within these constraints I shall attempt to be as helpful as I can.
    My hon. Friend knows that I first considered and rejected proposals in February 1983. In communicating my decision to Nottinghamshire LEA, the Departments letter informed the authority that I was not satisfied that the proposals would sufficiently satisfy the future demand for nursery education in the area now served by the Merrivale school.
    Some months later, Nottinghamshire published new proposals, and my hon. Friend brought a deputation of parents to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. On 11 April 1984, I again rejected the proposals, and the Department's letter to the authority said that, while I had considered the proposals afresh, as I was statutorily bound to do, I was still not satisfied that the proposals would fully meet the future demand for nursery education in the area now served by Merrivale.
    Nevertheless, Nottinghamshire has decided to try again and, I understand, will publish new proposals early in the next school year. At this point, I imagine that my hon. Friend will be hoping that I will say that the next proposals will receive the same decision as their predecessors. I am afraid I cannot offer him that reassurance. To do so would go beyond the quasi-judicial role of the holder of my office. I am under a duty to consider each set of proposals made under section 12 on their merits at the time they come before me. I must weigh all the factors in the balance and reach the decision which I consider to be right in the light of all the circumstances of the case. It may be that the conclusion is the same as before, or there may be new arguments which are sufficiently compelling to persuade me to approve the proposals. At this stage I cannot anticipate what my decision will be.
    What I can assure my hon. Friend of is that I will exercise my power under section 12(5) of the 1980 Act to "call-in" the proposals for my decision. I shall then consider the proposals very carefully and my officials will ask Nottinghamshire, in presenting its case for its proposals to explain why it judges that the current circumstances are different from the earlier ones. Moreover, as my hon. Friend knows, those affected by the proposals will have an opportunity to submit objections to the LEA within two months of the first publication of the proposals. The LEA is then under a duty to forward any objections to me together with its observations. During this process my hon. Friend can exercise his prerogative to bring some of his constituents to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who, as he knows, will listen carefully to the arguments they advance.
    I appreciate that this will cause a further period of uncertainty for the parents of pupils at Merrivale, and that they will again be put to the trouble and expense of attempting to save their school. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that any case those parents put to me by way of objection will be considered just as carefully as the
    964
    authority's arguments for its proposals, and that I shall come to a decision on the grounds of what I judge to be the individual merits of each case.
    My hon. Friend has also raised the problems which have arisen following the destruction by fire of Brooksby county primary school. I understand that the authority decided to move the school permanently into the nearby and vacant premises of Greencroft infant school. Its reasons are that these premises can be suitably adapted for about £115,000 whilst to rebuild Brooksby would cost an estimated £386,000. Nottinghamshire does not have to effect this change via the section 12 process which would provide the opportunity for objection. Instead it is able to simply transfer the school using the powers contained in section 16(1) of the 1944 Act. It does not need to seek my approval for this unless it chooses to do so and I understand that it will not be so doing. I now come to my hon. Friend's suggestion that the law be changed to prevent LEAs from resubmitting rejected proposals within a specified period. He already knows from the answer he received to a question on 19 June that I have no plans to seek such a change.
    The Education Acts provide a system in which, subject to certain statutory constraints, it is for local education authorities to decide the pattern of education and of the reorganisation of schools best suited to local needs and circumstances and to the preferences of parents. Mine is a responsive role. I can act only when an authority or the governors of a voluntary school publish proposals; and when they do so, I can only approve proposals, reject them, or approve them with such modifications which after consultation with the proposers I judge to be desirable. I believe that the Act strikes just the right balance between the role of the holder of my office and that of the local education authority. Any legislation which prevented local authorities from republishing rejected proposals until six months, a year, or two years after my decision would upset that balance undesirably. Moreover, it would be difficult to legislate to prevent a local authority or the governors of a voluntary school making a number of changes in the detail of what was proposed and arguing that they had published different proposals.
    I see three further reasons against such an amendment to the law. First, circumstances change, and can sometimes change quickly. The legislation which my hon. Friend has in mind could well impede an authority acting sensibly and speedily in changed circumstances.
    Secondly the rejection of particular proposals does not always imply that I take the view that no further proposals should be published. There are occasions where I judge that action is required urgently because of falling pupil numbers, for instance, but where I am not persuaded that the published proposals are a satisfactory way forward. The change in the law which my hon. Friend has in mind would not assist matters forward in such circumstances.
    Thirdly, the occasion when identical proposals are published again almost immediately after rejection are in practice very rare. My hon. Friend will know from the reply to his parliamentary question that since section 12 came into effect in August 1980 only three rejected proposals have been resubmitted in identical terms in the six months following their rejection. I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases where proposals are rejected the decision by the holder of my office is accepted. I do not believe there is a problem on a scale to justify any change in the law.

    965
    I appreciate the anxieties which my hon. Friend has tonight stated on behalf of his constituents in Nottinghamshire, South. He has made their case well and in his usual way. I am sorry that I have been unable to allay those fears for him, but I hope that he will be reassured that any proposals will be considered carefully and that I will listen to any proposals put to me by objectors as well
    966
    as considering with equal care the case put forward by the county council. I also assure him that my decision will be taken as quickly as is consistent with full and proper consideration of the proposals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Manpower Services Commission (Further Education)
  Manpower Services Commission (Further Education)
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Workers Educational Association
  Workers Educational Association
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Foreign Students
  Foreign Students
  National Advisory Committee for Special Educational Needs
  National Advisory Committee for Special Educational Needs
  Degrees
  Degrees
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Consumer Credit Licences
  Consumer Credit Licences
  Wheat (Import Levy)
  Wheat (Import Levy)
  Second Homes (Taxation)
  Second Homes (Taxation)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Pay-as-you-earn (Computerisation)
  Pay-as-you-earn (Computerisation)
  EC Budget Council
  EC Budget Council
  Imported Literature
  Imported Literature
  Value Added Tax (Evasion)
  Value Added Tax (Evasion)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa
  United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Derelict Land (Belfast)
  Derelict Land (Belfast)
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Beef Cattle
  Beef Cattle
  Cattle (Slaughter)
  Cattle (Slaughter)
TRANSPORT
  Sealink UK Ltd.
  Sealink UK Ltd.
  Public Transport (London)
  Public Transport (London)
  Passenger Coaches
  Passenger Coaches
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  HGV Driving Licences (Renewal)
  HGV Driving Licences (Renewal)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Aire Valley Route
  Aire Valley Route
  Ports
  Ports
  Lorries (Restrictions)
  Lorries (Restrictions)
  Road Haulage Quota Licences
  Road Haulage Quota Licences
  Goods Vehicles (Operators' Licences)
  Goods Vehicles (Operators' Licences)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
PRIME MINISTER
  Llanelwedd
  Llanelwedd
  10 Downing Street (Portraits)
  10 Downing Street (Portraits)
  Erith and Crayford
  Erith and Crayford
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Electoral Law
  Electoral Law
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  "Making a Business of Information"
  "Making a Business of Information"
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Exports
  Exports
  Mail (Delivery Statistics)
  Mail (Delivery Statistics)
  Loop Hearing Aid System
  Loop Hearing Aid System
  EC (Motor Car Prices)
  EC (Motor Car Prices)
  Companies (Registration)
  Companies (Registration)
  Newspapers (Shareholdings)
  Newspapers (Shareholdings)
  International Investment
  International Investment
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
WALES
  Education (Schools Inspectorate Report)
  Education (Schools Inspectorate Report)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Inspectorate of Schools
  Inspectorate of Schools
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  Children (Education)
  Children (Education)
  Gower (Ministerial Visits)
  Gower (Ministerial Visits)
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Farm Roads
  Farm Roads
  Felinheli Bypass
  Felinheli Bypass
ENERGY
  Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme
  Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
SCOTLAND
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Dentists
  Dentists
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Passports
  Passports
  Detention Centres (Treatment)
  Detention Centres (Treatment)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Grendon Underwood Prison
  Grendon Underwood Prison
  Reconviction Rates
  Reconviction Rates
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Security Services
  Security Services
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Manchester Prison
  Manchester Prison
  Liverpool Prison
  Liverpool Prison
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Police Federation
  Police Federation
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Foreign Nationals
  Foreign Nationals
  Hyde Park
  Hyde Park
  Police Authorities (Ethnic Minorities)
  Police Authorities (Ethnic Minorities)
  Entry Clearances (Arranged Marriages)
  Entry Clearances (Arranged Marriages)
  Leeds Prison
  Leeds Prison
  Immigration Officers (Transfers)
  Immigration Officers (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  National Identification Bureau (Dispute)
  National Identification Bureau (Dispute)
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Crime Rate
  Crime Rate
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Children Act 1975 (Guardian Ad-litem Duties)
  Children Act 1975 (Guardian Ad-litem Duties)
  Borstal Establishments
  Borstal Establishments
  Chinese Community
  Chinese Community
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Arthur Angell
  Mr. Arthur Angell
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  East Germany (British Citizens' Compensation)
  East Germany (British Citizens' Compensation)
  Iran (Baha'i Persecution)
  Iran (Baha'i Persecution)
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Iran (Baha'i Persecution)
  Iran (Baha'i Persecution)
  Budgetary Discipline
  Budgetary Discipline
DEFENCE
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  NATO Strategy
  NATO Strategy
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Minuteman Missiles
  Minuteman Missiles
  Defence Policy
  Defence Policy
  Tornado F2 Squadrons
  Tornado F2 Squadrons
  REME Workshop (Chilwell)
  REME Workshop (Chilwell)
  NATO Ministers Meeting
  NATO Ministers Meeting
  Departmental Reorganisation
  Departmental Reorganisation
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  USSR (Anti-ballistic Missiles System)
  USSR (Anti-ballistic Missiles System)
  Multilateral Disarmament (Ministerial Speech)
  Multilateral Disarmament (Ministerial Speech)
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Tests (Medical Effects)
  Nuclear Tests (Medical Effects)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Warsaw Pact (Chemical Weapons)
  Warsaw Pact (Chemical Weapons)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Industrial Disputes (Use of Military Personnel)
  Industrial Disputes (Use of Military Personnel)
  Nuclear Defence
  Nuclear Defence
  Landing Ships
  Landing Ships
  Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill
  Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill
  Edmond Halley (Restoration of Grave)
  Edmond Halley (Restoration of Grave)
  Trident
  Trident
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Nuclear Deterrence
  Nuclear Deterrence
  Brent Show (Army Display)
  Brent Show (Army Display)
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Polaris
  Polaris
  General Sir Timothy Creasey
  General Sir Timothy Creasey
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Drugs (Withdrawals)
  Drugs (Withdrawals)
  Single Payments (Furniture)
  Single Payments (Furniture)
  Leaseco Report
  Leaseco Report
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit (Appeals)
  Supplementary Benefit (Appeals)
  Social Security (Reviews)
  Social Security (Reviews)
  Infant Mortality (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Infant Mortality (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Asbestosis
  Asbestosis
  Health Authorities (Home Adaptations)
  Health Authorities (Home Adaptations)
  Joint Aid Distribution Schemes
  Joint Aid Distribution Schemes
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Wheelchairs
  Wheelchairs
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Benefit Claim Forms
  Benefit Claim Forms
  Hospitals (Waiting Times)
  Hospitals (Waiting Times)
  Snake Vaccine
  Snake Vaccine
  Drug Abuse Scheme
  Drug Abuse Scheme
  Primary Health Care
  Primary Health Care
  Benefits Reviews (Evidence)
  Benefits Reviews (Evidence)
  National Childminding Association (Grant)
  National Childminding Association (Grant)
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  Brook Advisory Centre
  Brook Advisory Centre
  NHS (Private Patients)
  NHS (Private Patients)
  Private Medical Facilities
  Private Medical Facilities
  Health Reports (Publication)
  Health Reports (Publication)
EMPLOYMENT
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Power Station Employees (Deaths)
  Power Station Employees (Deaths)
  Wages
  Wages
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Strikes (Working Days Lost)
  Strikes (Working Days Lost)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Leisure Industry
  Leisure Industry
  Trade Union Legislation
  Trade Union Legislation
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Pregnant Women (Benefits)
  Pregnant Women (Benefits)
  Special Employment and Training
  Special Employment and Training
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Fishermen (Redundancy Fund)
  Fishermen (Redundancy Fund)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Housing Statistics (Hillingdon)
  Housing Statistics (Hillingdon)
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Land Compensation Act 1973
  Land Compensation Act 1973
  Industrial Development Initiative
  Industrial Development Initiative
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  North Sea Pollution (Conference)
  North Sea Pollution (Conference)
  Waltham Forest (Housing Budget)
  Waltham Forest (Housing Budget)
  Inner Urban Aid
  Inner Urban Aid
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Ronan Point, Newham
  Ronan Point, Newham
  Director-General of Design Services
  Director-General of Design Services
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Architects
  Architects
  Cycleways
  Cycleways
  Snakes
  Snakes
  Nature Conservation
  Nature Conservation
  Local Government (Contracts)
  Local Government (Contracts)
  Voluntary Groups (Funding)
  Voluntary Groups (Funding)
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Land Disposal
  Land Disposal
  House Building
  House Building
  Gipsy Site, Lynemouth
  Gipsy Site, Lynemouth
  Roadford Reservoir
  Roadford Reservoir
  Romney Marshes
  Romney Marshes
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy

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

European Elections: Voting Systems
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the different electoral systems used for the European elections in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom both produced fair and democratic results.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the outcome of the European elections in Great Britain and Northern Ireland was perfectly fair and democratic, bearing in mind the necessity to tailor electoral systems to the different needs of each part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there will be widespread agreement that the system used in Northern Ireland was practical, fair and democratic? Can the noble Lord explain what drawbacks the Government saw in extending that system to the rest of the United Kingdom, apart from the fact that it would have robbed the Conservative Party of its surplus seats?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is also widespread agreement that the system employed in Great Britain was fair and democratic, and satisfactory in its results.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that, when the system of the single transferable vote was first introduced in Northern Ireland, there was a general understanding that the arguments of the special circumstances of Northern Ireland would never be used for extending the system to Great Britain? In addition, is not the Question on the Order Paper at fault in so far as each of the eight political groupings which contested the three seats in the Northern Ireland elections to the European Parliament put up only one candidate and at the end of the day, after the fourth count, the three who were elected were the same three as those who would have topped the poll as the first preferences?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to say that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom, and he is also right to say that the result of the election under that system was as it should have been.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is it not a fact that we went all round this course yesterday? Should we be going round it again today?
Lord Elton: Yes, My Lords; we also went round it two or three times in July last year. I think that it is an annual event.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, this is a matter of great importance to the affected minority. There has been a tradition among British Governments of different parties of paying some respect to the electoral rights of minorities. Is the noble Lord aware that the system in Northern Ireland did so pay respect to the rights of minorities, whereas the system in Britain meant that more than half the parties represented in the European Assembly scored fewer votes than the Alliance, which is not represented at all?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if all the minority parties in Northern Ireland were to have been represented, there would, of course, have to have been more than three seats available to which to elect them. As to the remainder of the noble Lord's question, it is very difficult not to repeat all the arguments that I adduced yesterday. I think that the noble Lord is addressing a system which was advocated by one party during the last general election, when 70 per cent. of voters voted for other parties.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as one who was once attracted to the idea of PR for the United Kingdom, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that, if we had that system, it is unlikely that any party would have an overall majority in another place, and we would probably therefore have a series of coalition Governments?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is, indeed, the prospect and it is an unattractive one, because the electors would then not know which Government they were electing or what programme would be put into effect.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the party of Screaming Lord Sutch is totally unrepresented in Parliament, and that this is a gross injustice to all those who have voted for him?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the person in question has a title, perhaps there is another solution to that deficiency.
Lord McNair: My Lords, is not the noble Lord treating this matter in a rather parochial manner? The Question refers to the European elections. Do we not have an obligation to agree an electoral system with our partners in the EEC, and will not the noble Lord take it from me that it is quite impossible to find anyone on the continent of Europe who regards our electoral system as anything but daft?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that we are under an obligation, and this we intend to honour. Perhaps the noble Lord has omitted to notice that other European countries also have difficulty in finding a uniform system with which they agree. Our obligation and theirs is to implement a uniform system when it is unanimously agreed. It was impossible to reach that agreement before the last European election. We hope that it will be possible to implement it before the next.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we have to wait for a uniform system to be agreed by the Council of Ministers, we shall almost certainly have to wait until kingdom come, and that is not necessarily a very good reason for deciding that the present system of elections to the European Parliament cannot be improved upon?
Further, is my noble friend aware that it is not only Members of the Alliance Party who are slightly disturbed by the present position? Some of us recollect that in 1973 it was a Conservative Government who decided that the voice of the third party in the land should be heard in Strasbourg and Brussels, and they invited the Liberal Party to send two delegates—one from each House—to represent those views. Was that not a precedent about which some further thought should be given?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that it is a precedent which shows the complete good faith of the Conservative Party in this matter. Noble Lords in the Liberal Party must recognise that we believe that the people of this country should be heard, but we believe that they should be heard as a result of an electoral system with which they are familiar, or which is in conformity with those imposed by other European states. As yet there is no sign of that conformity emerging.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is also true that the results of the European elections only confirm what people voted for in the previous General Election? Of the major party groupings, the party which the electors of this country least want is the Alliance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is difficult to answer that question without being discourteous to the Alliance Party.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, as the Liberal and Alliance Parties seem to think that proportional representation is such a marvellous idea, can not my noble friend elicit any information from them as to why Lloyd George and the Liberals did not introduce it during the many years they were in power earlier this century?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the sounds coming from the Liberal and Alliance Benches suggest that noble Lords have already anticipated my reply, which is that of course it did not become apparent how the effect of such a system would benefit their party until it became apparent that the existing system would never return a Liberal Government.

Overseas Tourists
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many tourists visited the United Kingdom during April this year, and what was the comparable figure for last year.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. provisional figures from the International Passenger Survey show 1,190,000 visits were made to the United Kingdom by overseas residents during April this year compared with 1,026,000 in April 1983; an increase of 16 per cent. In the first four months of 1984 there were 3,430,000 visits—12½ per cent. higher than in the same period last year.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, which I think was fairly evident to us in moving about, or trying to do so, in central London. Could my noble friend tell us whether he has any idea how many jobs are directly or indirectly dependent on the tourist industry?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, because of the diversity of the tourist industry there are problems in establishing an accurate figure, but it is estimated that tourism provides about 1 million jobs, some 30 per cent. more than the mechanical engineering sector and about the same as the construction industry.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of the increase in the tourist trade this year is due to the collapse of the pound compared with the dollar?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I certainly cannot agree with the noble Lord in that assertion. Many factors affect the level of incoming visitors. They include such factors as world economics and exchange rates, but more particularly our ability to provide good value for money for the goods and services which the tourist wants to buy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether we have any breakdown of which countries the visitors come from and whether there has been a substantial change in recent years?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Yes, my Lords, I have a breakdown of visitors. In 1983. 22·7 per cent. came from North America; 46·1 per cent. from the European Community, 11·5 per cent. from other western European states; and from the rest of the world, 19·7 per cent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly repeat the figure for the first four months of this year? I did not quite follow it when he announced it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in the first four months of 1984 there were 3,430,000 visits.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether there is a distinct barrier as between English language students and tourists? Is it right that nearly a million people came to study the English language and that some of these, like the Libyans, have stayed on first as tourists and then domiciled here? Is there a distinct difference between these two categories?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I would think that there would be a distinct difference, and I cannot tell the noble Lord what that difference might be.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while journeying through London at the present time it is a refreshing change to find somebody speaking English? If we go on at the present rate would it not be a good idea to put up signs, "English spoken here"?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it may be a refreshing change, but one has to consider that tourism makes a considerable contribution to our balance of trade. In fact, £3·6 billion were earned last year in tourism from foreign visitors.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the steady growth of tourism is indeed good news for those of us who are concerned with the built heritage, the conservation of which largely depends on tourist profits for it to be achieved? Perhaps he would confirm that, in addition to directly connected jobs there are enormous numbers of jobs in publishing, souvenirs, catering, and indeed in construction in this country which are indirectly concerned with tourism.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Noble Lords will of course realise that my noble friend, being chairman of the Historic Buildings Commission, has himself made a great impact in the area of tourism. In so far as his last point is concerned, yes, certainly there are fringe effects from tourism in regard to other jobs and job creation. There are probably another half-a-million people employed in that kind of area.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say what amenities are available for disabled visitors both in hotel accommodation and otherwise?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I regret that I cannot tell the noble Baroness in detail about amenities, but the English Tourist Board take an interest in this area. They have produced a number of books and booklets which have a wide distribution. In addition, both the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Association support the Holiday Care Service, and they have also produced an information booklet which is distributed through the international offices of that organisation.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the measure of the benefit of tourism only pounds, shillings and pence? Is it not the case that there is great benefit from people learning to understand one another, seeing one another's habits, seeing how people live in their own homes and their own countries? Is it not a much wider point than the Minister indicated in agreeing to a Labour intervention?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, any exchange, whether for holidays, vacations or tourism, that leads to a better understanding of the peoples of different nations must have an overall benefit. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated what was earned by foreign tourists coming to Britain;
162
will he tell us the comparable figure arising from Britons who go abroad for their holidays? Could not more be encouraged to take advantage of the many benefits of holidays at home?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot answer the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, without notice, but English tourism in Great Britain last year provided £5.3 billion worth of revenue to the industry.

Gas Installations: Safety
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will introduce legislation concerning 10,000 registered gas installation contractors, as requested four years ago by the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers already maintains a voluntary registration scheme. The Government feel it would be premature to introduce any new scheme, costly to industry, before assessing the effect of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations, which are to be made shortly, and the increase in the membership of the voluntary scheme.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for that reply. If these regulations are not satisfactory, will he consider bringing in some legislation to deal with this problem because so many people have recently been killed in gas accidents?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, gas safety is an enormously important issue, as my noble friend argues. That is why I welcome the transfer of responsibility for nearly all the issues affecting gas safety to the Health and Safety Executive, which has a very good record in the enforcement of health and safety requirements.

United Nations Disarmament Resolutions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, in view of the Prime Minister's statement in favour of smaller nuclear weapon armouries, they voted against United Nations nuclear disarmament resolutions on thirteen occasions last year.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, our approach to disarmament resolutions at the United Nations has frequently been made clear in this House and in another place. We remain committed to supporting initiatives at the United Nations and elsewhere from

163
any quarter which are genuinely likely to advance the search for security through negotiated arms control and disarmament measures. We are not prepared to support those resolutions which serve only to divert attention from serious negotiations. Our voting record underlines our opposition to such tactics and our commitment to making a positive contribution to the process of disarmament.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have frequently found themselves in a minority in this matter? And is it not also the case that their persistence in voting always the same way as the United States has led to a widely held belief that they are more subservient to the United States than Romania is to the Soviet Union?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. We judge United Nations disarmament resolutions on their potential contribution to negotiated arms control measures.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that an analysis of these 13 occasions reveals that some of the resolutions would have resulted not in smaller armouries but in larger ones; and others would have resulted not in smaller armouries but in the abolition of nuclear weapons which, so long as the Soviet Union retains an overwhelming conventional superiority, is not acceptable to the West? Also will she confirm that none of the resolutions would have resulted in verified balanced arms control? That, as every serious person knows, is the criterion for real arms control agreements. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to vote against any agreement or resolution which does not meet that criterion?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. In fact over half the 13 resolutions dealing with nuclear issues which we voted against were sponsored or co-sponsored by members of the Warsaw Pact. The remaining were unsatisfactory because they were contrary to our position on key issues such as the comprehensive test ban, nuclear freeze, no-first-use and deterrents.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is not automatically the case that every resolution which happens to be sponsored or co-sponsored by the Soviet Union is wrong in itself? If that were the case, then no agreement would ever be possible. Is she further aware that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, tempts me to ask her whether she also appreciates that the Government voted against a condemnation of nuclear war as contrary to conscience and reason; voted against a freeze on nuclear weapons; and voted against cessation of all nuclear test explosions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is that the reason we did not support the Soviet proposal for the condemnation of a nuclear war was that we need to prevent all war, not just nuclear war. On the question of a nuclear freeze, the freeze in INF at current levels would be unacceptable given the massive Soviet superiority.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on rate support grant settlement and rate limitation 1985–86.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will be adjourned for dinner at about 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour. The Report and Third Reading of the Housing Defects Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1984
2.57 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Chancellor's Salary draft Order 1984 be approved.
The purpose of this order is to set the level of the salary payable to the Lord Chancellor with effect from 31st July and 1st November this year. The reason for dealing with the Lord Chancellor's salary separately from those of other Ministers is that the Lord Chancellor is not only a Minister but also the head of the judiciary and Speaker of your Lordships' House. The Top Salaries Review Body recommended last year that the Lord Chancellor's salary should be rather higher than that of the Lord Chief Justice. The Government accept that recommendation and set the differential at £2.000. The salaries of the Lord Chief Justice and other judges are now being increased in two stages to bring them up to the levels recently recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. The purpose of the order before your Lordships is simply to keep the Lord Chancellor's salary in step maintaining the differential of £2,000 over the salary of the Lord Chief Justice.
The order has been reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its 35th Report, and I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for explaining the background to this order. The noble Viscount referred to the characteristics of the office of Lord Chancellor which distinguishes the Lord Chancellor from other Ministers. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would agree that his tenure of his office is nothing if not distinctive. Of course, we recognise that we are dealing with a unique office which combines the headship of the judiciary and a very senior position in the Cabinet. It is this unique quality which led the review body under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. Lord Plowden, to recommend this special treatment of the Lord Chancellor. I only hope that the time is not too far distant when my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones may inherit a largess which was previously denied to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
2.59 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Provisions relating to search under s.1 and other powers]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I undertook to bring forward amendments which would ensure that the driver of a vehicle which had been searched in his absence from it should be in a position to find out not just that it had been searched but also why and whether anything had been taken from it. These amendments meet that undertaking by ensuring that the notice which the police have to leave on the vehicle draws the driver's attention to his entitlement to a copy of the record of the search under Clause 3(8). That record will have to include a note of the grounds for the search and also whether anything was either seized or damaged. This seems to me to be a sensible new safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, may I rise to welcome this amendment which I believe derives from a suggestion that I and my noble friends made in Committee? We hope that during the passage of the Report stage of this Bill we will contine to do as well as, apparently, we are starting off; although, seeing the later amendments, I have to express some doubts. Still, we welcome the progress we have made on this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am glad to acknowledge the qualified optimism of the noble Lord opposite. I should have told your Lordships that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 hang together, so that I have spoken to No. 2 as well.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 26 at end insert—
("and
(d) stating the effect of section 3(8) below;")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Road checks]:
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) This section shall also have effect in relation to the conduct of road checks for the purpose of preventing persons from travelling to a place where a breach of the peace is occurring or is likely to occur.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, which deals with the clause of the Bill concerning road blocks, may I also take Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 11?
Amendment No. 8: Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
("(4A) An officer may only authorise a road check under section (1A) above if he has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to do so in order to save life or limb or to prevent serious damage to property.").
Amendment No. 9: Page 7, line 13, at end insert ("or in section (1A) above.").
Amendment No. 11: Page 8, line 16, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)").
These amendments are on exactly the same point. Clause 4 of the Bill brings under certain controls the powers of the police to carry out what are described in the Bill as "road checks" and which the public know of and often refer to as road blocks. Although at Committee stage I expressed a number of reservations as to how this clause would work, on reflection I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in Committee; that is, that the clause had the advantage of bringing under control powers which at present are vague, undefined and expressed only in general terms. Although we shall have to see with experience whether the bringing of such powers under the control of the Bill works benefits, I accept the general objective which the noble Lord initiated in Committee and have not sought to press amendments which I have moved before.
But, following the logic of the Government's position, I seek by these amendments to draw your Lordships' attention to a different kind of road block set up for a different kind of purpose, that is to say, the purpose of preventing persons from travelling to a place where a breach of the peace is occurring or is likely to occur. As I understand it, the police either have power, or certainly believe they have power, to set up road checks when people are travelling to a place where the police believe there is going to be some disturbance of the peace. We know from recent experience that that power is being widely used in connection with the present miners' strike.
The question that I pose in this amendment is this. If it is right to control the setting up of road checks in the cases set out in Clause 4(1) of the Bill for those purposes, why is it not also right to control such road blocks when they are set up for other purposes, and particularly for the purpose to which I draw attention? Recent events have shown the need for such control. In the course of the past few months, police forces in different parts of Britain have undertaken a series of road-block operations which are unprecedented in peacetime in a effort to stop miners who are on strike from going to pickets and demonstrations around the country. Whole counties have been sealed off, exits from the M.1 motorway have been blocked, and even the Dartford Tunnel was the subject of a road check when it was sought to stop people travelling from Kent on their way north to attend pickets or demonstrations.
What is happening is that people are being turned back from travelling upon the highway if the police believe that they are going to attend a picket or a demonstration. I have seen the effect of these road blocks in Nottinghamshire. Quite irrespective of whether there is in fact any disturbance of the peace or any violent demonstration going on, at corner after corner there is a posse of police officers ready to turn back people whom they think are proceeding to a colliery in order to take part in a picket. It reached one stage where clients coming to court were stopped along the roads to the court and then disbelieved when they said that they were on their way to court. I mention this not so much to ask your Lordships to take a view as to whether that kind of control should be lawful or should not be lawful, but to emphasise that it is time that it was brought within some kind of legal certainty and control. At the moment the whole question is at

167
large. We do not know what are the limits of the powers of the police to exercise road blocks for this purpose.
My amendment seeks to try to give some definition so that both police and public know where they stand. I would submit that if what is in question is the interference with the right that we all possess to travel upon the Queen's highway, then that interference should take place only if there is reason to believe that a serious breach of the Queen's peace is taking place somewhere in the vicinity. My amendment, in the words of Amendment No. 8, seeks to limit the powers of the police to authorise road checks for this purpose in cases where the officer has
"reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to [authorise a road check] in order to save life or limb or to prevent serious damage to property";
in other words, if a serious disturbance of the peace is in progress. So it is not permitted, purely because some demonstration which may or may not be peaceful is taking place, that this power to corral vehicles of suspected miners (miners who are suspected of going to a demonstration) be used in the untrammelled way that is happening at the moment. People in Nottinghamshire and other counties are quite appalled at the extent to which their movements are being curtailed by the use of powers which the police believe they possess.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his reply, first of all if he could tell us what the Government believe to be the present limits, if any, upon the powers of the police to set up road blocks for the purpose of stopping people from going to the area of a demonstration or a picket; and, secondly, to tell us why it is that that purpose, that set of circumstances, has not been made the subject of the controls set out in this Bill along with the other purposes which are set out in Clause 4. We now have, for those other purposes, the necessity for a superintendent to give the order except in cases of urgency, the need to keep records, the need for a time limit on the road block, which can be renewed; and various other checks which the Government have thought sensible. Why should not these checks be imposed upon these other powers which are now, in my submission, being far too widely exercised? I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I make just one short comment? Here we are at the beginning of the debate seeing one of the major difficulties with which we will have to contend through the next few days in terms of the detail and precision of the Bill, which we must ensure is correct, not least where it defines police powers. The whole essence of policing in western countries, and probably most of all in this country of ours, is that police officers, junior as well as senior, exercise their discretion every single day. A great many of the powers that they exercise or purport to exercise are common-sense ones which we all applaud. Here we are at the moment between the two different positions and I am afraid that what we have to try to do is to come to a common-sense conclusion at the finale.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, very briefly, this amendment is designed to serve as a charter of free passage for the flying picket. Intimidation can be
168
achieved by sheer weight of numbers without resort to the commission of any serious criminal offence. This fact was recognised by the Transport and General Workers' Union code of practice under the Callaghan Administration. It has been recognised by the Trades Union Congress and it would be quite wrong to support this amendment because it interferes with the exercise of what has been described as a necessary police discretion. I oppose it.
Lord Plant: My Lords, I oppose this amendment for similar reasons. I speak on behalf of the police organisations. They certainly would oppose this further manacle on their activities. My noble friend Lord Gifford has said that this would prevent the police from doing much of what they have done in relation to flying pickets. The police job is hard enough without us erecting further barriers. Therefore I shall vote against this amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I just wonder whether we could accept this amendment but not Amendment No. 8. Might we not be better off with this amendment in the Bill but Amendment No. 8 not in?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said and speak in support of Amendment No. 3. In regard to road checks provided for in Clause 4 there is a requirement that certain formalities have to be complied with. A road check, an interference with the right of passage, is after all a serious matter. It can be an immensely inconvenient matter for those immediately affected and those indirectly affected. That is why the Government believe it fit and proper that where road checks are set up there should be authorisation; an authorisation at a responsible level.
Clause 4(3) states:
"subject to subsection (5) below, there may only be such a road check if a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above authorises it"—
save in circumstances of urgency which are separately provided for. In the context of the road checks that are and have been taking place, it may be that there was authorisation. I do not know. Perhaps when the noble Lord the Minister comes to reply he will tell us whether there was authorisation by superintendents in the respective areas when men were moving, but what we submit is that there should be. This is an issue of considerable importance at the present time. The use of this power has undoubtedly caused a good deal of trouble—if I may use a modest word. Therefore it would seem to be reasonable and in accordance with maintaining the right of passage of the individual that where there is a road block other than in circumstances of urgency there should be authorisation by a senior and responsible officer. So I would be disposed to support Amendment No. 3.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the convention of the House is that the mover of the amendment has the right of reply. I must of course address myself to what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has moved, which is the group of amendments which includes Amendments Nos. 3 and 8. But before I conclude I will refer also to the separate proposal put forward by the noble Lord,

169
Lord Donaldson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
The amendments in the group would extend the scope of Clause 4 to include the power of the police to obstruct a road to all or certain vehicles in pursuance of their general duty under common law to maintain the Queen's peace and prevent public disorder. The power to turn back vehicles in the way that we have seen in the past few months is a question that is at present sub judice since it is due to come before the Divisional Court by way of a case stated against the conviction of a number of persons arrested as the result of the obstruction of a road. I therefore cannot comment on the interesting question of whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is actually seeking in these amendments to entrench in law a power whose existence at present he might dispute. But having put that thought in his mind, I set it aside.
Under these amendments, a road check set up for the purposes of preventing persons travelling to the location of a breach or anticipated breach of the peace could be authorised only if there were reasonable grounds for believing that damage to life or limb, or serious damage to property, might otherwise occur. That is proposed in the new subsection (4A). But a breach of the peace may occur without involving either serious injury or serious damage to property. The question of the definition of a breach of the peace was considered by the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Howell. The Court held that,
"there is a breach of the peace wherever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly or other disturbance".
So the trouble with these amendments is that they make a nod in the direction of primary duty of a constable—to preserve the peace—and then disable him from performing it by requiring him to consider not whether a breach of the peace is in question, but whether life or limb or property are seriously endangered. It is possible—with difficulty—for a court or jury after the event to judge with some accuracy the degree of harm likely to attend a course of conduct. But the police can only honestly judge that there is likely to be trouble. If missiles are used, then more serious injuries are likely than if they are not. If arson is involved then the harm is likely to be correspondingly greater. But what the police can know, without being as specific as the amendment would demand, is that there will likely be a breach of the peace. It is then their task to deal with it. They should not be obliged to predict how serious the trouble may be—how those threatened may react, what incitement there may be. These are powers to preserve the peace, and should not be subjected to the kinds of tests more appropriate for the definition of criminal offences.
I am not sure that it is profitable to extend my discursus to include the references of the noble Lord to Nottinghamshire, where he said he had seen the effects of road checks and that they caused inconvenience. Most of your Lordships will have seen on television the massive violence and dangerous assemblies of people acting as pickets and I think will agree that the people of Nottingham find those much more appalling than any impediment to local travel, and would further
170
agree with me that the power to check vehicles under this Bill for that purpose is needed. But that is not the nub of what the noble Lord is addressing himself to.
In the Government's view the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, would therefore artificially constrain the ability of the police to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent breaches of the peace. I say this without in any way prejudging the question whether some sort of statutory codification of these powers might be desirable, or whether some such device as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, ought not to be considered, because your Lordships will know that we have for some time been engaged on a thorough review of the law in this area. We shall be publishing our conclusions in due course, in the light both of responses to our Green Paper on public order issues and of more recent events; and I believe that it would be premature for your Lordships to seek to legislate piecemeal in this area in advance of an opportunity to consider the public order picture as a whole. So I regret that I cannot welcome these amendments to the present Bill. The time for legislation on these issues, if it arrives, will come in the wake of the public order review, and I must ask your Lordships to await that occasion and not now put into this Bill something which may be quite at odds with any later legislation that may be required.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am hoping that your Lordships will not be confused by the reply of the noble Lord the Minister to this amendment. I hope, too, that your Lordships will have in mind that we are considering merely Amendment No. 3. I have the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to say that on this occasion certainly he will not be moving Amendment No. 8. That means there is no need for any of us to consider whether there is any limitation to be placed upon a superior officer when authorising a road check in these circumstances. That superior officer has to consider merely whether there is likely to be a breach of the peace. He has not to consider whether or not there is danger to life or limb or serious risk of damage to property.
The noble Lord the Minister spoke in two terms, if I may say so; one on the last occasion and one on this. On the last occasion, as I understood it, he was saying that the police, quite obviously, have to move very quickly on occasions and it may not therefore be easy to obtain the sanction of an officer, be he superintendent or be he inspector.
Let us consider what we are in fact enacting. If we look at Clause 4 of the Bill, we see that we are stipulating that the authority of a superior officer has to be obtained when somebody who is thought to have been a witness to an offence may get through the traffic unless there is a road check of this kind. That applies even to a person intending to commit such an offence, or a person who is unlawfully at large. One should have thought that a mass activity leading towards a breach of the peace would be likely to attract much more police consideration than would any of the examples I have just given.
I hope that, if I speak of confusion, nobody will think in terms of authorising an amendment of this

171
kind and thereby sanctioning some of the lamentable scenes which all of us have seen depicted on television screens and which each and every one of us in this House regrets and hopes do not occur again. That is a view which all of us share. None of us countenances violence of any kind, from whatever source it may come; and when we talk of picketing, all of us on these Benches think in terms of peaceful picketing. That is the only kind of picketing that any one of us would sanction if we were asked to do so.
The next thing the noble Lord now says is: "You know we are considering the whole question of public order. Don't put this provision in now. Don't put in a provision about a road check having to be sanctioned by a police officer". My Lords, if ever there was the need for such a provision, it is now—and not just because of a coal strike, but also because this is the one situation, above all others, that is likely to create misunderstanding and dissension.
You will not get dissension if you tell a group of motorists that you are trying to find a witness because somebody has just been killed or severely injured, or that somebody is at large who should not be. But anger will arise if people are told in one area of our country that there is a road check because it may be that there will be a breach of the peace in another part of the country. That is what is now going to cause misunderstanding.
I come to the third, and last, point that I wish to make. The noble Lord the Minister, with that acuteness of mind for which he is very well known, said that maybe the mover of this amendment is putting into the law something which may not be there, because there is a case under consideration. Whatever may be the decision in that case—and I shall not comment upon it—I believe that your Lordships will consider that when we are codifying the law concerning road checks is the time when such a provision ought to be inserted, regardless of whether or not it already exists in our law. We are in favour of road checks in these circumstances, but with the appropriate protection that there should be proper police sanction so that there are not made silly decisions which can cause so much disquiet, so much disturbance, and so much in the way of a "wrong impression", if I may use a moderate term. We are considering merely Amendment No. 3. I repeat that there is nothing else which your Lordships are being asked to decide at this moment.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I at once wish—
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me; he has only two shots in his locker and, if your Lordships give me leave, I may speak again. It would be discourteous and wrong of me to speak after the noble Lord has had what should, rightly be the last word. I want to say merely this to your Lordships. A great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said has considerable force in common sense, and is attractive. Indeed, when I first saw this group of amendments I thought there was something attractive in it. By separating out the first of the amendments
172
your Lordships have removed much of what I found unattractive.
But we are left with what is not a debating point, but a serious legislative point; and it is as follows. We have been engaged in a very careful—that is to say, a very long—review of the public order powers and in particular the powers in the common law. We are about to produce a document on this, and it seems to me that it would be a mistake both to anticipate one small slice of what may. quite properly, be contained in legislation which emerges as a result of discussion following that document, and to begin legislation to codify (which is what it would amount to) common law powers in the statute law in this area. We are not debating the disgraceful scenes in Nottingham. We are debating how we shall best legislate, not for this year, or for this decade, but for a generation, and I hope that your Lordships will think it would be wiser to do that in the fullness of time and to rely on the other benefits of this legislation that are available to us.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Legislation regarding road blocks is an integral part of this Bill. Surely in the context of legislation to deal with road checks, it is legitimate to include now some important aspect of that problem and that part of the law.
Lord Elton: My Lords, although I had sat down, I shall treat that as a question, thus rendering it in order, and arrange myself as though I had not sat down. The difference is that the powers to stop contained in the Bill are for different purposes and the purpose here addressed is a common law purpose, not a statutory purpose. It falls within the ambit of our review of the common law public order powers which I am asking your Lordships to treat as an integral whole and not to eat into at this point. Now, my Lords, I really am sitting down.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I shall not ask the noble Lord to get up again.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, perhaps I may confirm what was said by my noble friend Lord Mishcon; namely, that, having listened to the debate, I shall not seek to move Amendment No. 8. If your Lordships accept Amendment No. 3, I shall seek to move only Amendments Nos. 9 and 11, which are purely consequential upon Amendment No. 3. Whether or not any limitation is required of the kind adumbrated in Amendment No. 8, is a question that I shall not raise today, but will consult upon in time for another stage.
I cannot improve on the points made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. The essence of this amendment, (No. 3) was, I believe, taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, when he talked about the difficulties that police officers faced when vague, ill-defined powers had to be exercised by the humblest officer. What this amendment seeks to do is exactly what Clause 4 seeks to do in other contexts; that is, to bring under a system of legal control the power to impose a road block, which is an interference with liberty. Is that not better than to leave it vague for every junior officer to interpret as and when he wants?
3.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 150.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Barnett, L.

Mais, L.

Beswick, L.

Melchett, L.

Birk, B.

Milford, L.

Blease, L.

Mishcon, L.

Blyton, L.

Mulley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Nicol, B.

Bottomley, L.

Oram, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Buckmaster, V.

[Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Collison, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ross of Marnock, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Serota, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Simon, V.

Ennals, L.

Stallard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stedman, B.

Ezra, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Falkland, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stone, L.

Gifford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strauss, L.

Gormley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gosford, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Grimond, L.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hemingford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hunt, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kaldor, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Kilmarnock, L.

E.

Kirkhill, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cathcart, E.

Allerton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Alport, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cockfield, L.

Annan, L.

Coleraine, L.

Avon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bellwin, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Berkeley, B.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Craigavon, V.

Blake, L.

Daventry, V.

Boardman, L.

Davidson, V.

Bolton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

De La Warr, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Denning, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Eccles, V.

174

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Munster, E.

Faithfull, B.

Northchurch, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Glanusk, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gormanston, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Plant, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Portland, D.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reilly, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Renton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Renwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rochdale, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rugby, L.

Hayter, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hill of Luton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Savile, L.

Hood, V.

Seebohm, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selkirk, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharples, B.

Ilchester, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Ingrow, L.

Spens, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Kilmany, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stokes, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathspey, L.

Kitchener, E.

Suffield, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Long, V.

Tonypandy, V.

Lothian, M.

Tranmire, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Trumpington, B.

McFadzean, L.

Tryon, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Westbury, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Whitelaw, V.

Avon, L.

Windlesham, L.

Middleton, L.

Wynford, L.

Milverton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Minto, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("was") and insert ("were").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I will, with your Lordships' leave, also speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10:
Amendment No. 5: Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("that") to ("the") in line 3.
Amendment No. 6: Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("in") to end of line 5 and insert ("the area in which vehicles would be stopped if the road check were authorised during the period of the road check").
Amendment No. 7: Page 7, line 8, leave out from first ("in") to end of line 9 and insert ("that area").
Amendment No. 10:Page 7, line 35, at end insert ("or").
The main purpose of this group of amendments is to remove the expression "pattern of crime" from Clause 4(4)(c). We had a full debate on this in Committee. I then sought to explain that this expression had a

175
respectable parentage in the Royal Commission's report, and was intended to do no more than make it clear that when the police set up a road check, in order to prevent the commission of a serious offence, they might necessarily have no more to go on than a pattern of crime in the area from which to extrapolate. But it was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others that the very expression itself was offensive, and capable of misunderstanding.
Since then we have reflected carefully on what was said in the debate, and concluded that there is no need to keep this expression in the Bill. Under Clause 4, as altered by these amendments, it will still be possible for a senior officer to authorise a road check in order to arrest someone intending to commit serious crime, and provided that he has the reasonable grounds for his action required by the clause, I do not think that it is necessary to specify the factors to which he should have regard in reaching his decision. This will remove from Brighton and other places a cloud which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, saw hovering overhead. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the light in this Bill and in your Lordships' House is certainly less cloudy than it was before the noble Lord moved his amendment, which I happily accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are, as I said, all consequential, and I beg leave to move them en bloc.
On Question. amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 10:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also is consequential upon Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Statutory undertakers etc.]:
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("through a designated exit").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 6(1) as drafted gives constables employed by statutory undertakers—for example, the Port of London police—powers to search vehicles leaving goods areas through a designated exit. In Committee my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton asked. with their customary astuteness, why it was necessary to limit this power to vehicles leaving through a designated exit: why not just vehicles leaving in any way?
My noble friends were of course quite right. There
176
is indeed no need to require port and docks authorities to go through a complicated procedure of designating all or certain exits from their premises. All that matters, as my noble friend said, is that their own "private" police forces are able to check that vehicles leaving goods areas have on them the goods that they are supposed to have and not any other goods. These amendments simplify the Bill, and I beg to move them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend very much for the attention she has paid to the representations made at an earlier stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have only one point to make—possibly because I hope for a different attitude from the noble Lord the Minister, courteous though it always is in relation to the various amendments. When this amendment was moved on the last occasion, when many of us wondered why it was necessary to have a designated exit and the other exit, there was a very lengthy argument from the Front Bench opposite as to why we were completely wrong and confused in our argument and how perfect the situation would be if the Bill remained unamended in this respect. All of us favour the transgressor who is converted to another view, but may we at least hope that when we put sensible arguments they will receive sensible replies?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have before us an amendment which erases the word "designated". This is good. However, if a constable employed by a statutory undertaker sees somebody who has committed a crime leaving, say, a marshalling yard, he can, if necessary, pursue the man if he cannot catch the person who has committed the crime before he leaves the premises. What will happen if a vehicle leaves by any exit, designated or otherwise, and is seen by a constable to be leaving the area? Can the constable pursue that vehicle, or will it be lost?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, that is a slightly different question. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, one does one's best with the ammunition with which one is provided. Whether it was short or long—I apologise if it was lengthy—I did my best. As I have already said, we have since recognised the astuteness of those on this side of the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I make a humble suggestion: that it would sometimes be better if Ministers would chew the ammunition before firing it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, anybody would think that we had not given in.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not the difficulty that we have not got time to make speeches shorter?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, leave out lines 4 and 5.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search of premises]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 14 is agreed to. I cannot call Amendment No. 15.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 4, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) A constable may for the purposes of criminal investigation obtain access to material which is likely to be relevant evidence, other than material which consists of items subject to legal privilege, by making an application under Schedule I below and in accordance with that Schedule.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14, which I beg to move, relates to Clause 8 of the Bill which, as your Lordships know, provides for powers of entry. Those powers of entry into the homes and premises of the citizen are a very serious invasion of privacy and need to be most specifically and clearly expressed, stated and justified. if they are to be included in the Bill. On the last occasion we had the benefit of the ringing words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in support of these amendments. Amendment No. 14 proposes that the exercise of these powers shall be subject to authority to exercise them from a circuit judge. The matter was considered with care by the Royal Commission, after it had heard no doubt considerable evidence on the matter, The Royal Commission said:
"A compulsory power of search for evidence"—
what we are discussing is the search for evidence—
"should be available only as a last resort. It should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in respect only of grave offences. The seriousness of the intrusion could also be marked by making the issuing authority a circuit judge".
That was the significance of requiring the authority of the circuit judge to be given before the power to search for evidence could be put into effect.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 seek to achieve the same purpose.
Amendment No. 15: Page 10, line 4, leave out ("justice of the peace") and insert ("circuit judge").
Amendment No. 15 is perhaps clearer and simpler. In effect, Amendment No. 15 seeks to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The special provisions for searches under Part II of the Bill are carefully drafted to ensure that they apply only within the conditions and circumstances which are defined and set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Where the special procedure applies, notice must be given, for instance, to the person who is the owner or occupier of the premises before entry can take place.
Under Clause 8 as it now stands, the application to enter premises to search for what may be the most intimate material is to be made not to a circuit judge but to a justice of the peace. That is how the Bill stands at the moment. It is not an application that has to be made in open court; it can be made privately by a police officer to a magistrate. There is no appeal from the decision of the magistrate in those circumstances.
I am second to none in acknowledgement of the great debt we owe to the magistracy. They cope with about 96 per cent. of the criminal cases that come before the country. But we are dealing here with an important power, an important intrusion on private
178
liberty, and in our view for that to be dealt with in the privacy of an interview between a police officer and a justice of the peace—however able and experienced the justice of the peace may be—is not an appropriate tribunal for deciding the grave and important matters which are involved in Clause 8 of the Bill; namely, basically whether private premises should be searched under the provisions of the clause.
The matters which arise for consideration, by whoever it may be who has to decide whether to grant the authority—whether, as I propose it should be, a circuit judge, or a magistrate—are difficult. They are set out in the provisions of the clause itself. First, the justice of the peace would have to he satisfied,
"that a serious arrestable offence has been committed".
That in itself creates some problems of identification, classification, and involves serious matters of law. Secondly, the authorising person must be satisfied,
"that there is material on premises specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value … to the investigation of the offence."
Again, that is not a simple task. Thirdly, the authorising individual must be satisfied that the matter is likely to be relevant evidence, we get embroiled in problems of admissibility of evidence. Then he must see,
"that it does not consist of items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material,"
all rather technical and not easy matters which the judge or magistrate has to adjudicate. including the meaning of "items subject to legal privilege" and other matters. Quite apart from the desirability of the matter being dealt with in open court in view of its importance and significance, it is appropriate that difficult problems of law of the kind that are liable to arise should be decided by a circuit judge and that that should be a condition for the granting of these powers.
Along with the amendments which I move, there are associated together Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 20, 31, 173 to 177.
Amendment No. 17: Page 10, line 36, after ("section") insert ("and Schedule 1 below").
Amendment No. 18: Clause 9, page 10, line 38, leave out subsection (1).
Amendment No. 20: Page 11, line 7, leave out from ("material") to end of paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 31: Clause 14, leave out Clause 14.
Amendment No. 173: Schedule 1, page 104, line 11, leave out ("special procedure").
Amendment No. 174: Page 104, line 13, leave out ("special procedure").
Amendment No. 175: Page 104, line 17, leave out ("special procedure")
Amendment No. 176: Page 104, line 18, at end insert—
(" (v) that it does not consist of items subject to legal privilege or excluded material").
Amendment No. 177: Page 104, line 32, leave out ("or special procedure material").
I venture to think all these—Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 and those which I have just read—are linked together giving rise to the same point. In the circumstances, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Lord Denning: My Lords, on the Committee stage this House was very narrowly divided. May I say that once again I would support the amendment as proposed. Distinction was drawn on behalf of the Government between a magistrate and a circuit judge, and it was said that a magistrate should be entrusted

179
not only with his present powers of issuing search warrants, but also these new extended powers for searching for evidence. Let me say that the Royal Commission considered the broad range of the present magistrates' powers. They have very wide powers. They have exercised them exceedingly well over the centuries.
"The existing powers are mainly confined to entry and search for items which it is an offence knowingly to possess for example, stolen goods, drugs, firearms and explosives. We reaffirm the principle of the present law that such powers are justified and should be retained."
That is the present position which the magistrates operate exceedingly well. No one has any complaint of them. But then the Royal Commission went on to the next stage—not for those articles like drugs and stolen goods—but for evidence consisting often of papers. Blackmail notes are mentioned. They also go on to say, "personal diaries or papers, business records." or other sorts of innocent information. By these clauses the police are entitled, if they get a search warrant, to go and search for papers.
I need hardly refer you to John Wilkes and the general warrant case. The Secretary of State issued his general warrant to search the house of John Wilkes and to see all his personal papers. They took them off in sacks, and his pocket hooks filled the mouth of the sack. The judges held that that was quite unlawful; the Secretary of State had no power to issue a general warrant or a warrant of that kind.
Then there is the recent Rossminster case where the tax authorities had authority to search for papers indicating a tax fraud. Seventy of them went in in a military style operation at seven in the morning—all in their bowler hats—and seized tonnes of papers; 13 vanloads of papers. They took them off for the Inland Revenue to examine. I am glad to say that the Court of Appeal held that that was unlawful. The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. But they were wrong, as was proved by the fact that, after all their searchings, they did not prosecute those people concerned for any criminal offence—which shows that the court of Appeal were right after all.
I look upon those cases and cite them to your Lordships for this purpose, that that is the sort of evidence which we are considering in these clauses. That is the sort of evidence for which a search warrant is to be required. By whom should it be done? Not by magistrates, as good and as splendid as they are. Warrants of this kind to search for evidence need the careful consideration by at least a circuit judge. If I may say so, this what is the Royal Commission themselves said. They said,
"A compulsory power of search for evidence should be available only as a last resort. It should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in respect only of grave offences. The seriousness of the intrusion could also be marked by making the issuing authority a circuit judge."
That is what this amendment suggests, following the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
Let me go on to say that supposing it went before a magistrate, what problems he would have to face. A circuit judge has enough. If it goes before a circuit judge, he has to see whether it is a serious arrestable offence, that—and this is the important point—it does not consist of items subject to legal privilege, excluded
180
material or special procedure material, and so on. It needs a lawyer—and a good one too if I may say so—to go through all those exceptions to see whether they apply or not or whether the search warrant should be applied. In the Rossminster case the legislature itself said that it had to go to a circuit judge. It went to the Common Serjeant. That is a precedent in the case of tax fraud. That matter had to go to a circuit judge. So it is here. The only proper safeguard to ensure that the search warrant for evidence is not abused is that the application should go, as these amendments suggest, to a circuit judge and not be left to a magistrate.
Good as magistrates are in other respects, they should not be used in the search for evidence. If your Lordships will only accept these amendments. you will do a lot of good to this Bill; you will be able to cut out two whole pages. If the special procedure will apply to this search for evidence, your Lordships will be able to miss out two whole pages. So this time, please vote in favour of the circuit judge.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I find the arguments of the noble and learned Lord even more unanswerable when I agree with them than I do when, as sometimes occurs, I do not aggree with them. His arguments this afternoon have been entirely unanswerable and reinforce everything that was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope, as the result of the Division was so very close last time, that the noble Lord who is to reply will also find the arguments unanswerable and will have the grace to accept the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I, too, wish to support this amendment as it is linked with Amendment No. 18, which seeks to leave out Clause 9(1)—because this might induce my noble friend the Minister to take another look at the first schedule, which is brought into play by Clause 9(1). The drafting of Schedule 1, linked as it is with this amendment, is abstruse to the degree of virtual unintelligibility. It is all very well to rise to one's feet in your Lordships' House and say a thing like that, but perhaps I may give one example and seek to make it stick.
Take for example this test; the application for access under the special procedure under Schedule 1 in relation to journalistic material, as defined by Clause 13. If one examines this aspect, one finds that such material falls into two categories. First, if the material is held in confidence within the meaning of Clause 11(1)(c), it is called excluded material. The second category is without the element of confidence, and this is called special procedure material as defined by Clause 14(1)(b). Yet under the second set of access conditions in Schedule 1, imported by Clause 9(1), no distinction whatever is drawn between these two categories, notwithstanding the distinction of confidentiality.
Indeed, by virtue of Clause 8(1)(d)—this is the linkage—a warrant must not be issued if there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is journalistic material on the premises which falls into either category. But paragraph 3(c) of the second set of access conditions predicates that,
"the issue of such a warrant would have been appropriate".
So one reverts to the unintelligible and impracticable situation in which one must ask, if the issue of a

181
warrant to search under Clause 8 would not have been made if there were reasonable grounds for believing the journalistic material was on the premises, how then can the circuit judge order access to such material on the basis that,
"the issue of such a warrant would have been appropriate"?
As to the first set of access conditions, these do not apply to excluded journalistic material held in confidence but only to the special procedure type not held in confidence. It is not understood and it is not explicable why the material held in confidence should no be accorded the same—indeed, greater—protection than that afforded to material not held in confidence. It is not understood why reasonable grounds for believing,
"that a serious arrestable offence has been committed",
under paragraph 2(a)(i) of the first set of access provisions should only obtain as regards that category of journalistic material which is not held in confidence.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said. it needs a good lawyer—and certainly a better one than I shall ever become—to unravel the mysteries of this position. If I have got it wrong, and I may well have done so, then I invite my noble friend the Minister to put me right with the courtesy and care that he always exhibits. I have not raised this point as a kind of red herring to embarrass the Government. I have raised it only in a constructive spirit, because I personally am unable to understand the meaning of Schedule 1.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, got onto this in another way with Amendments Nos. 173 to 177, which I believe came in today. Clause 9(l) is the master clause which invokes the first schedule—it is entitled "Special Procedure"—and, unless amended by the noble and learned Lord's series of amendments, Amendments Nos. 173 to 176, that clause will relate not only to special procedure material but also to excluded material.
It is of course appreciated that if Amendment No. 61 had been accepted by my noble friend the Minister in Committee, in accordance with the consensus of opinion of your Lordships, to excise the exclusion of journalistic material, this particular example would not have arisen. But he did not do so and therefore we are stuck with this. Your Lordships will, no doubt, think of other difficulties and other examples besides the one I have taken. My support for the amendment of the noble and learned Lord is most sincere. It is given in the true desire that Her Majesty's Government should face up to the interpretative difficulties and the impracticability of operating the first schedule and perhaps think again.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies I feel that I must comment, although I am sure that my shoulders should be weighed down with all the learned comments we have heard from those who are learned in the law in this House. As noble Lords will know, I am not learned in the law but I have been a magistrate for a very long time. That is why I feel that we should leave this Bill as it is.
182
Nobody has mentioned the question of time today. It has been my experience that an officer will come into my court quite late in the sitting—perhaps at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock, when we are nearing the end of a sitting. He will state that he has some evidence and would like the magistrates' authorisation to search a house. It is obvious to me from what the officer then says that time is of the essence. I have yet to know that there are as many circuit judges—or as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, mentioned, circuit recorders (who are not mentioned in the amendment)—as there are magistrates. Perhaps one cannot find a magistrate in every road or every street but there are many magistrates within a borough. They are specially appointed by the Lord Chancellor for that reason, and there are many magistrates who, in and out of court, would be only too willing to hear. I suggest that, if it is out of court, it could be with the aid of their learned clerk if it is a particularly difficult decision that is brought before them. In the course of very many years of decision-making, it has never been beyond the possibilities of even my small brain, compared with other noble Lords who have spoken with their wisdom, to be able to decide whether it is right to search premises. But, purely on the question of time and availability, I think it would be right to stay with the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to comment briefly. I had not intended to do so but in view of the previous contribution I feel, as a magistrate, that I must speak. The situation as described by my noble friend is perfectly all right if one is asked for an order while sitting in court and expert advice is available. However, frequently this sort of request is made at home, at night, when it can be extremely difficult. Certainly I would not find that I could satisfy myself on all the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, put forward. It is after hours when the expert advice is not available that the problem arises. For that reason I must say that I am very much swayed by the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, as a magistrate I feel exactly the same but for reasons opposite to those the noble Baroness gave. Very often a police officer will approach one in court at the end of the day when one is rushing off to another appointment and not giving the request due consideration. One is willing to sign just to get out of the place. It is wrong to do it in that particular way. In the same way, if one is approached in one's own home to sign something one does not have the benefit of the learned clerk to explain everything. One should not sign in that way. It is wrong and, therefore, I support the amendment on that ground alone.
Lord Ingrow: My Lords, I disagree very strongly, if I may, with the last remarks. I have never yet left a court signing quickly, against my duty, to get out of the place. I hope that magistrates never do. Very few magistrates will be found to agree that all circuit judges on every occasion are superior in their judgment and wisdom. High Court judges, yes, but not circuit judges, with whom they deal fairly closely.

183
If in fact magistrates can be trusted with these matters, albeit with legal advice—and we can always contact a clerk if we have any problems out of hours—it may well be that if they take a decision on a sensitive issue of this nature it is better that it is done by an ordinary person rather than a lawyer. It is not automatically in favour of the individual that decisions of this nature should be taken only by lawyers.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I address myself first to what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway assures me is not a red herring but is a blue one? The effect of the amendment is to throw all the cases we are looking at into the Schedule 1 procedure. Therefore, as he finds that procedure incomprehensible I must, with great respect, point out to him the irony of the situation that he wishes to put everything into that schedule.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept the irony and I am grateful to my noble friend. I realise that, but it was the linkage between this and Amendment No. 18, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones spoke, that drove me to support this amendment. The whole thing is in such a muddle that I am asking the Government to look at it again, but I am aware of the contradiction.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I am glad that he was able to set the record straight on that score. No doubt when he reflects on this debate, and reads it, he will take into account the fact that the distinction between excluded and special procedure material arises only in the case of powers newly conferred by the Bill. When that information is tagged in to everything else, it becomes somewhat simpler.
I do not want to spend too long on this because we had a very full debate on the matter in Committee on precisely the same group of amendments. I am always at pains to advise my noble friends not to ask your Lordships' opinion twice on the same issue on the ground that it may try the patience of the House and virtually double the length of time of your Lordships' proceedings if it becomes a common practice. I shall try, therefore, not to repeat at length the arguments which your Lordships have already heard and, I may add, accepted.
The amendments that noble Lords are serving up again provide, in one way or another, that applications under Clause 8 are heard by circuit judges rather than by magistrates. Amendment No. 15 would simply substitute a circuit judge for a magistrate in Clause 8, but leave the procedure in other respects unaltered. The other amendments would not only raise the judicial level in this way but also apply the Schedule 1 procedure to all applications under Clause 8.
This was, of course, the recommendation made by the Royal Commission in paragraph 42 of Chapter 3 of its report. That I readily acknowledge. Indeed, we agree that a hearing at judicial level, resulting, if successful, in an order to produce, is necessary in the case of material held on a confidential basis because of the proposed interference with contractual or ethical
184
obligations. But what we do not believe is that this is the case where considerations of confidentiality and, hence, of public policy, do not arise.
Two claims, in sum, have been advanced for raising the level of authority required from magistrate to circuit judge. The first is that the power to search for evidence of serious crime, as opposed to unlawful articles, is novel and marks a radical extension of police powers, and is difficult to understand. The second is that Clause 8 applications will raise matters which are too difficult for magistrates to deal with.
Parliament has entrusted the power to grant search warrants to magistrates for over 100 years. Magistrates can issue warrants to seize not only a wide range of unlawful articles but also evidence of a wide range of offences. I am sorry to differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I never do so without trepidation. But, if your Lordships will look at Appendix 5 to the Royal Commission's Law and Procedure volume, to which I think the noble and learned Lord referred, you will find a fair number of search warrant provisions that cover evidence of offences. They include the Gaming Act 1968; the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963; the Biological Weapons Act 1974: the Companies Act 1967; and the Criminal Damage Act 1971. I could go on, but I think I have said enough to show that this is not a new departure in the statute book.
I took the example of the Committee stage of the Gaming Act and I merely remind your Lordships that, as I said then, the effect of these amendments would be that a magistrate who can now issue a warrant under that Act to search a casino for evidence of gaming irregularities could not issue a warrant to search the same premises for evidence of arson to a rival establishment. How oddly your Lordships judge the capacity of our magistrates if you think that they are capable of the one and incapable of the other.
Nor is there anything in the claim that Clause 8 is different from previous powers in that it allows the police to search the premises of someone innocent of any involvement in crime. In the first place, existing powers are not all restricted to suspected offenders. For example, Section 6 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 empowers a magistrate to issue a search warrant in respect of anything which has been used to cause criminal damage, whether or not the person who has it in his possession at the time knows that it has been so used. In the second place, Clause 8 is cast in terms which will, in practice, preclude its use against the innocent and law-abiding citizen. For the conditions in subsection (2) to be satisfied, the person thought to be holding the evidence sought must be either more or less directly involved in serious crime or determined to obstruct the course of the investigation. If one contemplates the possibility that a person may be in possession of evidence of rape in the form of bloodstained clothing which he is unwilling to give up to the police, one has to ask how he came to have it and what he is doing with it. In this kind of case, leaving dry-cleaning firms on one side, it is clear that one is talking about either someone himself suspected of serious crime or a relative who is protecting him.
Therefore, Clause 8 is not a radical departure from existing law. It simply fills gaps in what we already

185
have. The reasons that the commission gave for proposing judicial authority related to the existence of confidential relationships which are, of course, outside the scope of this clause.
The second group of reasons suggested for requiring applications to go to judges is the alleged complexity of the legal issues involved. With respect, I suggest that these difficulties have been exaggerated and do not do justice to the ability of magistrates and the justices' clerks who advise them. lithe police want to search for clean clothing stolen from a haberdasher's, those are prohibited articles, and noble Lords opposite are content for the magistrate to issue the warrant; but if the clothes are bloodstained then they constitute evidence and noble Lords expect the magistrate to be baffled, and require the murder squad to apply not to a local magistrate but to some distant and overburdened judge. I find that an odd way of dividing the work between the two levels of the judiciary.
Of course, if what the police want to seize is documentary evidence held in confidence by a third party, it is right and proper that they should go for a production order to a judge, and Schedule 1 already so provides. The Magistrates' Association has not told us that its members are incapable of dealing with the clause, and the Justices' Clerks Society, too, believes that Clause 8 is pitched at the right level, given the accessibility (as my noble friend Lord Ingrow has said) of their members' advice.
Finally, I reminded your Lordships at the Committee stage of this Bill that:
"The arguments against these amendments"—
which your Lordships looked at in precisely the same detail a few weeks ago—
"were aptly and cogently summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon",
in one of his better speeches—and all his speeches are remarkably good—
"when we considered a similar amendment during Committee stage on the Video Recordings Bill".
The noble Lord then pointed out that the right of search would be useless if it was long postponed. But that is the only reference to timing which my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve will be able to find on the record. The noble Lord said that normally action is of most value—sometimes it is of value only—if it follows swiftly on the crime.
"While it may and should be perfectly easy to find a magistrate to hear an application, it may not be very easy to find a circuit judge as a matter of urgency".
I agreed with the noble Lord then, as did your Lordships. Nothing has since changed but the context in which his opinion is asked.
"The noble Lord then pointed out that Parliament was either right or wrong to give a magistrate the right not only to convict of quite serious offences but also to send citizens to prison. As the noble Lord said, if Parliament was right about that, then is not a magistrate able to be trusted to make a decision about the question of search of premises? The noble Lord considered that it was right in the case of video recordings".—[Official Report, 2/7/84; col 74.]
I agreed with him and your Lordships agreed with him then. Nothing has altered since then except the context in which his opinion is sought.
These are powerful arguments which apply to this Bill far more strongly than they did to the Video Recordings Bill. Here we are dealing with evidence of
186
serious crime. Your Lordships have now heard my arguments twice, no doubt you will soon again be asked to pass your judgment on them. When you do, I hope that you will not accept these amendments. which are based upon a mistaken belief that the Bill makes new invasions of privacy and upon a misplaced and an ungenerous estimate of the ability of our justices of the peace. I hope that your Lordships will again reject these amendments. and perhaps with a slightly larger margin to add conviction.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I hope that nothing of the kind will occur. I am bound to say that I find it disappointing that the Government are adamant on an issue where last time they succeeded by only one vote and where this time it may well be turned the other way. I hope that it will.
We have traversed this ground pretty thoroughly. What we are concerned with here is the provision of new powers to search premises for evidence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said:
"It is a search not for offending documents or prohibited goods"—
that is to be the object of the use of this power—
"but for evidence. It will often be, I am afraid, a search of documents and papers to see whether there is any incriminating stuff there; or, on the other hand, whether there is any excluding material".—[Official Report, 2/7/84; col 70.]
The Royal Commission examined that aspect with great care and came round quite firmly to the view that this is a serious power which ought to be entrusted to a circuit judge.
It is my recollection when I held a certain office that a large number of circuit judges were being appointed. There is a large number of them in existence. I should have thought that such problems as delay might give rise to would be far less serious than the problems of a magistrate at night being asked to adjudicate on issues worthy indeed by their complexity of treatment by a circuit judge, as one of the noble Baronesses pointed out.
I hope that now the order will be reversed and that my amendment will be carried by more than one vote to put the matter beyond a peradventure.
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 131.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Bottomley, L.

Amherst, E.

Brooks of Temorfa, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Attlee, E.

Clancarty, E.

Auckland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aylestone, L.

Collison, L.

Banks, L.

David, B.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denington, B.

Beswick, L.

Denning, L.

Birk, B.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blyton, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

187

Energlyn, L.

Monson, L.

Ennals, L.

Mulley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Munster, E.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Northfield, L.

Fitt, L.

Oram, L.

Foot, L.

Peart, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

George-Brown, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gifford, L.

[Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gosford, E.

Raglan, L.

Gregson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Grimond, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hall, V.

Rugby, L.

Hampton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hayter, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hemingford, L.

Serota, B.

Hill of Luton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Spens, L.

Hunt, L.

Stallard, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stamp, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

[Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Stone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strauss, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McNair, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mar, C.

White, B.

Merrivale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Milford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Minto, E.

E.

Mishcon, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Molloy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Allerton, L.

Eccles, V.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Avon, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bellwin, L.

Elton, L.

Beloff, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Belstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Blake, L.

Glanusk, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Boardman, L.

Gormanston, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gowrie, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Caithness, E.

Greenway, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marylebone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Halsbury, E.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hives, L.

Coleraine, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hood, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cox, B.

Ilchester, E.

Daventry, V.

Inglewood, L.

Davidson, V.

Ingrow, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

188

Kilmany, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Reay, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Reilly, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

Renwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rochdale, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

McFadzean, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

Mancroft, L.

Sandford, L.

Margadale, L.

Savile, L.

Marley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Sharples, B.

Avon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Middleton, L.

Soames, L.

Milverton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Stokes, L.

Morris, L.

Strathcarrron, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Suffield, L.

Moyne, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Terrington, L.

Norfolk, D.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trenchard, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Trumpington, B.

Onslow, E.

Tryon, L.

Orkney, E.

Ullswater, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vivian, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Westbury, L.

Plant, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Wynford, L.

L.

Yarborough, E.

Portland, D.

Young, B.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Rate Support Grant
4.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance for 1985–86. It contains my proposals for the rate support grant settlement in England and my decisions on selective rate limitation under the Rates Act 1984.
"I am today issuing to local authorities proposals for the main features of the RSG settlement for next year. Copies of the material sent to them are in the Libraries and the Vote Office. This early announcement should give authorities plenty of time to budget sensibly in 1985–86. It is the first time that I have been able to set out so much of the framework of the settlement so early in the year. I hope this is welcomed. It is also the first time that the Rates Act provisions for constraining the rates—and hence the expenditure—of high spending authorities have been available to the Government. They have strongly affected the overall shape of the settlement.
"This year's budgets show a continuing real terms increase in the level of local authority current expenditure. The Government remain committed

189
to the constraint of public expenditure. This is essential if we are to put the economy on to a sound footing for the longer term. We must continue to seek economies.
"For 1985–86, for the first time, the Rates Act enables me to start curbing the worst excesses of the highest spenders. Until now, even the lowest spenders have had to be asked to make significant savings because of the irresponsible behaviour of the minority of high spenders. The Rates Act makes it possible for me to begin to change that. As I promised at last year's settlement, it gives me the scope—within the overall continuing need for restraint—to see fairer targets for low spenders. At the same time, the Government are determined to ensure that these realistic targets are not overspent, and the holdback proposals reflect that determination.
"First, rate limitation. The new powers given me by the Rates Act enable me to set rate limits for the worst overspenders and thus protect their ratepayers. I am today laying before the House a report describing the basis of selection of authorities for rate limitation. I will select for rate capping those authorities spending more than £10 million, whose budgets for the current year are more than 4 per cent. above their targets, and more than 20 per cent. above their grant related expenditure assessment. On the basis of these criteria the following 18 authorities are designated: Basildon, Brent, Camden, GLC, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, ILEA, Islington, Lambeth, Leicester, Lewisham, Merseyside, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southwark, South Yorkshire, and Thamesdown.
"I am setting expenditure levels for these authorities which will form the basis of their rate limits. In most cases they will have to contain their expenditure at the same level in cash terms as their budget for 1984–85. In the case of the three authorities which are budgeting to spend more than 70 per cent. above GRE this year and which have increased their budgets by more than 30 per cent. since 1981–82 I am setting expenditure levels 1½ per cent. below their effective 1984–85 budgets. These authorities arc the Greater London Council, the Inner London Education Authority and the London Borough of Greenwich. The 18 designated authorities are being formally notified of their expenditure levels. I shall of course consider any representations which they may wish to make to me asking for a redetermination of their expenditure level.
"This announcement is good news for ratepayers: the 18 highest spending authorities will have their spending levels controlled. Furthermore, as I said during the passage of the Bill, because the Rates Act enables me to control the expenditure of the highest spenders I can set fairer targets for the low spenders, as I promised earlier this year. For the current year, the maximum cash increase over 1983–84 budget is 3 per cent. For the next year I am proposing to allow most low spenders to increase their spending by 4î per cent. over budget this year. On the best estimate of the rate of inflation over the period—the GDP deflator—this should require no further real terms cuts from those authorities. This has only been
190
made possible by the headroom provided by rate limitation. High spenders will have tougher targets but no authority is asked for more than a 1½ per cent. cash reduction on its 1984–85 budget.
"These targets add up to about £21·8 billion, which implies an increase in current expenditure provision in excess of £800 million. This takes account of the setting up of London Regional Transport: on last year's basis the increase would be nearer £900 million. The equivalent increase for 1984–85 was some £500 million. The increase in the 1985–86 provision will be contained within the established aggregate public expenditure plans.
"These targets are therefore realistic, and must not be seen as an invitation to increase spending. For that reason I am proposing a much tougher holdback tariff for the first percentage points of overspend. The tariff will entail reductions in block grant equivalent to 7p at ratepayer level for the first 1 per cent. of overspend, another 8p for the second per cent. overspend and another 9p will be added for each 1 per cent. of spending after that. This is a strong deterrent to overspending. But I think there will be a wide recognition—at least on this side of the House—of the fairness of this proposal, I am proposing reasonable, realistic targets. It is only fair in return to expect that they will be met; and to take a firm line with anyone who sees this as an opportunity to boost spending.
"The effect of these proposals on services provided by local authorities will depend on their ability to use resources efficiently. The Government look to local authorities to do their utmost to contain their pay and other costs and to manage their resources in a way which ensures that the best possible value for money is obtained.
"Finally, aggregate Exchequer grant will be £11·7 billion, about the same amount after adjustments as the corresponding figure for 1984–85. This represents a grant percentage of about 48·8 per cent. for 1985–86, compared with 51.9 per cent. this year. This continues the trend we have set over recent years of shifting the burden of local authority expenditure away from the taxpayer and towards the ratepayer, thereby increasing local authorities' accountability to the local electorate.
"I am now consulting local government on my proposals for targets, holdback and aggregate Exchequer grant before presenting a rate support grant settlement to Parliament at the end of the year. Consultation on grant distribution will take place in the autumn.
"The Government remain determined to restrain the level of current expenditure of local government. We are now seeing the benefits of the Rates Act. Because it allows us at last to get to grips with the excesses of the highest spenders, responsible low spending authorities will no longer have to carry the can for them. As I promised, I am proposing fairer targets for them. My proposals mean that if authorities spend within their targets—and the capped authorities will have to stay below their spending levels—the average rate increase in England should be lower than this year's average increase. This will be welcomed by hard pressed

191
ratepayers everywhere. I commend my proposals to the House."
That, my Lords, completes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. This is a landmark in the history of local government. It is the first time in 380 years of rating history that a Secretary of State has possessed powers of this kind. This marks the beginning of a disastrous future for the hit list authorities, and it will inevitably mean a cut in essential services. Is the Minister aware that four of those authorities—namely, Haringey, Thamesdown, Sheffield, and Portsmouth—have increased their expenditure by less than the average of all local authorities? Why are they included when the City of London is spending at 247 per cent. above its grant-related expenditure and is by far the biggest overspender?
We must not be lulled into thinking that the expenditure limits which have been imposed for 1985–86 are reasonable, possible, or, indeed, realistic, as the Statement says. But, alas, worse is yet to come. Is the Minister aware that there is an 11 per cent. gap between what local authorities need to spend in 1986–87 and the Government's public expenditure provision? Will the Government be closing this gap by increased public expenditure provision? If not, those on the hit list will become permanent founder members of an ever-increasing hit list, starting with those who just missed it this year; authorities such as, for example, Tower Hamlets and Newcastle, to name but two.
The Government have said that rate capping is essentially to protect the ratepayers, but the Statement itself says:
"This continues the trend we have set over recent years of shifting the burden of local authority expenditure away from the taxpayer and towards the ratepayer, thereby increasing local authorities' accountability to the local electorate".
This seems rather odd coming from a Government one of whose not so distant manifestos contained the abolition of the domestic rating system in one Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What about that manifesto commitment?
Baroness Birk: Is the Minister also aware that any reductions in rates will largely be achieved at the expense of the Exchequer and therefore the ratepayers because of the manipulation of targets and penalties? This Statement goes far beyond the immediate rate capping. The Government are imposing a 4½ per cent. cut in local services which will be enforced by an unprecedentedly harsh penalty regime, starting at 7 per cent. for the first per cent. of overspend—an enormous increase on the present position—with 8 per cent. for the second, and then 9 per cent for each per cent. after that. However, rate capping will still be totally unable to provide this level of cuts. Therefore, today's Statement cannot be taken as being aimed solely at the 18 hit list authorities; it cuts deeply into all local government.
192
The Statement says:
"The Government look to local authorities to do their utmost to contain their pay and other costs and to manage their resources in a way which ensures that the best possible value for money is obtained".
Nothing is wrong with that sentence. but it does not tie up with the Statement overall. The Statement indicates a further recipe for the conflict between local and central government which, unfortunately, adds to the increasing store of resentment, strongly felt by elected local authorities, and this can be only harmful to good government.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for reading the Statement made in another place. I should also like to say "Thank you" for the fact that we have something about the structure of the rate support grant earlier in the year than is usual. But there, I am afraid, my thanks must cease. Is the Minister sure that the named authorities can maintain their services and meet their statutory obligations with the severe cuts that have been imposed? This is a very sad day for local democracy with the arbitrary announcement of a formula that takes no account of the local authorities concerned, of their bad housing, of their high unemployment, of their social deprivation, of their large ethnic populations, and so on.
Authorities cannot realistically make large cuts in one year. We have argued that in earlier local government debates this Session. Have the Government accepted it? If so, does that indicate that the current settlement will still mean that some of the rate-capped councils will be allowed a rate rise higher than that which is needed by many of the uncapped authorities? If local authorities respond to targets this year by spending all their balances and thus need a very much higher rate demand the following year, what will be the Government's attitude or reaction? What will the Government do if the authorities refuse to levy a high enough rate and default on their loan repayments? Will they get a windfall, as Liverpool did?
The rate support grant is now, for the first time, below 50 per cent. This is the seventh percentage reduction we have had in seven years. On these Benches we have argued for less dependence on central government for finance. But this is not the way to do it, in a piecemeal, arbitrary fashion. It should be done only after a proper, in depth review of the future role of local government and of its structure, its functions, its services and its finances, as well as of how, and to what extent, authorities can raise money. In our view, local income tax would be a much more credible method. Local government should be local and should be accountable to the local electors. The central control that they experience today is the negation of such accountability.
In earlier debates the noble Lord promised more generous spending targets for the low spenders such as my county of Cambridgeshire, although, at first sight, it still looks rather like jam tomorrow—next year—and not very much jam today. We shall have to wait and see. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said that the tougher penalties will mean a 7p increase on the rates for the first 1 per cent. of overspend, 8p for the second 1 per cent. and 9p for each 1 per cent. after that.

193
This will mean that the burden is being switched from central taxation to the rates; and it will add to the burden of the domestic ratepayers, as it will also add to the burden of business and commerce alike. Is that really what the Government mean when they talk about helping small businesses? It has been a sad week for local government and local democracy, and today's announcement has solved absolutely nothing. It is merely one more nail in the coffin of real local government and local democracy.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their observations, and I will try to respond to them. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I would say that the City of London is not selected because it does not reach the target criteria set. The whole philosophy is that the criteria must be those which apply to all authorities. If the noble Baroness has any doubt about that, I am quite sure that I would be able satisfactorily to assure her that she is mistaken.
She mentioned the 11 per cent. gap. Of course she was referring there to the local authorities' estimate that a £1·7 billion uplift on the PESC provision is required to continue with present policies. After adjustment for classification changes, and using the GDP deflator rather than the local authorities' own estimates of pay and price increases, the local authority bid of £1·7 billion is actually equivalent to £1·4 billion. In any case, the uplift in excess of £800 million which I have announced today goes more than halfway to meet them. We all know that there is scope for savings, and surely it is not unreasonable to ask local government to try to come the rest of the way to meet us.
The noble Baroness referred to, "permanent founder members of the club"; that was her term. I think she meant those which are designated. There is nothing that the Government would want to see more than that authorities be not within this category of designation—that there be no authorities in it. Certainly it will be very difficult to get out within one year, although it is very much possible. The hope is that authorities will now be able to move in that direction, and we will most certainly do anything that we can to encourage and to help them.
The noble Baroness referred also to, "manipulation of targets and penalties"; again, I quote. "Manipulation" is not a word I would accept. These are criteria which, I say again, are applicable to all authorities and are there to be seen as such. The noble Baroness then said that this adds to the store of resentment. I would say that that applies only to those who, if one likes, become designated. But they really should not be surprised. In every case, they are authorities whose spending is so much higher than that of other authorities that clearly they have known that this was the position and that this was a likelihood.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was concerned about authorities' ability to maintain services and said that the proposals take no account of the problems. This is the old one, if one likes, that we discussed so much when we were in Committee on the Bill. I should have to talk at great length and give illustrations to
194
indicate that this is not so. First of all, GREs take account of the basic problems, the extra problems that authorities have. I should gladly elaborate, if called upon so to do, to illustrate that.
Furthermore, there are like authorities who do manage. What one then has to look at is the cost of provision of services and how some local authorities do so much better than others. We cannot turn away from the fact that this is a great problem, because so many authorities—I am glad to say that it is the majority—do try very hard and, in the main, succeed. But this relates to authorities which do not try hard, which constantly point to the needs and are not so willing to look at the ways. That is why, in the main, they tend to be the ones which are designated today.
The noble Baroness was quite right when she said that one cannot make large cuts in one year. That is precisely why we are not calling for something that is not realisable and realistic. In the main, we are calling for the same cash level, although of course there is inflation. Only in three cases are we calling for a 1½ per cent. reduction. Of course it is not easy, but nevertheless it has to be reasonable, and I think one would say that it is. Indeed, I would suspect that the greatest criticism would come from those who feel that it should have been much more. I say again that we felt it had to be reasonable and capable of attainment. If there are any cases where an authority feels it is not, they must come along and we will talk. I assure the noble Baroness that we shall listen very carefully and look into their circumstances.
The noble Baroness asked what would be the position if authorities used balances and then next year the amount was higher. That is always a possibility, but at the same time they have a clearer indication than they might ever have had as to what are the criteria, and therefore they will know what they have to do. I am confident that, in the main, they will do that. I must put the noble Baroness right on one point. Liverpool did not get a windfall at all. I will gladly send the noble Baroness a copy of the detailed statement, which sets out precisely why that is so. I know that she will read it with great interest.
The noble Baroness referred to tougher penalties. Indeed, they are tougher penalties, and the holdback point does start earlier, and it is severe. But that is because we have been able to make the targets more realistic and capable of achievement. It is really as the corollary to that that the penalties for overspending are so severe. In any case, many local authorities do achieve it. I hope that what I have said answers the questions so far. The noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady Stedman, felt that this Statement was a setback. Frankly, I do not see it that way at all. I see it as a step forward, because now we can have a realism and be fair to all concerned.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I, too, join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement that was made in another place. During the course of the Statement the noble Lord said that later they would be having the usual consultations with the local authorities and their associations. Based on what has been said today, I would suggest that there is very little to consult about, because in this case it appears that the local authorities are faced with a coup d''etat.

195
The noble Lord mentioned the rate support grant. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, touched on this subject, because, if my calculations are correct, since this Government came to office the rate support grant has been reduced by 16 per cent., which by any account is a tremendous amount. I think it was in the middle 60s—60-plus per cent.—at the end of the last Labour Government. According to the figures given today, it is down to less than 49 per cent. That is an indication of the level of the attack on local government.
Noble Lords ought to be aware of what is involved in the punitive measures, The Minister talked about 7 per cent. at ratepayer level for the first 1 per cent. of overspend. I wonder if noble Lords understand that a penny rate in a local authority in England would normally raise about three-quarters of a million pounds. So we are talking of a multiple of seven times three-quarters of a million, if, for instance, Sheffield overspends by 1 per cent. This is supposed to be in the name of democracy. It goes up by another 7p for the second 1 per cent. That would represent approximately £6 million for a city like Sheffield if it went to 2 per cent. over the given targets. The 9p for each further 1 per cent. would be completely punitive. It is hard to believe that anybody could make these proposals.
The Minister must have a batting list. Certain local authorities are already saying that next year they are going to break the law. I want to make it quite clear that that is not the course that I or my party would officially suggest. But I want to make the point that there are statements in the press. I believe that one authority is going to decide tomorrow to give nine months' notice that it will be breaking the law next year when the time comes round. They do not know which law, but they say that it will be one law. So could the Minister indicate where, for instance, Manchester and Leeds figure in his batting list?
Finally, is this not a peculiar way for a democratic society to deal with these matters? Those who will be hit by these measures will not be those who are breaking the law. The councillors who institute budgets far in excess of the Government's 3guidelines or of the limit which the Secretary of State declares will be in violation of the law. It seems a strange way of applying the law that the people who will pay the piper will be completely innocent, and, through their rates, will be called upon to pay the tremendous fines, which will be levied by the Government. I am glad that later in the year we shall have an opportunity to debate the rate support grant; but, in view of what the noble Lord has said today, I do not think that there will be very much about it to debate.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that there would be little need to consult about a coup d'état. I have never heard that any rate support grant settlement was other than what he calls a coup d'état. I remember very well, on behalf of local authorities, discussing with Secretaries of State of another colour and being told exactly what it was to be. Yes, we were allowed to talk and indeed we did, and we tried to influence, although I do not know with what effect—in fact, I do know with what effect. I
196
assure the noble Lord that the intention is to listen and that there is more in this settlement that calls for a greater degree of consultation than in the past, and we intend to listen and to take account of what representations are made. So I am not worried about that.
The noble Lord referred to the rate support grant, but he actually meant the aggregate Exchequer grant reduction. It is quite true that it has been reduced, and he spoke of it as an attack on local government. I do not see it that way at all. He will remember very well when the AEG was reduced from 66 per cent. to 61 per cent. by the Labour Government, because they felt that the level of spending was more than the country could afford, and I am sure it was. When we came to office in 1979 we set down certain forward projections for local government spending. Not only have they not been achieved, but year by year the figure goes on increasing more and more and is now into billions of pounds. We are saying that there must come a point when enough is enough.
No one ever mentions the authorities which are trying so hard to meet their targest and their levels, and the majority do so. They must be protected. That is part of what this particular settlement is all about. The noble Lord was quite right when he spoke about the product of a penny rate. In my own authority and his it is very much more than the figure he mentioned. I think that today the figure is about £1½ million. So the penalty is severe. That is why one tries to set targets higher than before—to make sure that they are realistic and capable of achievement. I am very confident that, as in the past, most authorities will achieve that.
The last point the noble Lord made was about authorities breaking the law. I have more confidence in local government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he be prepared to give us some information on the order of batting of the two authorities that I have mentioned?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, Manchester and Leeds are not among the designated authorities. In view of the legacy which, if I may immodestly say, my own administration left them, I think that Leeds still has some way to go. They are doing their best to catch up and I have little doubt that they will, but those two authorities are not designated authorities. On the point of breaking the law, even the abolition authorities have been concerned not to do so, and I am confident that local government is not in that business. I know that we hear the threats and all the talk, but there is far too much at stake for them in the broader context, and I remain confident that they will not do so.
On the point of the fines, what are high rates but fines on ratepayers? This is not about fines; this is only about asking authorities—and only those authorities which do not heed this advice—not to add a burden to everyone else by overspending beyond their limits.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for this announcement. First, the earlier date which his right honourable friend has chosen will be very welcome, giving as it does greater time for consultation and deliberation on the issues raised by it.

197
It must be right to take a further step in shifting the burden for local services from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, and that move is also welcome. It would, of course, be much better if it were linked with the first instalment of some proposals towards a thorough reform of local government finance, and we look forward to hearing announcements of that kind on future occasions of this sort. I conclude by expressing the hope that a substantial number of the 18 authorities on that list will now bestir themselves so as to get off it, which I am sure many of them can do if they try.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I certainly endorse the last point that he made. I made it myself and it is very much the Government's wish. Indeed, we shall be only too pleased to talk and discuss the matter with them. I also know what he refers to when he speaks about its being part of a broader reform in due course. The Secretary of State has said that nothing is forever, and certainly we shall listen with interest to what is said on that by local authorities.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, when replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that he would gladly send her information to show that Liverpool had not received a windfall following the dialogue, if it can be so called, between the Government and that city. I hope that when he used the word "gladly," he did not really mean that he would gladly demonstrate that Liverpool had not received a windfall, because if there is any city that needs a windfall, it is Liverpool. The amazing thing is, as I said in another debate this week, all these Ministers keep going to Merseyside and Liverpool and keep saying how terrible the situation is there and that it is not the fault of the people of Liverpool. Then, when it comes to a measure such as this, they treat Liverpool exactly like all the others. From what I have read into and seen of the designation principles, they say that Merseyside will be treated in exactly the same way as any other local authority area in the country. Yet the Government have demonstrated over and over again—as did previous governments—that Merseyside is a special case. But we can never reach a situation where, when we talk about this kind of measure, governments treat it seriously and as a special case.
I read in the Daily Telegraph this morning that St. George's Hall, which is acknowledged to be one of the finest tributes to local government in this country, will now be closed because the Liverpool City Council cannot afford the running expenses and still keep within the limits set down by the Government. The right honourable Minister Mr. Patrick Jenkin said that he agrees. When I read the news item this morning I thought that perhaps this was a situation where the whole of Merseyside could have taken responsibility for St. George's Hall, because St. George's Hall is a Merseyside institution. Now that has gone out of the window.
The Government go to Merseyside and set up an International Garden Festival on Merseyside, and they expect Liverpool to take responsibility for it. Liverpool
198
cannot afford to take responsibility for maintaining the International Garden Festival. It should be a Merseyside function, and now that has gone out of the window.
The noble Lord opposite said that these local authorities should try to get off the list. Some of them are going off the list whether they like it or they do not. The noble Lord said that nobody mentions all these other authorities which are keeping within the limit laid down by the Government. Well, people have mentioned them. The situation there is that over countless years local authorities have gone through these problems if they have been talked to rightly, if the correct dialogue has been entered into, and if there is an acceptance there is a collective responsibility in local government to keep within the area laid down by central government.
But what happened in this case? In this case this Government never made any serious attempt to enter into a serious dialogue with the whole of local government so that local government itself could discipline those few members who were breaking the rules. That is the real key. The noble Lord opposite said that that was rubbish. Well the noble Lord opposite who said that that was rubbish should stand up and say it; but he will not, because he knows in his heart of hearts that that is true. That is how it is got over, over and over again.
We hear about the recognition of fairness on this side of the House and what is reasonable. Fairness and reasonableness are coming to mean what the Government think are fairness and reasonableness. I understand that one should only ask questions at this stage of the proceedings, but as nobody else confined himself to questions I do not see why I should not elaborate a little. The noble Lord the Minister said that he was sure that it was good for ratepayers. Let me tell him something: test it. I can tell him from personal knowledge that if he thinks it is good for ratepayers to abolish Merseyside County Council and to rate-cap Merseyside County Council, then he had better go to Merseyside and see if an election is held, because the ratepayers of Merseyside will not agree with him. So far as I am concerned on the issue of Merseyside it is the ratepayers who count, and I believe that their thumbs would go right down to the Government on this issue.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I always listen with great respect to the noble Lord, and I really do not mind at all, so long as nobody else objects, to the noble Lord putting his questions in the way that he does. He knows very well that that will not trouble me one bit. In actual fact when he talked about Liverpool getting a windfall and that I said "gladly", he knows the context in which I said "gladly". It was the context of wanting to give information to the noble Baroness. That is the context in which I used the word.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that if it was not for the existence in Liverpool of some moderate-minded councillors the situation would have been very different indeed? At this moment the Government should be trying to persuade those moderate councillors to stay with local government, and not frighten them away.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do indeed pay tribute to the people to whom the noble Lord refers. I take my hat off to them now, as I have done before. It took a lot of courage for them to do what they did. The noble Lord said that Liverpool needs it, but you cannot differentiate between authorities as such. There are ways in which you can provide additional help, as he knows. Through the urban programme, for example, some £24 million of specific help goes in. If you look at the amount of money provided over the last five years, you are measuring it in hundreds of millions of pounds. The whole of Merseyside had had before this year £650 million.
There is no area in the country which has had such specific grants and assistance of that kind. That is not to say that it was not needed. It would not have been put there if we had not thought that it was needed, but in that it is there do not deny the fact that it is so. Yes, we have to treat Liverpool the same as all others for the generality of grant. And that is what we, shall go on doing.
I cannot comment on the St. George's Hall point because I do not know it. It is the same principle as applies to so much: you can decide that there are many things you cannot afford to do. The local authority will decide its priorities. But before you do that, if you are going to plead that you cannot afford something, then you must be willing to have a look at all the things you think you can afford and decide where the priorities lie, and where is the cost of provision. This is something that I would come back to again and again. The noble Lord and I talk about this, and I know that he agrees with me about it.
As for not being able to afford to maintain the Garden Festival, the decision will be that of the authority at the end of the day. It is quite the most magnificent and fantastic festival, which is bringing people, tourists, to Merseyside and Liverpool. It has brought employment; it is bringing funds. It can do more for Liverpool than most things have done in the past. Everybody who has been there says that. I am sure that the noble Lord agrees with that. As to the cost of maintaining it afterwards, he knows that there are many pluses to be sold off, many lands which will bring in resources and money; so the argument that they will not be able to really does not stand up. But we shall see. Time will tell.
When the noble Lord speaks about dialogue with local government, I do not say it is rubbish at all. I do not use that kind of terminology, anyhow. The noble Lord does not talk rubbish. He knows his subject very thoroughly. and more so than almost anyone I know in this field. But the fact is that there has always been the problem of the correct dialogue with local government, and the noble Lord knows it. He was having problems in his day. I hope that they are now smaller problems. Certainly no government I have ever known and no group of Ministers in my department have been more easily accessible that the present lot. Never, ever. Never in my time, anyhow, in the last 20, 25 years. I hope that that at least answers the noble Lord as best I can.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one brief question on this Statement? He included in his Statement the assertion that this policy
200
was designed to move the financial onus from central government taxation to local government rates, and that those rates should be levied responsibly from an electorate. Can he now answer the question which my noble friend Lady Birk put to him, at least by implication in her first rejoinder: when are the Government, and when are the honourable and right honourable friends of the noble Lord—including the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—who were elected on the mandate to abolish the domestic rating system, going to carry out this mandate?
Secondly, how does this Statement square with the work that the Government have been doing over the last few weeks in abolishing the elections in the GLC and the metropolitan counties, consisting of councillors who are responsible to an electorate for the rates that they levy? Finally, would the noble Lord respond a little more positively to the question put by his noble friend Lord Sandford: when are the Government going to produce the extensive review of local government structure and local government finance—which is all that the metropolitan counties have been asking for—which this Statement demonstrates is way past the time for being conducted?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, two quick answers. On the last point, the Government have no plans for the kind of review that is mentioned. I said in answering my noble friend that this must be something that one day I am sure will come about. I understand that local government are making approaches even now through the associations, and the Government will hear what they have to say. I am personally not unsympathetic to that being done one of these days.. What local government now needs is some stability and to settle down with what they have got; and that stability we intend to provide.
On the noble Lord's first point about the mandate, all I would say to him—and had I not been so tired yesterday, and the hour so late, I would have said it then—is that if he wants a list of all the items in the manifestoes over the years that his party did not live up to, and if he wants to compare it with the fact that my Government, my party, have fulfilled so many of their manifesto commitments, I shall be glad to give it. But that is very wide of the subject of the rate support grant settlement Statement.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, as I understand from a reply to an earlier question that the Government have settled their policy in this area, could the noble Lord give us an indication of what the levels of Exchequer grant, Exchequer contribution, to the rates will be over the next two or three years?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, no, I cannot do that at all. The noble Lord knows, better than—I will not say most, but almost anyone, that this is something which is only settled on an annual basis.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
5.20 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment 15 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) A constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 I should like to speak to a number of other amendments. It is a large group. I hope that when I have described it it will be clear to your Lordships that it is not as fundamental or as formidable as it appears on the Marshalled List. The group comprises, as well as Amendment No. 16, Amendments Nos. 33, 35 to 40 inclusive, 42, 44 to 49 inclusive, 51 and 52, and 178 to 180 inclusive.
Amendment No. 33: Clause 18, page 17, line 9, at end insert—
("(1A) A constable may seize and retain anything for which he may search under subsection (1) above.").
Amendments Nos. 35 to 40: Clause 19, page 18, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Page 18, line 21, leave out ("any article to which this subsection applies") and insert ("anything which is on the premises")
line 27, leave out ("any article to which this subsection applies") and insert ("anything which is on the premises")
line 33, leave out ("to which this subsection applies") and insert ("(which is contained in a computer and is accessible from the premises")
line 35, after ("away") insert ("and in which it is visible and legible")
line 42, at end insert—
("(6A) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any power otherwise conferred.
(6B) No power of seizure conferred on a constable under any enactment (including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act) is to be taken to authorise the seizure of an item which the constable exercising the power has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be subject to legal privilege.").
Amendment No. 42: After Clause 19. insert the following new clause:
("Extension of powers of seizure to computerised information.
.—(1) Every power of seizure which is conferred by an enactment to which this section applies on a constable who has entered premises in the exercise of a power conferred by an enactment shall be construed as including a power to require any information contained in a computer and accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible.
(2) This section applies—

(a) to any enactment contained in an Act passed before this Act;

(b) to sections 8 and 18 above;

(c) to paragraph 12A of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(d) to any enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act.").

Amendments Nos. 44 to 49: Clause 20, page 19, line 11, leave out from ("anything") to first ("the") in line 16 and insert ("which—

(a) has been seized by a constable; and

(b) is retained by the police for the purpose of investigating an offence,

is made to the officer in charge of the investigation by a person who had custody or control of the thing immediately before it was so seized or by someone acting on behalf of such a person").
Page 19, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
line 22, leave out from ("of") to ("immediately") in line 24 and insert ("any such thing is made to the officer in charge of the investigation by a person who had custody or control of the thing").
line 25, leave out from ("person") to end of line 26.
line 32, at end insert—
("(3A) A constable may also photograph or copy, or have photographed or copied, anything which he has power to seize, without a request being made under subsection (3) above.").
line 40, after ("investigation") insert ("for the purposes of which it was seized").
Amendments Nos..51 and 52: Clause 21, page 20, line I, leave out ("an article which has been seized under section 19 above") and insert ("anything which has been seized by a constable or taken away by a constable following a requirement made by virtue of section [Extension of powers of seizure to computerised information] above").
202
Page 20, line 6, leave out ("an article") and insert ("anything seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation").
Amendments Nos. 178 to 180: Schedule 1, page 105, line 4, at end insert ("and in which it is visible and legible").
Page 105, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert—
("6. For the purposes of sections 20 and 21 above material produced in pursuance of an order under paragraph 4(a) above shall be treated as if it were material seized by a constable.").
Page 106, line 7, at end insert—
("12A. A constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under paragraph 12 above.").
All the amendments in this large group flow in one way or another from Clause 19 and in particular from the new subsection (6A) which is proposed in Amendment No. 40. Although they sound formidable they do not represent any change in policy. After careful thought we have come to the conclusion that Clause 19 as drafted does not do what the Notes on Clauses advertise that it does and what we have all along intended that it should do. The summary of the Notes on Clauses starts by saying that:
"Clause 19 makes provision for the seizure of articles in the course of a search. Where the search is under a warrant then the articles specified in the warrant may be seized under the authority of the warrant; but there is no statutory provision governing what may lawfully be seized where the search does not take place under the authority of a warrant or where there is a warrant but other articles constituting the proceeds or evidence of offences are discovered".
That concludes the quotation from the Notes on Clauses.
Clause 19 was intended to place the existing common law governing the seizure of such articles as set out in Garfinkel v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner on a statutory basis. In other words, it was intended to regulate the seizure of adventitious discoveries.
Some of the important provisions in Clause 19, however, are intended to apply to any seizure by the police and not only to adventitious seizure. For example, subsections (2) and (3) prohibit the seizure of items subject to legal privilege. But they were intended to prohibit not just the seizure of such items found in the course of a search for something else; they were intended to ensure that the police could in no circumstances obtain access to such items, whether under the authority of a search warrant or not. Likewise the provisions of Clauses 20 and 21, which set out new safeguards for those from whom property has been seized, should be available in the case where an article named in a warrant has been seized just as much as in the case where it is found adventitiously.
So I have to say that Clause 19 as drafted is a bit of a muddle. The first step in clearing it up is to confine the scope of the clause to what is found adventitiously. This is effected by the new subsection (6A) to which I have already referred, because there is no statutory power for seizure of adventitious finds.
The need for such a clear distinction is exemplified by the case of a warrant under the Theft Act 1968. If we suppose that a Rembrandt has been stolen and the police receive information that it is in the hands of a wealthy collector, they obtain a search warrant under the 1968 Act to seize and recover it. They enter his private gallery and find it. Now it may be that the police have no reason to believe that the collector would destroy or damage it, but they clearly need to be able to seize it under the authority of the warrant, so

203
that it can be returned to the lawful owner. As the Bill stands, however, Clause 19(4) only provides them with the power to seize the picture if they believe, in subsection (a), it has been obtained by criminal means and under subsection (4)(b) if it is necessary to prevent it from being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed. There could be no such risk and they would then lack a power to seize the picture. Clause 19, therefore, cannot be regarded as an umbrella power of seizure which will replace all existing powers.
Once we accept this then all the other amendments can be seen as consequential. I will take them in clause order. The first makes good the deficiency by providing that a warrant under Clause 8 is not just a warrant to enter and search but is also a warrant to seize what is specified in the warrant. Existing search warrant provisions, such as Section 26 of the Theft Act 1968, to which I have already referred, empower the police to enter, search and seize. Clause 8 should clearly follow this pattern. The whole object of the clause is to ensure that the police can obtain evidence of serious crime and once a magistrate has been sufficiently satisfied of the need for this to issue a warrant under Clause 8, then the additional provisions of Clause 19 should not supervene. The magistrate's authority alone should be sufficient to permit the seizure of what he has specified in the warrant.
Exactly the same point arises in relation to a warrant issued by a circuit judge under Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1: hence Amendment No. 180. A similar point also arises in relation to Clause 18. If a person has been arrested for an arrestable offence, such as burglary, and there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of the offence is at his house, then the power to search his house on the authority of an inspector to look for the evidence should include the power to seize it. In practice the conditions in Clause 19(4) and (5) are likely to be amply satisfied in such a case. But even supposing that they are not—let us say that the arrested person lives alone and the proceeds of the burglary will stay in his attic undisturbed by anyone—the police should still, I suggest, as a matter of plain common sense be able to seize them.
Coming now to Clause 19 itself, I ought to say a brief word to explain Amendment No. 39 to subsection (6). Subsection (6) provides for information in a computer to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away. It is, however, undesirable that this requirement should be capable of fulfilment by handing the constable a floppy disc which he might be quite unable to use. Subsection (6) was intended to provide for the information to be produced as a print-out or something like it, and Amendment No. 39 so provides. It follows the precedent of the new subsection (1A) added to Section 8 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 by Section 34 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
The other amendments to Clause 19 are drafting, apart from new subsection (6B) which ensures that no power of seizure. whether under warrant or otherwise, includes the power to seize anything reasonably suspected of being an item subject to legal privilege.
The new clause after Clause 19 is necessary to take account of the clarification of the scope of Clause 19
204
limiting it to adventitious seizure. The clause is necessary to extend provisions equivalent to subsection (6) to evidence that is seized not adventitiously but under warrant or under specific statutory authority.
The remaining amendments are all consequential and ensure that the provisions which provide the possessors of things seized by the police with access to them and limit the powers of the police to keep them. which are in Clause 20 and 21, apply to all articles seized by the police, whether seized under the authority of Clause 19, the authority of a search warrant, or some other authority.
I am sorry to have delayed your Lordships for so long in explaining how we are sorting out the delicate distinctions between evidence seized in different ways. I fear that I shall have to ask your Lordships to bear with me again at Third Reading when I hope to propose similar safeguards as to access and copying in cases of articles seized after stop and search. Your Lordships have agreed the principles. We have now put them into statutory language which I hope is more effective than that in which it was before. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, there is just one matter of, in a sense, verbal quibbling. Concerning the last line of Amendment No. 40, to which the noble Lord referred, does one "suspect" something of being subject to legal privilege? Is not the word "suspect" rather inappropriate as giving the impression that something is wrong? Would it not be better to have "thinking" rather than "suspecting" that it is subject to legal privilege?
Lord Elton: Or indeed, "believing", my Lords; the noble Lord has a delicate ear. I will see whether it may be possible to satisfy that point at Third Reading.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not the noble Lord comforted by the fact that we have two to three months to think about these additions to the Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is a thought with which I have been comforting myself more frequently with every day and every hour that has passed on this Bill.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I wonder why it is necessary in Amendment No. 39 to say "visible" as well as "legible", unless we are talking about braille.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know about braille, which we might be talking about; but there are also computer-based pictures. Only this morning I was seeing evidence of the way in which computers can now be used to issue plans of buildings from the specifications put into them in written form. Computers produce things which may be of great significance which do not emerge as writing and which a constable needs to be able to understand. It may come out as magnetic tape.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is also the question of micro dots which are used by spies.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Special provisions as to access]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment, which will, I hope, give my noble friend Lord Elton an opportunity to explain why the Government have used this rather obscure method to achieve their object. I hope that I may make a plea, however belated, for greater simplicity in the expression of these important provisions of the Bill. By Jove! we have made a meal of it. Consider, my Lords, the relative simplicity of the present procedure whereby a police officer can go to a magistrate and ask for a warrant. The magistrate is given a very wide discretion by the statute and he uses his own experience and common sense and grants, or refuses, the warrant. If, in the course of the search, the constable finds evidence which it is proposed to use at the trial, the trial judge can decide whether or not that evidence should be admitted. But really, the complexity of these provisions seems to me to be most unfortunate and, to a great extent, unnecessary.
Let me turn specifically to this amendment. Clause 9(2) in effect repeals a large quantity of unmentioned, unlisted, statutory provisions, some of them even in local Acts of Parliament, spread over I do not know how long; perhaps the last 200 years. May I say, in passing, that the method used is the same as that used in Clause 25, to which I think I referred at the Committee stage during the debate on clause stand part. One would need many volumes of statutes and a sophisticated system of extraction to find out which provisions have been repealed.
However, having said that, although it would be impossible for the constable to know whether there had been a repeal of any of those provisions, subsection (2) appears to be—and I stress that it is only my understanding that it appears to be—a paving provision for paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 1, which is on page 104. In order to explain the effect of Clause 9(2), I wonder whether I may refer to the first schedule. We know, because it has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, that this schedule enables an application to be made by a constable to a circuit judge. It then sets out the conditions—the so-called access conditions—under which the judge may make an order.
Paragraph 2 deals with the first set of access conditions, and paragraph 3 deals with the second set; and that is what I am coming to.
"The second set of access conditions is fulfilled"
it says in line 30,
"if … there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is excluded material or special procedural material on premises specified in the application".
So far, clear enough!
Then we come to sub-paragraph (b), which says:
"but for section 9(2) above a search of the premises for that material could have been authorised by the issue of a warrant to a constable under an enactment other than this Schedule".
But we know from subsection (2) that such enactments have been repealed. So we are in the strange position that a circuit judge is being asked to decide a case on
206
the hypothesis that it could have been allowed under provisions which are being repealed. I find that a very strange situation.
It may be that there is something lacking in my mentality which prevents me from understanding it. But we must remember that it is not only circuit judges who will have to understand this. It will have to be understood also by police officers of all ranks, people whose premises may be searched, and all the people involved, in humble ways and in more elevated ways (such as being circuit judges) in the judicial process.
I do not want to make too much of a meal of this. I hope that I have said enough to point out that if there are several different ways of legislating—one relatively clear and simple, and another making it as elaborate as the imagination of a genius can make it—then it seems that the latter way has been chosen, I think unhappily. I beg to move
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe it is unnecessary to make a long speech after the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has spoken. Without any doubt at all, both this clause and, as he mentioned, Clause 25 (to which I was going to refer when we came to it) are so abstruse that it makes it completely nonsensical—if I may use that language—to legislate in this form. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be right or wrong in his interpretation and I, too, have followed him into Schedule I can only say that if he be wrong, there will be many lawyers who will he wrong with him. It is absolutely vital that we get this provision right in clear and simple language.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton—and I am quoting him with respect when I say this—has often appealed to this House for legislation to be in simple terms. When we are repealing statutes may we just repeal them without circumventing the repeal by complicated language which leaves one not really knowing whether or not there is a repeal? If this legislation is to be repealed, let it be set out in detail with the knowledge that those Acts have gone and, their having gone, let us not refer to them in the schedule, as appears to be the case.
Lord Denning: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words in support of the amendment. I shall take an illustration. We had the Rossminster case, where a statute gave power to seize material which was liable to show a tax fraud. But there is nothing in that about any exception, about legal privilege or excluded material, or anything like that. What is to happen to that provision? It will remain on the statute book; and there are on the statute book dozens of provisions which enable a search warrant to be granted without those exceptions included. They will not be struck out of this statute. Wide terms will be in the statute still. We shall not have a note against it marked "Repealed". There ought to be a note against it, if you are going to repeal anything in a statute. This obscurity in drafting is much to be deplored. I should have thought, as my noble friend Lord Renton has just said, that in a way this exclusion could be put into Schedule 1 in simple language; and that would be enough. At all events, I join in the plea for simplicity in legislation.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I very briefly support everything that has been said by every noble Lord on each side of the House? If "enactment other than this Schedule" in paragraph 3(b) of the first schedule may mean Clause 8(1)(d), why does it not say so? This is really a dog's dinner of a draft and it is an impossibility to find one's way around it with any ease or simplicity. I shall not detain your Lordships with the sheer injustice and impracticability as to how it will operate on journalistic material because that has been pointed out. But it still exists; it still remains; and it has not been met. I support wholeheartedly the plea of my noble friend Lord Renton, with all the authority that he commands, for a fair and reasonable measure of clarity in the drafting of this schedule.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has put his finger on an interesting part of the Bill. Subsection (2) is an important new safeguard in the law governing police powers of search. At present, if a statute confers power on a magistrate to issue a search warrant then he may issue it, if satisfied by the police evidence, irrespective of the circumstances in which the object of the warrant is held. In the case of a Theft Act warrant, for example. it does not matter whether the article is a stolen gold bar hidden in the garage of the suspected thief or a stolen document held in good faith on behalf of a client by a wholly respectable firm of solicitors or accountants. In either case the law provides only for the issue of a warrant to enter, search and seize. However, having invented the new machinery in Schedule 1 to which I shall come in a moment under which an order to produce may be issued in place of a search warrant in the case of evidence held in confidence, we concluded that it would be only consistent to apply this new machinery to existing search warrant powers. Hence Clause 9(2).
It is perfectly true that Clause 9(2) stands on its own: the schedules to the Bill do not specify the enactments which it modifies. This is not simply the draftsman adopting a slip-shod approach to legislation: it is the simplest and most economical way of proceeding, and a way which is, I believe, both well-precedented and safe. I wonder whether we have too freely used the term "repeal", because your Lordships have spoken as though you believe that there were precise passages in statutes which could be excised with a scalpel or struck out with a felt-tip pen, and that what was required was for somebody to do this in the statute so that other people should not have to do it, as it were, in the offices of solicitors and others who want to know how the law stands. But, my Lords, if you look at Clause 9(2), you will find that it does in fact exercise a wide range of repeals—indeed it repeals everything but only as respects certain kinds of material. The sorts of material are legally privileged or excluded or special procedure material.
If there is a power on the statute book to seize a certain kind of evidential material, that is not affected by this so-called repeal unless that material is legally privileged or excluded or special procedure material. So what we are talking about is subjecting material which is already on the statute book and subject to these powers to a test. We are putting into the minds of the people using the statute the test which they
208
should apply. That test appears in Schedule 1 at paragraph 3(b). What the circuit judge is there asked to consider is whether the material for which he is being asked to issue a warrant would have been available for a magistrates' warrant had it not been for the existence of this test. He is being asked to apply the test. I am a layman and perhaps I have over-simplified the matter because I am a layman, but I confess that it does seem that this concept is relatively easy for a layman to follow, and therefore, I should have thought for a circuit judge to follow.
Very soon after the Bill is on the statute book, the police, magistrates, lawyers and others who are directly concerned with these matters will become familiar with Clause 9(2). They will know that they will have to read existing enactments with Clause 9(2) in mind to see whether the provisions there should be subject to this test. If the question of a search warrant for stolen goods comes up, then the application will lie under Schedule 1 of this Bill and not under the Theft Act 1968 if excluded or special procedure material is involved. The Bill covers the whole range of police investigative procedures, and is so central to the everyday work of the police, that I do not think that Clause 9(2) will remain an obscure provision in a far-away statute of which the police or those who work with or near to them know little. Certainly the extensive training programme now in preparation will ensure that this could not in any case be so. Of course I accept one of the principles of my noble friend as correct and it would be possible for each statute modified by Clause 9 to be amended in context. But it would be a formidable undertaking, particularly since Subsection (2) extends also to local Acts. It would consume a great deal of drafting time, and in view of the way I have described that it will work, I very much doubt whether that time would be usefully expended. Such an undertaking would in practice assist only those who did not have occasion to make, adjudge or advise on police applications for access to special procedure or excluded material.
I very much sympathise with my noble friend's concern to maintain the highest possible standards in the drafting of legislation. I do not say this lightly because I came on to your Lordship's Benches not long before the admirable report of the noble Lord, which I endeavoured to follow in opposition by the use of Keeling schedules to everybody's amazement but I think also to their enlightenment. I rather regret that the practice seems to have diminished somewhat since then. I am very much in tune with my noble friend in looking for simplicity in drafting and clarity in legislation but what we are putting here is a test which will be familar to those who have to use it and will not give rise to the confusion, doubt or anxiety which my noble friend understandably suggested that it might.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords. with great humility and as no other than a layman, may I just say a word because I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning has said; I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Renton has said; and I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said from the Opposition Front Bench; I have also listened to what my noble friend Lord Galloway said. It seems to me—and I say this to the Minister—that their four speeches added up to

209
sense, and with great apology to the Minister, it did not seem to me that his last contribution added up nearly as sensibly as did theirs.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I should retire to Galloway and study the speech of the noble Lord.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, who has just spoken, saves me from saying exactly the same thing again. As laymen, when lawyers cannot understand something I know that I cannot and I am perfectly clear that I do not. I think our original request to the Government in Committee to scrap Clauses 8 to 14, to take them away and to think again becomes more and more an illuminating thought the longer that we think about it. I believe that, if the noble Lord the Minister is to keep the respect of this House, he has to take this away and not leave it as it is.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, could I re-echo the point that has just been made and was made by my noble friend. Does my noble friend the Minister realise the dilemma of ordinary Members of your Lordships' House when he makes a situation such as this? Here we have most eminent lawyers, who really are expert in their field—and one has in mind particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—putting a point of view very clearly and very forcefully. Then my noble friend with his brief, I have no doubt well supported outside the Chamber, gives a completely opposite point of view in terms of what these words really mean. I have no doubt that my noble friend on this occasion will not be pushing this to a vote, but I would like my noble friend the Minister to bear in mind that it is stretching one's loyalty, if one can put it like that, to the very extreme when we are asked to accept his explanation—put, as it always is, with courtesy and clarity from his point of view—but it goes so much against the practised and experienced voices that we heard exposing another point of view entirely.
Lord Renton: My Lords, first of all, let me thank those three noble Lords who are experienced lawyers and the three laymen, using their common sense, who have supported me in this amendment. I really am very surprised at the reply which we have had from my noble friend. What he is saying is that, although none of us can understand it, he has been persuaded by the ammunition which he has been given, and which he claims to have chewed, and he can understand it. And he says in effect that if there is any difficulty it will be overcome by police training. That I find an over-sanguine expression.
I must say that I think we are in a very great difficulty here. In spite of bonds of loyalty, I would have been inclined to divide the House on this and I think that we might very well, in view of the support we have had, have carried this amendment. But I said when I moved it that it was a probing amendment—a peg on which to hang a plea to the Government—and it so happens that if technically we merely carried this amendment it would create even greater nonsense in the Bill than there is already; and far be it from me, as a loyal supporter of the Government and a former
210
Home Office Minister, to place the Government in that position on this Bill. But my noble friend wishes me to give way?
Lord Elton: My Lords, what is the decorous moment at which to interrupt a speech in order to seek to divert its direction? With the leave of your Lordships, I think I ought to respond to the tone of the criticism which I have received, and which is summed up by the words "over-sanguine" which my noble friend used. I would not wish to appear over-sanguine. What has so far happened is that the noble and learned Lord, and noble and wise Lords all over the House, have said that they cannot understand what is in the Bill and others will find it equally difficult. I have replied that I understand, I think, quite well what is in the Bill and I gave an explanation to your Lordships, but your Lordships have not accepted it. That may be because of a fault in my explanation or it may be because of a fault in what I was explaining.
Because I do not wish to suffer the charge of "over-sanguinity" (if that is the right word) lightly, I would say that I would not rely simply on police training to bring this into the focus of the official mind. But since we have a long and, I hope, pleasurable Recess before Third Reading, I will look very carefully at this drafting in the meantime. However, as always, I would say that in giving the undertaking I cannot give a commitment to come back with anything other than what is in the Bill; but I will have had the opportunity, and my right honourable friends and my learned friends will have had the chance, to read the strictures that have been made by the noble and learned Lord and others upon what we now propose to put on the statute book, and to see whether it is in fact possible to clarify it or whether in fact it is as clear as, in my bones, I suspect it may be.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the undertaking, which has been so generously given, extends also to the various other clauses surrounding this particular one which we have been debating in such obscurity this afternoon?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if we come to make a decision on one part of the Bill, obviously other parts of it will be consequentially affected. So in so far as our review of what the noble Lord has brought as a dificulty to us—and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, obviously supports him in this—gives rise to consequential complications, then of course we would be proposing consequential simplification.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, because the noble Lord the Minister is being so constructive, may I merely point out to him—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will agree with this—that the complication is not only in the way in which this has been presented. Does the noble Lord realise that before one has to decide whether or not a clause ceases to have effect one has to find the definition of "excluded material", which is new to this Bill, see whether it applies to an old Act, be it a local or a public Act, and then do exactly the same in regard to special procedure material? That is a complicated exercise,

211
which I am sure the noble Lord the Minister would not expect a circuit judge to go through, and, if he really felt that police officers are capable of that, I would only say that they themselves deserve to be promoted to the Bench forthwith.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was in the middle of my speech in reply to this short debate. May I thank my noble friend for the second bite that he has given to this rather tough cherry. I welcome his undertaking to consider not only subsection (2) of Clause 9 and the first schedule to the Bill but, as has been mentioned, this whole collection of complicated but very important provisions which are contained in Clauses 8 to 14. That is a very great advance, and I am very grateful for the support of those noble Lords whose persuasion has led the Government to that view; and, while thanking my noble friend and them, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Meaning of "excluded material]
5.57 p.m.
Lord Hemingford Lord Hemingford moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 1, after ("journalistic") insert ("or literary")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in seeking to move this amendment, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 to 30, which are concerned with the same subject.
Amendment No. 22: Page 12, line 5, after ("journalistic") insert ("or literary").
Amendment No. 23: Page 12, line 13, after ("journalistic") insert ("or literary").
Amendment No. 24:Page 12, line 20, after ("journalism") insert ("broadcasting or authorship").
Amendment No. 25:Clause 13, page 12, line 35, after ("journalistic") insert ("or literary").
Amendment No. 26: Page 12, line 36, after ("journalism") insert ("broadcasting or authorship.").
Amendment No. 27: Page 12, line 37, after ("journalistic") insert ("or literary").
Amendment No. 28: Page 12, line 39, after ("journalism") insert ("broadcasting or authorship.").
Amendment No. 29: Page 12, line 41, after ("journalism") insert ("broadcasting or authorship.").
Amendment No. 30: Clause 14, page 13, line 3, after ("journalistic") insert ("or literary").
The effect of these amendments would be to extend to all forms of broadcasting and to the authors of books the same kind of privilege against search which is provided in respect of material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism. I believe that it would be quite wrong to make a distinction between journalism and these other disciplines. I would, of course, prefer that there should be no reference to all these kinds of material for reasons of principle, which we have already aired to some extent, and for reasons of the complexity, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned earlier. I hope that this whole subject will be included in the review which the noble Lord the Minister has undertaken to make.
In the Home Office's briefing on the Bill, the clauses referring to journalism are described as,
"taking account of the importance for a free press of the ability to check sources".
The guide correctly points out that the law already recognises the sensitivity of such sources, mostly in the contempt of court Act 1980. But the language of that Act is much broader than the language of the Bill which we are now considering, because Section 10 of the contempt of court Act provides—and I quote:
"No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime".
The key words here are "person" and "publication for which he is responsible", because they do not introduce any artificial distinction between different kinds of publication and anybody who is responsible for any kind of publication is entitled to the same treatment. But the language in this Bill is far more narrowly drawn, because it requires a definition of "journalism".
Your Lordships are already aware that a majority of senior editors in the country fear that it will also lead to a definition of "journalist", which the Government have already said they are opposed to in another context. But leaving that argument aside, what is the justice of providing the author of material which can be described as "journalism" with greater protection than the author of other literary or broadcast material? If I write an article in a newspaper which relies upon confidential sources, in what way am I different from someone writing a book which relies upon confidential sources? In all justice, I do not believe there can be a difference and these amendments would remove that injustice.
They would also remove one of the principal objections which editors have to the present Bill—namely, that it puts journalists or journalism into a special category as against the ordinary citizen. Journalism is not a profession from which people can be struck off or in which they are subject to rules and regulations, and it never should become like that. Nor are those who practise it, whether for a living or otherwise, part of an elite.
At a time of considerable tension in the country, it would be absolutely fatal if journalism were seen to be, or could reasonably be described as being, part of the establishment enjoying privileges in Parliament and Government which are not available to other people. It is a question of credibility and I do not believe that this House, whatever its dislike of individual newspapers may be, would wish to do something which could impair the credibility of the press as a whole.
I believe that this aspect of the controversy has been given insufficient attention by the Government, who have concentrated on ingenious but legalistic arguments designed, I think, to obscure the important principles which the overwhelming majority of senior editors would like to assert. I do not think that a fair-minded observer would be very happy with the way in which the Government have handled this issue in our debates. I believe that the opponents of these clauses relating to journalism have won the argument and it is extremely disappointing that the noble Lord the Minister has been playing such a dead bat on the issue.
I hope that he will reconsider the whole question when he re-examines these clauses, because it may be

213
that the language I have chosen here is not the most felicitous for the purpose. I am sure that if he put his mind to it the noble Lord the Minister could come up with a better way of achieving what we want to do. It may be, therefore, that I should not press this amendment but should put it forward in the same spirit that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put forward his previous amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I say one word on the wording of this amendment? "Journalism" is bad enough. To extend it to "literary" covers not only journalistic work, book reviews and articles, but it covers all your letters of any kind. In our law as to copyright, a literary work comprehends anything—a few sentences, a few letters in a private work and the like. "Literary" is so wide that, in a way, it is not to be accepted, even if "journalism" is to be accepted. I would oppose the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I cannot support these amendments for the very straight forward, simple reason given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. But these amendments serve a valid purpose, because they draw attention to a most unsatisfactory aspect of this Bill which I ventured to raise on Second Reading—the special status of journalistic material. At Committee stage, in a thin. House at 11 in the evening, my Amendment No. 61 to seek to excise this exclusion of journalistic material from the powers of entry, search and seizure under Part II of the Bill was defeated by a narrow margin of five votes, notwithstanding that nine noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, supported the amendment and no noble Lord, save my noble friend the Minister, opposed the amendment.
On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister said at col. 478 of the Official Report of 4th June that he would be ready to hear further views, that he would keep an open mind and that he would certainly not wish to impose protection which was not wanted. Yet at Committee stage that is precisely what he did, contrary to the consensus of the Chamber which exploded any justification for the concept of according such special status.
I have spoken twice today and I shall speak no more on this subject of the practical problems affecting the exclusion of journalistic material. This problem, which could not have arisen if Amendment No. 61 had been accepted, is all part of the generous undertaking which has been given by my noble friend the Minister, because it falls within the ambit of those clauses. I merely seek confirmation from my noble friend the Minister that all this question of journalistic material, the question of the definition of excluded material and special procedure material, in context with journalistic material and with this run of clauses, will receive open consideration in accordance with the undertaking that has been given. I say this because my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton raised this question at Committee stage and my noble friend the Minister said in reply that it matters not what people do; it matters what they produce. Against that concept, I would ask my noble friend to extend his
214
undertaking to cover this matter. I am afraid that in no circumstances could I possibly support this amendment.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this is the third time that the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Hemingford, and I have spoken on this aspect of the Bill and we seem to have made no progress at all. For some reason, we are unable to get through. This is a last despairing, rather ingenious, attempt to get the Government to understand what we are trying to say. I am not going to say anything about the means employed today by my noble and professional colleague Lord Hemingford, but I vigorously support his ends.
We are not criticising the Government. This is not one of the attempts to defeat the Government which have been so prevalent recently. We are criticising their journalistic advisers. Some journalist authorities persuaded the Government to give journalists a privilege. These people sought the immediate advantages but they failed to see the long-term danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford pointed out, of putting journalists into a privileged class. The freedom of the press has always meant the freedom of all citizens, not just the freedom of those who work for newspapers. The press need facilities. They need ringside seats at almost everything that goes on in the country. But we must not confuse facilities, as do those who support the Bill, with legal privileges. If we receive privileges, in the end we shall have to pay for them with obligations. Then bang goes freedom.
The majority of journalists do not want this privilege. The Government are making us a gift but it is an unwelcome gift, made with the best of intentions. It is about as welcome as a steak to a vegetarian or a box of Black Magic chocolates to a weight watcher. There is a still better analogy. What every woman knows is that if she were to accept the gift of a mink coat from a new gentleman friend it would change their relationship, whatever platonic protestation he might make. She would feel under an obligation. She would find it harder to keep him at arm's length. She would lose her freedom to rebuke the giver and the world might assume that there was closer intimacy than the one which actually existed. That is why every woman knows that she must decline such a gift. These clauses are the mink coat offered by Government to newspaper men. The gift may give us immediate warmth and comfort but in the end it is going to compromise us. That is why today once more we beg the Government to take back their gift, pack it in mothballs and put it in a deep, dark, inaccessible cupboard.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, Clause 8 of the Bill gives to the police specific powers to search for evidence of an arrestable offence. The subsequent clauses provide that some classes of evidence shall never be available for this kind of search and that others shall be available only on the authority of a circuit judge. Journalistic material held in confidence falls into the first of these categories and other journalistic material falls into the second.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, and many others sought to persuade your Lordships to

215
reduce the areas protected from the search powers, or to which they were given only strictly controlled access, by removing journalistic material altogether. On that tack they failed to gain a majority. They are now coming up to the boil again, as it were, on the opposite tack: seeking to expand the area of protection very considerably indeed. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway spoke not to this amendment but to an amendment which was defeated in Committee and which is no longer on the Marshalled List. My undertaking to my noble friend Lord Renton was quite clear. I hope that when both of my noble friends read Hansard tomorrow they will see exactly to what it extends.
As to how journalistic material came to be in the Bill at all, I spoke at length in Committee. I need only remind your Lordships that it was put there as a result of the very strenuous insistence of the journalistic profession itself. What matters now is not how journalistic material came to be put into the Bill but why it is there. Those reasons make it inappropriate not only to take it out, as noble Lords wanted to do on the port tack, but to extend that protection to literary material, as they now propose to do on the starboard tack. Let me explain.
The Bill, as drafted, accords to journalistic material a specially protected status. It does not extend any special protection at all to journalists, as the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, seemed to think that it did. It does not put them into a special category vis-à-vis ordinary citizens, as he put it, or vis-à-vis broadcasters or authors, as he has it in his amendment. If an ordinary citizen, or a broadcaster, or an author—if they are not ordinary citizens—has journalistic material, it is protected just as much as if a journalist has it. That is the merit of the Bill as it is now drafted, because it does not distinguish between different categories of people. It distinguishes only between different categories of written and recorded material.
The Bill extends this protection to journalistic material because, let me remind your Lordships. of the special importance to a free society of a press which is also free. An important part of that freedom is to embarrass powers established within that society by revealing information which those powers would rather see suppressed. Let noble Lords who most eloquently fear the arrival of some extremist government of either the Left or the Right reflect that the institution most at risk from such revelations is government itself. Let them further reflect how absolutely such a Government could dam up and suppress that liberating flow of information if they could turn the police on to identifying, rooting out and hounding down the sources from which it came. If serious arrestable offences were the open sesame to those sources, suspects of such offences could overnight become legion. The protection is in the Bill, as drafted, specifically to protect those sources. It is the function of the sources which entitles journalists to special protection. Not all the virtuous hysteria of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, faced with possible seduction, will persuade us otherwise.
If there were no sources to protect, we should not have journalistic material in the Bill, either as excluded material in Clause 11 or as special procedure
216
material in Clause 14. Indeed, it would not need to be in the Bill at all. It is not journalists whom we are protecting: it is their sources. The sources are the passport by which journalistic material comes into the Bill. But what is the passport by which the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford's new category of literature comes into the Bill? Whom does he wish to protect?
Literature, according to Amendment 28 to Clause 13, comprises broadcasting or authorship, not broadcasting or authorship for journalistic purposes because they are already in the Bill. The new words must import a new meaning. So this is the broadcasting of "Twelfth Night", "Crossroads", "Coronation Street", literature of the kind that wins, or tries to win, the Booker Prize, and even the graceful and illuminating letters of noble Lords, such as those written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. What nerve of democracy is there exposed so tender that it must have this altogether exceptional protection? What relationship is there established so sacred or so sensitive that the information which it generates or traffics in must, if it is held in confidence, be secret even from policemen hunting a killer, a rapist or a purveyor of the living death which goes by the name of heroin?
This amendment would vastly extend the areas from which the Bill would exclude police investigations altogether. It would vastly increase the areas to which the Bill only allows police investigators access on application to a circuit judge and it would do so with no justification whatever that I can see. I do not see why writing a book of romantic fiction should entitle one to refuse with impunity to divulge evidence to police investigating a serious crime. I do not think that Macmillans, Sidgwick and Jackson or Longmans need this kind of Mills and Boon amendment. If novelists are included, why not composers or painters? The answer is the same in every case. There is no special relationship and no special function in their work which warrants its exclusion from the ordinary functions of law and law enforcement. Without enforcement, the law is nothing.
The noble Lord proposes to place a very considerable handicap upon policemen doing a job of law enforcement which is very difficult already. Not infrequently, the speed with which they do that job is what determines how many victims a criminal can prey upon before he is caught. Whether they are murdered, raped or bankrupted, your Lordships can have no possible wish to increase their numbers. Therefore I ask your Lordships to reject this amendment without hesitation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him, with leave, a short question? Does he remember saying at Second Reading that he would keep an open mind about the journalistic material issue, and would never foist it on journalists if they did not want it? Does my noble friend accept that at the Committee stage it was demonstrated that the journalists did not want it? In those circumstances, is he changing his stand, or does he stand by what he said?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend draws me back to a point from which I had departed. I do indeed remember the undertaking to listen to what was said.

217
But the terms in which I said it were that my right honourable friend was not disposed to change the present arrangement unless consensus could be demonstrated in the journalistic profession. When my noble friend says that the House demonstrated consensus, he forgets that I actually read out a number of authoritative opinions representing a large number of journalists of some seniority including, I recall, the Press Council but others as well, who did not support the view which he—and those of your Lordships who spoke in favour of that amendment—supported. I therefore have to say that, although we have listened for the consensus, there may have been a unanimity among those who addressed your Lordships' House but there is no apparent consensus in the profession; and that was the yardstick to which my right honourable friend attached his undertaking and in my view it has been fully honoured.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, I do not intend to push these amendments. I think they have achieved a small part of their objective in providing the opportunity for the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Ardwick, to say what they have said. I have to say that what the noble Lord the Minister has said is extremely disappointing. I think it is extraordinary if the Home Office read what was said at the Committee stage—and did not simply add up the number of people in the Chamber who spoke, which was itself impressive—and still came to the conclusion that there was no consensus within the Press against these amendments, and I can only say it is a very strange conclusion for them to have reached.
I think the other disappointment in what the noble Lord the Minister has said is that he persists with the nice point about journalists and journalism. It makes very little difference to the point that I was trying to make whether you use the word "journalist" or "journalism". It will be extremely damaging to the press, and much more damaging to a free press than any of the other assumed benefits that we shall get from this, if journalism is seen to be beholden to the authorities.
It is equally completely illogical, in my view, to provide special protection for material appearing in a newspaper which may admittedly embarrass the Government, and not provide the same protection for material appearing in a book which may embarrass the Government; and both articles may rely on confidential sources. There is no logic in that. I believe that the position in which we are leaving—
Lord Elton: My Lords, the point is that if the material in the book is journalistic material it will be protected. Perhaps I did not get that point over. If you are writing a book on current affairs and you produce journalistic material in it, then your sources are protected; the material is protected. That is the difference which perhaps has escaped the noble Lord.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has a different definition of journalism from mine. I think therein lies one of the great difficulties with which we are faced, because it seems to me that a book on current affairs would be very unlikely to be
218
described as journalism. I do not take the Minister's point on that at all. It seems to me that we have a very one-eyed view taken here.
When I described this as a "dead bat" perhaps I was flattering it unduly. But I am very unhappy with the situation and I sincerely hope that at the last gasp the Government will include in the review which they have undertaken to make of these clauses the very bad effect which the references to journalism are likely to have. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Execution of warrants]:
6.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 32, leave out ("there are grounds for suspecting that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (4) introduces a new safeguard into the law governing the execution of search warrants. The subsection requires the warrant to be executed at a reasonable hour unless circumstances dictate otherwise. As I said in Committee on 5th July, it seems to the Government that the sensible test to apply to the actions of an officer charged with executing a warrant is not the objective test of reasonableness but rather the test of the bona fides of his beliefs. As I said then, we take this view for two reasons.
First, the situation is generally one of operational uncertainty in which it is very difficult for the police to know whether or not someone will be in. The police will generally err on the side of caution by executing the warrant earlier rather than later in the day for fear of tipping off the criminal if they arrive after he has already left.
Second, it would be unjust if a search was wholly successful, in the sense that the stolen goods were recovered, but rendered unlawful by the simple fact that the police could not prove that they had reasonable grounds for believing it necessary to search at an unreasonable hour. The police would be liable in damages, and that would be a result which I suggest does not accord with a common-sense view of the harm caused by waking a criminal from his bed.
We thought in Committee that the Bill as drafted had the effect that we intended. Now we are not so sure: it might, we think, be argued that the expression which this amendment seeks to omit implies something more than a bona fides test. I therefore ask your Lordships to agree this amendment, to put the matter beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think your Lordships may agree that we are confronted by a rather unusual situation and one where we ought to be a little careful. It was the considered view of the Government, as argued at Committee stage, that the words in the Bill merely made it obligatory upon the police officer to have grounds for suspecting—and these are the words that we are dealing with—and that it was not necessary, and indeed was objectionable, to have the

219
word "reasonable" put there. There merely had to be grounds. There was an argument; the Government succeeded in that argument, and the Bill therefore reads that there have to be "grounds for suspecting".
Now the Government are coming back and saying, "We were wrong in the argument that we gave last time to the House". They are perfectly straightforward and one pays tribute to them for saying so. They say, "We were wrong in our argument". Indeed, merely saying there are grounds puts an onus upon the police in these circumstances. Are we to walk into the position where you cannot even say to a police officer who exercises these powers, "Please, what were your grounds?" and there is no right of action if he has no grounds that he can put forward at all. It must be right that the words that the Government stood by, and the words that originally appeared in this Bill and have gone through another place, should stand. For these reasons, we oppose this amendment and this alteration in the Government's own wording.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would explain to me what I did not follow from his observations. If the words.
"unless it appears to the constable"
will remain in, as they do on either case, then it is purely a subjective test so far as the constable is concerned, is it not? It is, then, a question of what appears to the constable. For the life of me, I cannot see any difference between the test proposed in the clause as it stands:
"unless it appears to the constable … that there are grounds for suspecting that the purpose of a search may be frustrated",
and the new proposal,
"unless it appears to the constable … that the purpose of a search may be frustrated".
It seems to me that they mean exactly the same thing and that the words the Government are seeking to remove are simply surplusage. If they are simply surplusage, let us by all means remove them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had got this right. It seems to me that the word "appears" must mean and must be interpreted as meaning, as appears reasonable on any objective criteria. It seems to me that that is the same as saying,
"there are grounds for suspecting".
and that the words which it is proposed to leave out are quite unnecessary.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your permission to speak again—
Lord Mishcon: The Minister can do so anyway, my Lords—it is his amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, may I then say first, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I believe the constable can still be asked—even if this amendment is carried, as I hope it will be—why it appears to him that the purpose of the search might be frustrated if he were to follow some other course of action. I do not believe that the effect of the amendment would be to exempt the constable from
220
the subsequent scrutiny of his actions, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may have feared.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I must say that the change I am proposing is not of the depth which he suggests. It is a modest improvement to what is already in the Bill, and therefore I hope that your Lordships will feel able to agree to it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, can he say where we stand on the advice given to the Government? The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, whose views I always respect, said—as did the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that these words mean nothing. The Government have obviously been advised that these words mean something, otherwise they would not take the trouble to put an amendment before the House to have these words removed. The Minister was absolutely frank with the House. He said that these words cast a duty upon the officer which he wants to remove; the duty of having to give some kind of grounds.
If the advice which the Government have received is meaningful and is right, my point stands; that is, that we are taking away a protection and the requirement that there be grounds. Or will the noble Lord the Minister yield and say that on consideration he thinks that the advice he has received is wrong?—because the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the Minister cannot all be right. The view of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Wigoder, is, as I have said, that these words mean nothing—and the view of the Government is that they mean something and that they are therefore to be removed. I oppose this amendment. I believe that the Government have been correctly advised.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are two considerations I would put to your Lordships. Either the words are indeed superflous, as the Government now believe, and in which case the amendment is appropriate; or else the words do imply a reasonableness test, in which case the unlooked consequences which would flow from that test remaining in the Bill will follow, and it is right therefore to agree to the amendment.
When I moved the amendment a few moments ago I explained the undesirable effects which this clause as presently drafted would have. This amendment would remove those undesirable effects, and again I say that I hope your Lordships will agree to it.
Clause 18 [Entry and search after arrest]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 33:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Clause 19 [Seizure of articles]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 18, line 3, leave out from ("is") to end of line 8 and insert ("lawfully on any premises.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has two purposes. First, it simplifies the drafting of subsection (1). Secondly, it ensures that the powers of seizure conferred by Clause 19 are not artificially limited. Let us suppose that a police officer is on certain premises, not to carry out a search but simply to interview someone. In the course of the interview he notices in the room something which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting constitutes evidence of crime or which has been unlawfully obtained.
Under the clause as drafted he would not have the power to seize it because subsection (1) would not apply. Under our amendment he would be so empowered provided, of course, that the requirements of subsections (4) and (5) are satisfied. I invite your Lordships to agree that this is no more than common sense and indeed in accordance with the present common law. I beg to move.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 35:
[Printed earlier: col. 201.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 en bloc.
[Printed earlier: col. 201.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 en bloc and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 53, 55, 67, 69, 71, 101, 107 and 108.
Amendment No. 53: Clause 21, page 20, line 11, leave out ("an article") and insert ("anything").
Amendment No. 55: Page 20, line 15, leave out ("An article may not") and insert ("Nothing may").
Amendment No. 67: Clause 31, page 26, line 31, leave out ("any article") and insert ("anything").
Amendment No. 69: Page 27, line 2, leave out ("article or") and insert ("thing or any such").
Amendment No. 71: page 27, line 6, leave out ("an article") and insert ("anything").
Amendment No. 101: Clause 54, page 51, line 6, leave out ("an article") and insert ("anything").
Amendment No. 107: Page 51, line 32, leave out ("any article") and insert ("anything").
Amendment No. 108: Page 52, line 1, leave out ("property") and insert ("anything").
These are all drafting amendments which secure consistency of terminology within the Bill. At present, some provisions use the term "article", others "property", and others, "anything". We believe that this last expression is to be preferred since it covers such things as fingerprints which are not, properly speaking, articles at all. I beg to move.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40:
[Printed earlier: col. 201.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 are all consequential on Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 19, line 1, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 43:
Amendment No. 43: Clause 20, page 19, line 10, at beginning insert—
("( ) A constable who seizes anything in the exercise of a power conferred by any enactment, including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act, shall, if so requested by a person showing himself—

(a) to be the occupier of premises on which it was seized; or

(b) to have had custody or control of it immediately before the seizure,

provide that person with a record of what he seized.
( ) The officer shall provide the record within a reasonable time from the making of the request for it.").
These drafting amendments transfer subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 19 to Clause 20, where they more naturally belong. The slight changes of wording are consequential on the redefinition of the scope of Clause 19, to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 42:
[Printed earlier: col. 201.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, again, is consequential on Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister be good enough to clarify subsection (2)(c) of his new clause and explain to the House what the reference is to paragraph 12A of Schedule 1 and how it all fits into this clause? The rest of the clause is unexceptionable but I am not sure that I can follow subsection (2)(c) and its reference to Schedule 1.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the amendment to Schedule 1, in paragraph 12 he will find the words added:
"12A. A constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under paragraph 12 above".
What I am seeking to do, as I speak, is to locate the number of that amendment in the group. It is Amendment No. 180, which is the last one in the group.
Clause 20 [Seized articles: access and copying]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 43:
[Printed earlier: col. 222.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment Nos. 44 to 49:
[Printed earlier: col. 201.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these go with Amendment No. 16; by "these" I mean Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 inclusive. Therefore, I beg to move these en bloc.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("prejudice the investigation") and insert ("prejudice—

(a) that investigation;

(b) the investigation of an offence other than the offence for the purposes of investigation which the thing was seized; or

(c) any criminal proceedings which may be brought as a result of—

(i) the investigation of which he is in charge; or

(ii) any such investigation as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 20(3)(b) disapplies the duty on the police to grant access to, or supply a photograph or copy of, a seized article where there are reasonable grounds for believing that to do so would prejudice the investigation in the course of which it was seized. This amendment reflects our belated realisation that it is just as important to avoid prejudicing other investigations in progress, or criminal proceedings. In the case of, for example, a set of company frauds it may be necessary to safeguard the investigation of related or similar offences thought to have been committed by associates of the immediate suspect. I think that the case for the amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is obviously an extension, a widening, of what was previously in the Bill. One does not necessarily want to oppose it on that account. However, in view of the fact that this means that the police are being given further powers, as it were, to refuse information or documents, copy documents, and so on, will the noble Lord the Minister give to the House an assurance that these matters will be regulated in the code of conduct, in order that the police may not unreasonably rely upon these widened powers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a feeling that I am free to give that assurance; in fact, I now find that I am, and I am happy to do so.
Clause 21 [Retention of seized articles]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 51 and 52:
[Printed earlier: col. 201.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, and Amendment No. 52, are consequential upon Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 53:
[Printed earlier: col. 221.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) Nothing seized on the ground that it may be used—

(a) to cause physical injury to any person;

(b) to damage property;

(c) to interfere with evidence; or

224

(d)to assist in escape from police detention or lawful custody, may be retained when the person from whom it was seized is no longer in police detention or the custody of a court or is in the custody of a court but has been released on bail.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 54, with your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73, 99 and 109.
Amendment No. 73: Clause 31, page 27, line 34, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
Amendment No. 99: Clause 53, page 50, line 36, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
Amendment No. 109: Clause 54, page 52, line 4, leave out subsections (11) and (12).
These are drafting amendments which simplify the Bill. They are made possible by the redefinition of the scope of Clause 19, to which I have already spoken. The new subsection (2A) which we propose should be added to Clause 21 repeats and replaces what is now said, rather cumbersomely, in Clause 31(9) and (10), Clause 53(9) and (10) and Clause 54(11) and (12). In view of your Lordships' understandable anxiety for simplification, I hope that you will be happy with these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 55:
[Printed earlier: col. 221.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
Clause 23 [Arrest without warrant for arrestable offences]:
Lord Foot Lord Foot moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 20, line 35. leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 21 and insert ("to offences which are punishable by imprisonment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the three amendments which stand in the name of myself and the noble Lord. Lord Renton, run together and I hope it will be convenient for them all to be discussed at the same time.
Amendment No. 57: Page 21. line 5, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 58: Page 21. line 23. leave out subsection (3).
We now pass from Part II of the Bill to Part III and the important matter of arrest. The amendments that I have put down refer back to something that was a matter of discussion in Committee, but I now regret that I did not bring forward these amendments at that time because there would then have been a greater opportunity of their being considered by the Government than is the case at this rather late stage. I believe, and submit, that these amendments raise a matter of some significance, and I hope that even at this late stage the Government will be prepared to consider what I believe are important arguments which arise.
The object of the amendments is to amend the first three subsections of Clause 23. The three subsections define the arrestable offence; that is, the offence for which an arrest can be made without a warrant. The definition of an arrestable offence in the three subsections divides itself into three parts. First, in subsection (1), an arrestable offence is an offence for

225
which there can be imposed a penalty of five years imprisonment or more. In subsection (2) a number of statutes are referred to and the Bill makes the offences under those statutes arrestable offences, although the penalties attached to them under existing law do not amount to as much as five years. Finally, under subsection (3) there is provision that, where any of the offences referred to in subsection (2) are concerned. attempting to commit such an offence or counselling such an offence, or activities of that kind, shall be arrestable offences, too.
My amendments seek to strike out practically the whole of that—that is, strike out subsections (1), (2) and (3)—and put in their place the simple definition that arrestable offences shall be.
"offences which are punishable by imprisonment".
That proposal has at any rate, perhaps the Government will grant, the merit of simplicity. But I think it has much more merit than mere simplicity. I believe it also involves an important matter of principle.
In putting these amendments forward I derive some considerable confidence by reason of two particular considerations. The first relates to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. At the Committee stage I took leave on one or two occasions to refer to the Scottish Act of 1980 because it has some interesting parallels with what we are doing in this Bill. What I pointed out at that time was that in the 1980 Act Scottish law has adopted the principle for which I am pleading; that is, that the test of an arrestable offence shall be simply whether it is an offence punishable by imprisonment. That is set out in Section 2 of the Scottish Act of 1980.
I played some small part in the debates which took place on the Scottish Bill in 1980. So far as I remember, nobody at that time queried the propriety of making the arrestable—or as it is in Scottish Law, detainable—offence dependent upon whether it was punishable by imprisonment. So far as I remember it was the universal view of the House on all sides that that was the proper standard to adopt. There was never any suggestion at that stage that there ought to be a criterion of five years' imprisonment, or anything of that kind. That is the first reason why I derive assistance and encouragement from the Scottish Act.
The perhaps more important consideration in this House is that the Philips Royal Commission, by a majority (if I have it right) of 13 to three, came to precisely the same conclusion, and it, too, recommended that for the future the test of an arrestable offence should be simply whether it was an offence punishable by imprisonment.
The question arises—does it not?—why it is that the Government have decided to bring in a clause in a Bill which is in conflict with everything that was recommended by the Thomson Commission in Scotland, with the test that was set down in the Scottish Act and with the recommendation of the Royal Commission in England and Wales? Why have the Government departed from those recommendations and sought to maintain the standard and criterion of five years' imprisonment?
The occasion when the five-year criterion was introduced into our criminal law was the Criminal
226
Law Act 1967. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, explained to us at the Committee stage of this Bill, the reason that the five-year criterion was adopted was simply this. Prior to the 1967 Act there had been the distinction in English law for a very long time between a felony and a misdemeanour. It was decided and provided in the 1967 Act that that distinction should be eliminated and that there should no longer be felonies and misdemeanours.
Apparently it was considered at that time that if the common law power of arrest for a felony—because there was and had been for many years the common law power to arrest without warrant for a felony—was to be abolished, should not something be put in its place. The device that was lit upon at that time was to create a statutory power of arrest without a warrant; but in order presumably that it should apply only to fairly serious offences, it was decided to provide that the new statutory power should be exercisable only if a person was involved in an offence which incurred five years' imprisonment.
That decision has given rise to all kinds of difficulties. First of all, the period of five years is purely arbitrary. There is no reason or rationale behind it. Two, seven or 10 years might just as well have been picked on. If any particular period of time is picked, it is a purely arbitrary decision. It has given rise to all kinds of anomalies.
One of them is this. When the five-year criterion was picked upon, presumably the intention was that the power of arrest without a warrant should be available only in serious matters and should not be available in trivial ones. But to use the test of the period of imprisonment which attaches to an offence does not necessarily tell one whether the offence with which one is dealing is serious or trivial. The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years' imprisonment, but, as everybody knows, one can have the wildest variation in seriousness between one kind of theft and another. At the bottom of the scale there may be the theft of a milk bottle from a doorstep and at the top the armed robbery of a bank. If it was the intention to try to fix a scale by which to test the seriousness or otherwise of the offence, that broke down.
Another anomaly of the situation was that the test of five years' imprisonment attaching to the offence failed to include offences which everybody would agree ought to involve arrest without a warrant. The whole of subsection (2) of this Bill is an acknowledgement of the fact that the five-year period is inadequate as a test. What is included in subsection (2) are five statutes where the period of imprisonment attaching to the offences concerned does not amount to five years but where it has been considered by the Government that it is proper—indeed, essential—that there should be the power of arrest without warrant.
Not only is the five-year rule full of anomalies but it also gives rise to a great number of practical difficulties. Let us consider for a moment what the police constable on the beat has to have in mind when he is considering his rights and his powers to make an arrest without a warrant. He is supposed to know, for example, first of all, of all the criminal offences in the criminal calendar, which of them involve a period of imprisonment of five years or more. He has to know that without any opportunity of consulting the

227
authorities and looking it up. because in the nature of things, if he is arresting somebody without a warrant, he is doing something in an emergency and without notice. If he can arrest somebody at his leisure, and there is no hurry about it. he can go to a magistrate and get a warrant; but if he is arresting without a warrant, almost by definition, he is acting in a semi-emergency and at short notice.
Is it at all reasonable to ask the ordinary policeman on the beat to be familiar with all the criminal statutes of the country to the extent of knowing which of them provide for offences incurring more than five years' imprisonment and which do not? I would venture to say that the ordinary criminal practitioner—the man who is dealing with such matters every day of the week—would have great difficulty in telling your Lordships which of the various statutes involve that five-year imprisonment condition.
The other matter that the police officer on the beat has to have in mind is the terms of subsection (2). That is the subsection which sets out these various sets of offences which do not carry the five-year penalty but which the Government consider ought to be included because of the importance of the police officer in those cases having the right to arrest without a warrant. He has to be familiar with that. One has only to look at the nature of those statutes to see the complication of that.
In addition to all that, the police officer on the beat has to know all the existing statutes which give a statutory right of arrest without a warrant. Those are to be found in Schedule 2 to the Bill. There are there set out all the existing statutes under which there is a power of arrest without a warrant. On my calculation, there are no fewer than 20 statutes which the police officer has to understand and have in mind.
The Royal Commission's decision and recommendation on this matter was unequivocal. They made it perfectly plain that they came to the conclusion that they thought that the five-year criterion and all the other suggestions that had been made would not do and that the only criterion which would do would be that of the offence being punishable by imprisonment.
Why is it that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Thomson Committee, the law as it is in Scotland—which was promoted by the predecessor of this Government, by a Tory Government, and not by anybody else? Why is it that the Government have rejected the very positive recommendations of the Royal Commission and returned to the old five-year rule which was incorporated in the 1967 Act?
The only clue that I can find for the Government's decision is contained in the guide. So far as I can understand it, this is the only comment upon this matter that the Government have made in this publication. They say this:
"The Government has rejected as too sweeping the proposal that all imprisonable offences should become arrestable offences".
With that single sentence they dismiss all the advice that has been given to them by both the committee and the commission, and they give no further explanation.
I say in passing that, if that is right and it is too sweeping to give these powers to a policeman, then of
228
course they have it all wrong in Scotland and they suffer under that disability to this day. However, that will not really do because the Royal Commission themselves considered this very argument that it would be dangerous to extend that far the power of arrest without warrant. They considered it in detail and, by a large majority, came to the conclusion that there was no virtue in the argument; that there was no risk, as they saw it. of this leading to a greater number of arrests. They came to the conclusion that there was indeed every reason to suppose that the number of arrests might be reduced, provided that what they called the principle of necessity was adopted.
I will not weary the House with reading out the paragraph in the report, but in effect what they said was this: "We think that for the future, when you come to consider arrest without a warrant there are two matters that you have to have in mind; there are two matters that have to he satisfied. First of all, the arrest must be lawful within the terms of the law". But, having said that, they went on to say. "Not only that. but we believe that it must be further demonstrated that the arrest was not only lawful but necessary".
In their report they have set out what they regard as the conditions which have to be satisfied in order to show that it was indeed necessary to make the arrest in the first place. What they said was,
"We do not believe that it is possible or reasonable to expect the policeman on the beat to consider all these reasons of necessity which we think should be observed, but we do think that they should be observed at the moment when the arresting policeman brings a suspect into the police station".
They said that it is at that stage that, not the arresting policeman but some other police officer should then look at the arrest, ask for the reasons for it and himself decide not only whether it was lawful but whether it was necessary. They said that if that principle was observed and was written into the law they believed that the net result would he a reduction in the number of arrests rather than an increase.
All that is argued out in the report of the Royal Commission. All of it. apparently, has been ignored by the Government in introducing this clause in the way that they have. The Royal Commission therefore have not accepted the argument which has been advanced by the Government in their guide. As I said at the beginning, it is a matter of regret to me that I did not raise this matter at an earlier stage because, in view of the fact that all authoritative opinion is on my side and none of it is on the side of the Government, I think it is right that this matter should be considered with some care.
If I may sum the matter up, the effect of my amendment is simply this. It is to strike out the first three subsections of this clause and to substitute for it the simple criterion that an arrestable offence shall be any offence for which the punishment is imprisonment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish very warmly to support the, in my opinion, very strong case which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. We owe him a debt for having raised this matter on clause stand part at Committee stage and for all the trouble he has taken again today. May I say, in passing, that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, wished to

229
support this amendment but asked me to say that he has had to leave in order to attend a long-standing public engagement.
I think that it may not be fully appreciated how very complicated in their application the provisions which are proposed by the Government will turn out to be. May I very slightly amplify what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said about them. It comes to this. A police officer really will have to have a most comprehensive knowledge of the law in order to find out whether the offence is arrestable. Under subsection (1)(b), this provision that it should be an offence for which a person over 21 could be sentenced to a term of five years or more in itself would require a very great deal of research followed by police training. There is a qualification of it which certainly complicates the matter because the words are added:
"(or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by section 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980)".
One is grateful to the Government for making available to us the Notes on Clauses for this Bill. However, when one studies them, one finds that the true position is even more complex than that stated in the Bill itself. As to the provision in the Magistrates' Courts Act, it comes to this—that for the words in the Bill one should read:
"or which would carry such a liability"
that is to five years' imprisonment or more—
"were it not for the requirement of summary trial imposed by section 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act".
The problem of understanding the application of the clause does not end there. When we turn to subsection (2), the matter is frankly over-simplified. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) deals with offences for which a person may be arrested under customs and excise Acts as defined in the 1979 Act. We find that the offences that are included number no fewer than 20 offences mentioned in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. And they are not all the offences mentioned in the Act. They are only some of the more important ones. It is fair to say that the offences that are mentioned are already punishable by imprisonment. That is if course consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has proposed.
One could, by referring to the Notes on Clauses, amplify each of these statements. However, at this hour, I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to do so. I would nevertheless ask you either to turn up the Notes on Clauses or take it from me that in every single one of them there is an amplification. I should perhaps refer to the last of them in paragraph (e). There, the Notes on Clauses refer to offences under Section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (corruption in office) and Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (corrupt transactions with agents). It is pointed out that corruption involving a public contract is already an arrestable offence, but as the maximum penalty for other corruption offences is two years, they are not at present arrestable. Then it refers to the need to strengthen the law.
I should like to refer to the point which naturally should cause some concern to your Lordships, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, namely, that, instead of being selective, in however
230
complicated a way, we are, by applying generally the Scottish maxim that it is the arrestable offence that is the test, extending greatly the range of arrestable offences. There is surely a simple answer to that. It is that a very high proportion of the offences for which a person over 21 may be sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more carry terms of imprisonment already. So it could he said that the Bill is already creating a considerable extension and that to simplify it and to say it shall apply to all offences punishable with imprisonment would not be such a very great further extension.
On this question of the police, I should disclose that I have been approached both by the Police Federation (with whom I have been in touch for some years) and by the chief officers of police on the Bill generally. I have received, I believe, all their briefing material. I should also disclose that they have made no complaint in any of that briefing material about these provisions. But, if they were given the choice of the provisions in the Bill or the much more simple provision proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, they would leap for joy. They would be delighted, and those responsible for police training would realise that they had a much easier task. Not all police officers, even these days, are as well educated as they might wish to be.
There is a further point. The crime wave continues each year. Although we do not want to turn this country into a police state or anything like it, we must make sure that the police have adequate powers to deal with the crime wave, that they know exactly what powers they have and that they have no doubt about whether they can use them. Applying that test, it is surely better that we should go along with the Scots.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment in the hope that this problem of the definition of arrestable offence may be taken back and reconsidered with other matters before Third Reading. This amendment removes three subsections and a mass of complexity which, although on this occasion, intelligible, is apt to confuse a constable, is apt to inhibit him in the due exercise of his duties, as my noble friend Lord Renton has pointed out, and is also apt to expose him to charges of false arrest. Clause 23 as it stands is complex for the sheer sake and joy of complexity. There is no merit and no justification for arbitrary and anomalous provisions that create practical difficulties to which reference has already been made. A simple test to assess the gravity of an offence in an emergency is what is on the cards. That is what is needed. You can do it either by saying "offences triable on indictment" or you can do it by saying, as this amendment proposes, "punishable by imprisonment". Let us accept that this amendment reflects a position that operates in Scotland. It operates without any trouble. It operates in a wholly satisfactory fashion. It causes no confusion, no injustice and no inhibition of constables in the exercise of their duties. It is far simpler and far more workable than Clause 23 as it stands.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I should like to support the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Foot, first, because it simplifies very much an extremely complicated arrangement as set out in the

231
Bill; and, secondly, because I strongly suspect that, in practice, it will work out not entirely dissimilarly from the way that the Bill is set out. So far as I can see at a quick glance all the specific offences referred to in Clause 23 are offences that are punishable by imprisonment. There may be the odd one that is not; but so far as I can see, all of them are. If that is so, the only question is whether this proposed simplification will sweep in a large number of other offences which it is undesirable should be swept in. I suspect that in practical terms the powers of summary arrest will be very similar under my noble friend's amendment to those set out in the Bill but very much simpler for everyone to follow.
Having said that, I should like to raise one slightly complicating factor which perhaps my noble friend in particular might care to consider at some stage. possibly between now and Third Reading. If I remember correctly, there are still a limited number of offences which are punishable by imprisonment on a second or third or subsequent conviction, but not on first conviction. I rather think that certain types of soliciting still come within that category. If that is so, it is going slightly to confuse the issue. I think that, as it stands, it will mean that the officer would have to know, in relation to those offences, whether or not the person he was arresting had committed an offence previously. My noble friend might like to consider whether his amendment ought not to be marginally improved so that it read.
"offences which are punishable by imprisonment on a first conviction".
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes to speak. I give way at once.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the important point he has made would apply as much to the Bill as it stands as it would if the amendment were made?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am not sure about that. I rather doubt whether there are any offences in the Bill as it stands which are offences that are punishable by imprisonment only on a second or subsequent conviction. I am not sure about that. but I do not think there are. What I was going to suggest to my noble friend Lord Foot, if he wishes to press this amendment either today or at a subsequent stage, is that, if his amendment read,
"offences which are punishable by imprisonment on a first conviction",
it would avoid the difficulties to which I have ventured to give voice. Subject to that minor modification, I also should like to support this amendment.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I watched with interest the to-ing and fro-ing between the Liberal and the Labour Front Benches and wondered whether the noble Liberal spokesmen were trying to seduce the noble Labour spokesmen into vastly extending the powers of arrest in the Bill.
Lord Mischon: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord the Minister that no fur coat passed?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would look so extraordinary in a fur coat that he would never think of accepting one.
232
These amendments would dramatically simplify the Bill and allow the law on arrest to be readily understood by the police and the public alike: and I do indeed see the attractions of both these effects. But the price to be paid for this would be extremely high. There are on the statute book very many offences which are punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than five years, and under these amendments they would cease to be subject to Clause 4 and would instead become arrestable offences under Clause 23.
The noble Lord. Lord Foot, compared what is here proposed with what is now the case in Scotland. The fact is that he appears to me to be looking at only half of the equation that one should look at on this occasion. In Committee, he was first to remind us that the power of detention without charge which we propose for the English and Welsh police is very much greater than is the case in Scotland. It must be the case (must it not?) that the more generous we are to the police in the power which we give them in terms of length of detention without charge, the more careful we must be in giving them powers of arrest—bringing people under that potentiality. Our detention powers are greater than those of the Scots and our arrest powers must therefore be given with a matching and proper restraint.
I am sure that the noble Lord will remind us on a later amendment that the Scots are limited to a period of six hours for detention before charge. Our own constables are free at present to keep people locked up without any limit at all in time before they charge them. We now propose to bring this down to 96 hours, which is 16 times longer than is the case in Scotland. So let us bear that in mind when we compare our law with the Scots', without further pursuing the differences between the two systems.
Before I go on to consider what will follow from the amendment, I should tell your Lordships that in 1966 a working party considered in depth the question of the possibility of a two-year test as opposed to a five-year test. The working party, whose report was not published, was made up of officials and chief police officers. They were initially attracted by the idea of the two-year test but concluded that this would confer unacceptably wide powers on the police; so much the more so. therefore, in the case of a rule of the kind now proposed.
Let us now consider what would follow from the amendment. For example. take the case of gaming in the street. This is an imprisonable offence and, therefore, would become an arrestable offence under these amendments. The effect would be that a police officer could arrest a person on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, even though the offence might have been committed many months previously and even though it would be perfectly possible and appropriate to prosecute by way of a summons. Upon his arrest, the person's premises could be searched for evidence of the offence, under Clause 18.
I suggest to your Lordships that this is not a satisfactory way of enforcing the law. It is much better that such offences should be dealt with under Clause 24, so that prosecution is by way of summons, unless an immediate arrest is necessary. Arrest is the most coercive power of all and it should not be available for

233
the police as a matter of discretion, except in the case of the more serious offences.
The five-year test has nothing to do historically with seriousness. It derived from the abolition in 1967 of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred. There was a power of arrest for felonies, and the Criminal Law Act 1967 simply preserved this. The five-year test was a convenient rule of thumb recommended at the time by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. But, in fact, on the whole it has worked well in practice, subject to one or two anomalies which are corrected in subsection (2). But, more to the point, the police are now thoroughly familiar with the test and, if the amendment succeeded, would need to unlearn it and to learn something quite different, and I do not see that that is something which would lead them to jump for joy.
The present test works reasonably well in practice, as I say, as a criterion for arrestability, and the number of five-year-plus offences is very small relative to the number of imprisonable offences. Therefore, the test of memory is less. Some of the imprisonable offences are often indistinguishable from non-imprisonable offences when it comes to questions of gravity. We do not believe that the Royal Commission made out a sufficient case for relaxing that test, and therefore we rejected the commission's recommendations as conferring powers of arrest which would be more sweeping than were needed and which would jeopardise relations between police and community. That, let us remember, is a principal purpose that we are seeking: to strengthen the relations between the police and the community.
The police are content with Clause 23—specifically so, in the case of the chief constables. My noble friend was kind enough to say that he had received no complaint from that quarter. I think that that really is a sufficient answer to the point he has made, that what we propose is too complex. In fact, it will not amount to anything more complex than what is now the familiar ground on which the police always stand—
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he mention how they get on in Scotland?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I expect they get on very well in Scotland; but the fact is that we are considering the statute book of England and the powers in England. I sought to show your Lordships that the effects of being arrested in England are quite different from the effects of being arrested in Scotland. That is why I do not think the comparisons are valid.
Lord Foot: My Lords, let me say at once that I have not got that degree of support that I might have hoped for, and therefore I am not going to carry this matter to a Division. But I would still invite the noble Lord to consider, if he will, the arguments which have been advanced. Probably the best thing I can do, in endeavouring to give a brief answer to what the noble Lord has said, is to quote to him the conclusions which were arrived at by the majority of the Royal Commission. Their words are very much more potent than any that I could use. They did not accept the argument of the noble Lord that this amendment would. in fact, increase the number of arrests for
234
offences without a warrant. I should like to read to the House the major paragraph where they came to their conclusion:
"The majority of us considers however—
and the word "however" refers to the argument about five years' imprisonment—
"that the need to place the existing powers on a consistent and rational footing cannot he ignored. Their approach is based upon the following considerations. Parliament has established as the criterion of seriousness of offence for arrest on warrant that the offence is either indictable or imprisonable. The power of arrest without warrant is required to deal with situations where it would not he practicable or reasonable to require a warrant to be obtained. But the purposes for which arrest is used, whether on warrant or not, and to which we have referred in paragraph 3.65, are the same. Accordingly the same criterion of seriousness of offence can and should apply to both types of arrest, with the exception that the police should not as a general rule have a power to arrest without warrant for offences which do not carry the penalty of imprisonment. The majority of us, therefore, proposes that an arrestable offence for the purposes of any arrest without warrant should be defined as an offence which is punishable with imprisonment".
On the matter as to whether this would lead to a multiplicity of arrests on the streets, the commission was equally clear. May I say in passing that if I had thought that the effect of my amendment would be to increase the number of arrests, I should certainly have hesitated long before I put these forward amendments. But I was persuaded by the argument as it was put by the commission.
At paragraph 3.83 they say this:
"Those of us who take this position"—
that is, the position of favouring the punishable-by-imprisonment principle—
"do not think that redefinition of the arrestable offence in this way will in practice result in an increase in the total number of arrests. Rather they believe that the restrictions upon arrest and detention upon arrest proposed in paragraph 3.76 are such as to ensure that arrest will be less frequently and widely used even if the definition of arrestable offence is widened".
That is not a conclusion to which a few people jumped after half an hour's consideration. This was a conclusion reached after a closely-argued case, as is contained in the report, and that was the settled conviction of the commission. I must say that I prefer that conclusion and I prefer to rely upon the authority of the commission than the arguments that have been used by the noble Lord.
Is it not rather striking that the noble Lord, in endeavouring to find somebody to support him, should not have looked to the Royal Commission, which sat for a period of some five years considering this matter, but referred us back to some inquiry which took place in 1966? If that is the only authority to which the noble Lord can look does he not have a rather slender case? As I say, I do not propose to take this matter to a Division, but I still hope that the noble Lord might be prepared to look at the matter again before we reach the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Defects Bill
7.36 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Designation of defective dwellings]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, after ("dwelling") insert ("virtue of the designation in question").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 30.
Amendment No. 14: Clause 11, page 17, line 17. at end insert—
("but a building does not cease to be included in a class designated under this section by virtue of its inclusion in a class designated under that section.").
Amendment No. 15: Page 18, line 2, after ("dwelling") insert ("by virtue of the designation in question")
Amendment No. 16: After Clause 11 insert the following new Clause:
("Dwellings included in more than one designation.
.—(1) for the purposes of this Act, where a person is already eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling at a time when a designation under section 1 or 11 of this Act comes into operation, being a designation of a class within which the building that consists of or includes the dwelling falls, that designation is to be disregarded in his case if either—

(a) he would not be eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling if it were the only designation, or

(b) he is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase in respect of the defective dwelling.

(2) Where a person is eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling and the building that consists of or includes the dwelling falls within two or more designations under section 1 or 11 of this Act, being designations which are not required to be disregarded in his case (in this subsection referred to as "applicable designations"), then, in relation to the dwelling, this Act (except sections 1 and 11) shall have effect as if—

(a) references to the designation, or the provision, by virtue of which it is a defective dwelling were references to any applicable designation or, as the case may be, to any provision under which an applicable designation was made,

(b) references to the qualifying defect were references to any qualifying defect described in any applicable designation,

(c) references to the period within which persons may seek assistance under this Act were references to any period specified for that purpose in any applicable designation, and

(d) the reference in paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to this Act to the maximum amount permitted to be taken into account for the purposes of that paragraph were a reference to the sum of those maximum amounts for each applicable designation.

(3) In any case where—

(a) notice has been given to a person at any time under section 4(1) of this Act stating that he is, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling, and

(b) the building that consists of or includes the dwelling falls within a class designated under section 1 or 11 of this Act by a designation coming into operation after that time,

the appropriate authority shall, as soon after that time as it is reasonably practicable to do so, give him notice in writing stating whether or not in their opinion the designation referred to in paragraph (b) above is to be disregarded in his case; and if, in their opinion, it is to be disregarded, the reasons for their view.
(4) Subsections (5) to (8) below apply in any case where—

(a) a person is entitled to assistance by way of reinstatement grant in respect of a defective dwelling at a time when a designation under section 1 or 11 of this Act comes into operation, being a designation of a class within which the building that consists of or includes the dwelling falls (in this and the following subsections referred to as the "later designation"), and

(b) the later designation is not required to be disregarded in his case.

(5) Where it becomes apparent to the appropriate authority that this subsection applies in the case of any person, they shall forthwith give him notice in writing—
236

(a) stating the effect of subsection (2) above and subsection (6) below and of the further designation, and

(b) informing him that he has the right to make a claim under section 3(5) of this Act.

(6) Where it becomes apparent to the authority that this subsection applies in the case of any person, they shall as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so—

(a) make a further determination under section 3(2) of this Act (taking account of the later designation), and

(b) give a further notice under section 4(2) of this Act in place of the previous notice,

and where the determination is that he is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase, the notice shall state the effect of subsections (7) and (8) below.
(7) Where a further notice under section 4(2) of this Act stating that a person is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase is given in place of a previous notice and either—

(a) he satisfies the authority that he has, before the further notice is received, entered into a contract with another to provide services or materials for the purpose of executing any of the work stated in the previous notice or in a notice under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act (in this subsection and subsection (8) below referred to as the "relevant work"), or

(b) any of the relevant work has been carried out before the further notice is received and has been carried out to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority.

then, notwithstanding anything in subsection (6) above the previous notice and any notice under paragraph 3 of that Schedule given before the further notice is received shall continue to have effect for the purposes of section 5 of and Schedule 1 to this Act in relation to the relevant work or, in a case falling within paragraph (b) above, in relation to so much of the relevant work as has been carried out as mentioned in that paragraph: and the authority shall, subject to subsection (8) below, pay reinstatement grant accordingly.
(8) In any case where—

(a) the relevant work is not completed but part of that work is carried out to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority,

(b) the notice in question continues to have effect in relation to that part of the work by virtue of subsection (7) above, and

(c) that part of the work is carried out within the period stated in the notice in question.

paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to this Act shall not apply in relation to reinstatement grant paid in respect of that part of the work and the amount payable in respect of that part of the work shall be an amount equal to the maximum instalment of grant that would have been payable under paragraph 4 of that Schedule in respect of that part of the work.").
Amendment No. 30: Clause 23, page 28, line 25, after ("construed") insert ("(subject to section (Dwellings included in more than one designation) (2) of this Act)").
Under the Bill, dwellings could be subject to two designations; in particular, they could subject both to a national designation by the Secretary of State under Clause 1 and to a local designation by the local authority under Clause 11. It is important that the provisions should not apply in an overlapping or conflicting way in such cases. The Bill makes no provision to deal with overlap at present and the amendments are designed to make such provision.
These amendments, in fact. do four things. First, if the owner is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase under one designation, he shall not be eligible for assistance under a subsequent designation; that is, repurchase will continue to be the form of assistance in his case: there would be little point in processing an application under the subsequent designation if repurchase were already the means of assistance in his case, either because of the owner's personal circumstances or because the qualifying defect under the earlier designation was such that repurchase was the right solution.
Secondly, if it becomes apparent to the authority that a person entitled to assistance by way of

237
reinstatement grant under one designation is eligible for assistance under a subsequent designation, they should make a further determination as to the form of assistance in the light of the second designation and give the owner a further notice under Clause 4(2) stating the form of assistance to which he is entitled. In such cases it would not be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application in respect of the subsequent designation.
Thirdly, if assistance under the subsequent designation is also to be by way of reinstatement grant, the authority shall issue fresh notices as to the work to be required and as to the amount of expenditure. The clause provides that in such circumstances the expenditure limit shall be the aggregate of the expenditure limits applicable to both designations.
Fourthly, where the form of assistance as a result of the subsequent designation is to be by way of repurchase, the owner should be allowed to complete and receive payment for any work to which he may be committed or which he may have completed with a view to reinstatement under a previous designation. These are, in essence, technical amendments, and I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) No designation under this section may be made unless the Secretary of State and local authority Associations have agreed that local authority resources are adequate to cope with the additional requirements, or such other additional resources are made available as appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I go any further, I should explain that I did not rise to the first set of amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord because on this side of the House we have accepted and we understand the reasons for the amendments that he moved, and in our view they seem to be fairly reasonable amendments. Therefore, we did not feel obliged to rise.
However, Amendment No. 2 is a different argument altogether. Under the Bill's proposals, local authorities are being placed under a statutory duty to provide financial assistance to private owners of dwellings which have been sold by private authorities and which are designated as defective. As I understand it, the assistance will either be in the form of a reinstatement grant or, in certain circumstances, by repurchasing the owner's interest in the dwelling. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the original Bill assumes that the provisions of this Bill will be confined to 16,500 owners of prefabricated reinforced concrete dwellings, although it is true that Clause 1 is pretty general.
The total cost is estimated in the memorandum to be between £170 million and £250 million. We have disputed those figures in previous amendments, as we did on Second Reading, and I do not have to enlarge on that at this stage. We remain convinced that the problem will be far greater than the Government estimates suggest. All the expert opinion we have been able to obtain endorses that point of view.
I said on a previous amendment, as I said at Second Reading, that the AMA. for instance, and others estimated that there are 167 different types of industri-
238
alised houses, and they also estimated that there would possibly be involved 1 million-plus houses. That is a colossal problem, and we developed that argument some days ago. But in relation to this Bill, we know that there will be 150,000 prefabricated, reinforced concrete dwellings remaining in local government ownership, not including those of the 16,500 which will pass back to the local authorities, having been repurchased.
The Association of Municipal Authorities, using the Department of Environment figures for the cost of reinstatement, has estimated that local authorities will incur expenditure of no less than £1.5 billion in the future as dwellings deteriorate and need to be repaired. That is the size of the problem, and most people agree that even that will not be the end of it.
While we unequivocally welcome that part of the Bill which gives much needed assistance to those unfortunate private owners who find themselves in this predicament, we have also expressed concern about the lack of assistance—and about the partiality of the Bill—to tenants who will have to remain in defective dwellings. We have also questioned the failure of the Government to provide adequate resources to local authorities now and for future designations.
The Government intend to operate within the confines of the HIP allocation, but we have pointed out that this will create untold problems. This, too, is summed up fairly adequately by the Association of Municipal Authorities in a recent report, Defects in Housing Part 2, issued earlier this year. They say:
"Unfortunately, the problems of both 'non-traditional' and system built dwellings are emerging now, at the very time when housing investment is being substantially reduced. The Government also proposes that Housing Investment Programmes are further reduced, in real terms, in 1984/85 and 1985/86. Capital receipts, from council house sales and sales of other assets, have not restored the level of housing investment. In fact, as capital receipts have risen HIP allocations have fallen with 'gross provision' declining in real terms very substantially. Local authorities are having great difficulty in funding the cost of remedial works programmes within their HIP provision. Inevitably the demands of existing tenants in existing housing will take priority in most programmes and therefore the proportion of HIP expenditure spent on renovation of the public stock has increased—but at the expense of other programmes, notably new housebuilding.".
This means that local authority repairs and maintenance programmes will be distorted by this whole process and tenants will be forced to live in substandard conditions for far longer than is necessary and than would normally be tolerated. If we are not alert to the difficulties now, we shall build up massive problems—as bad as those of the old slum clearance days.
It has also been accepted by those of us who have discussed these measures—and I think the Government, too, have accepted it—that the responsibility for the prefabricated reinforced structures lies fairly and squarely at the door of Governments. All Governments since the war have been responsible for these buildings. Again, I can quote from the same excellent report of the AMA, and this was endorsed by a Shelter report, as well as by reports from other housing authorities.
Of course all the local authorities which have written to us have said the same. They have said that the problem was created by the Government when they directly involved themselves in the housing

239
programmes of local authorities in the 1940s, 'fifties, 'sixties, and 'seventies in order to achieve massive targets. Those of us who were in local authorities remember what was almost a Dutch auction that went on. One party said, "We will build 300,000 houses a year", and so the others said, "We will build 400,000". The next election address stated 500,000. There was a great auction in regard to who could build the most. Sites were not available, nor were materials: and skilled labour was not readily available. Industrialised building was deliberately pushed by Governments of all parties. Incentives were given; so was assistance with sites and plans. Local by-laws were changed, and in many cases were superseded by national by-laws, in order to get rid of "nuisances", as they were then called, who were the people who objected. People such as us, who objected that it was going too fast, and who did not like high-rise building, anyway, were classed as nuisances, and by-laws were swept aside in order to make it easier for local authorities to comply with industrialised building. Subsidies were given, and the whole trend went on.
There cannot be any argument—and, to be fair, I have not heard one from anybody—about the responsibility of all Governments for this programme. It therefore seems to me that in the face of all this evidence and the reasonableness of the amendment and the arguments we have put forward, it would be no more than just that we should make sure that, because of all those problems, adequate extra resources should be made available by the Government. Those resources would then enable local authorities to cope with assistance to both private owners and tenants remaining in the dwellings, without using up funds which in many cases have already been earmarked for the planned programmes of urgent repairs and maintenance which are already in position in many local authority areas. Apart from that, the amendment is self-explanatory, and I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so eloquently moved by my noble friend and colleague Lord Stallard. It is always easy to stand up and say, "I told you so", but I believe that in another place I raised the first warnings about the situation that the nation was in through the use of system building. The first move towards compensating people who had purchased houses from their local authority and then found themselves left with albatrosses occurred in another place. In order to appease one of their Back-Benchers the last Conservative Government two years ago, brought in the Airey house order which provided for financial assistance to be given for repair, or remedial, work to people who had bought Airey houses from their local authority. On that occasion I initiated a debate in another place on the problem we were then experiencing, and I said that the problem was "surfacing". What was being dealt with was only the smallest tip of a gigantic iceberg which would surface with frightening rapidity. That has been borne out by subsequent events.
The next thing was that other houses had to be surveyed by the Building Research Establishment and the same sorry tale began to emerge. It is not a party
240
argument. In the debate I initiated in another place I was strongly supported by Conservative Members with constituents who were facing the same problem. I have the greatest sympathy for people who are left with this problem; but the argument is about who pays to put it right.
Let me say immediately that most of the people who bought the houses initially had a very good deal. They bought what were substantial houses at a knock-down price, and everything seemed very good. Little did they know that in a short time it would be proved that they had bought a commodity that was no longer marketable. I have used these words before when I served on a Standing Committee with my noble friend Lord Graham on the Housing and Building Control Bill in another place, and I explained this then.
In an outstanding case, former constitutents of mine, a lady and her husband, bought what they called a Smith house in Leeds. They bought it 16 years ago when the present Minister of State was then the leader of the local authority in Leeds. That is not significant, but Leeds' policy was to sell council houses at that time. This lady bought the house at a handsome discount, which I think at that time was a maximum of 33 per cent. She came to see me just before the general election, just over 12 months ago, with the tale that the house had been in excellent condition. It had been surveyed and there was no structural deterioration whatsoever. The estate agent and surveyor had valued the house at nearly £20,000. She had down-marketed the house by £2,000 to try to dispose of the house. It was an excellent house, but because it was a system-built house the mark of Cain was on it, she had it advertised for sale for two years and not had one firm answer. She had had inquiries but as soon as it was known that it was a system-built house the offers evaporated.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend appreciates how valuable was his reference to the Smith houses in Leeds in the context of the current consideration by the Government. My honourable friend, Mr. Terry Davis, the Member of Parliament for Hodge Hill, has been attempting to persuade the Minister that as an additional system to be added to the designated 28, the Smith houses ought to be represented. The Minister is indicating that he is not too certain whether there is a national rather than a local aspect to this. The reference by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick that there are Smith houses in Leeds should considerably strengthen the case for including Smith houses as an additional case for designation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I do not think I ever had a reputation in another place or in this place for long speeches. I did not speak in the Second Reading debate because of the number of people involved and the time factor, and I did not speak at the further stages; but I am bound to say that I may take a little longer than normal to develop my case. That whole kernel of what the Bill is not about or what ought to be included is contained in the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, myself and my other noble friend.
I want to say why it is grossly unfair. It would appear—I repeat that it would appear—that the

241
Government are turning a completely blind eye to the people remaining in the public sector who have to live in the same type of house. It would appear that the Government are on occasions manifesting themselves as conducting a vendetta against people who are left to live in council houses. I have no particular objection to the provisions in the Bill that afford the compensation to owners that have bought these unmarketable houses.
It is significant that the building societies will not touch system-built houses with a barge pole. I understand that the Government are making strenuous efforts to try to influence them or cajole them into moving and into providing mortgages on this type of property. I understand that so far there has been no movement whatsoever. It is obvious that there is no future in the private market for these properties. What does the bill do? It says that the people who bought them can go in for remedial or repair grants for x numbers of pounds but that still leaves, on the Leeds calculation a couple of thousand pounds between the cost of the job and what it will attract in Government assistance.
The alternative is re-purchase by the local authority, not by option but mandatorily. This is where the total unfairness comes in. As I understand it—I do not know whether we have reached this part of the Bill yet but my noble friend Lord Graham will indicate—the Government will acquiesce where local authorities have taken over responsibility for former National Coal Board houses. They are prepared to make a concession that the local authority—which did not build them but became the landlord, then sold them at a discount to the tenant, not to themselves—will be refunded 100 per cent. They will bear no charge whatsoever. What is the justification for somebody living in a Coal Board house in South Yorkshire— that local authority may have a mass of them in the pit areas—to receive total compensation? I think that is correct and should be done, but I fail to understand the arguments, lack of conviction or sympathy by the Government for the fact that for every house that the city of Leeds has to buy back, 25 per cent. of the cost will have to be borne by other council house tenants or the ratepayers in Leeds. That is an appalling case of discrimination that may, when the Bill started off, have warranted an examination on the possibility of hybridity by not giving people in a similar situation similar protection or advice under the law.
In the next few minutes I shall put the case as I see it for Leeds. Leeds has more Airey houses in its stock than any other authority in the country. It has a variety of other houses that will be included in the Bill and others that may later be included in further Bills. This is a spreading cancer that cannot be stopped.
This document states that in Leeds:
"the Council's programme for remedying its defective 'Airey' properties envisages a five-year programme costing £20,750,000 or £4 million per year.
Present funding restrictions suggest that this programme is likely to stretch to 15 years before completion."
So we are saying that those who bought their houses at a discount and did very well at the beginning find that the matter is urgent, require an Act in this Parliament that can give them the fullest compensation possible.
242
The neighbour living next door in the council house that has not had such a benefit may have to wait 15 years under the present Government's cut-backs in finance. This figure relates only to council properties. It has nothing to do with those that have been privately bought and are still in private ownership. The document continues:
"Approximately 400 Airey house properties were originally sold by the Council.
So far, 227 owner-occupiers have re-sold to the Council, following the decision to offer re-purchase assistance".
Some are obviously pre-empting the Act, so it will catch up with them in any case. I would be surprised if it is not almost 100 per cent. who will opt for re-sale back to the council when the Bill becomes law.
The document continues:
"The cost to the council so far has been £3,726,538.
A further 85 sales are in progress, and at an average buy-back cost of £17,000 this represents a further cost of £1,445,000."
On my calculations, that means to say that of that money, the housing investment programme or the rates in Leeds will have to subvent the repurchase by the local authority amounting to £350,000. This is brought about by a Government Bill that is mandatory and not optional. So much for the fairness of the situation.
I could go into the question of repair grants. The average cost of repair is £9,700 and there is a further cost of an average £1,440 making an total cost of nearly £12,000. The maximum grant contribution is £9,500, and this leaves a personal debt of £2,250. To me, that is an indication that if you are in a situation where you had bought one of these properties, you will certainly not opt for repair, you will get rid of it on the basis that somebody is going to fund you totally.
The council's experience with Airey houses can be summarised. In all but a few cases, resale to the council has been preferred to the repair grant—and we have already made that point—which is not surprising, considering the personal financial contribution required. Building society attitudes as to the mortgage ability of rebuilt Airey properties are still negative, despite the fact that remedial works effectively convert the houses to traditional construction. This is the Leeds scheme of conversion where they enclose the walls in a brick cladding which then become the load-bearing walls.
What are the defects in this Bill? The document says—and I concur with this—that it is an extension and rationalisation of the ad hoc position provided to owner-occupiers of Airey houses. It would appear that the Government prefer to go to almost any lengths down this road to redeem a "clanger" of their making.
The Bill makes positive recommendations only for the financing of remedial works to privately-owned defective properties—which is one of the most unfair parts of the Bill because it means to say that Leeds, having bought back all these houses, will then do the remedial work on the property but they may—and there is no significance in this yet because the housing investment programme is being butchered—have to have it done under the housing investment programme. If you start talking in terms of £10,000 per house on this type of operation, you are not going to have much finance left to deal with anything else. But the Secretary of State—and here comes the punch

243
line—may make a contribution towards the cost of the public sector remedial programmes. I would ask the Minister if he would bring his mind to bear on that particular facet: the Secretary of State may make a contribution towards the cost of public sector remedial programmes.
The figures in Appendix 1 to the report, based on the Airey experience, show that the likely repair programme cost for Leeds could be approximately £50 million. This is in addition to the financial requirement for Aireys and the council's normal housing capital expenditure requirement, which already reflects significant needs for remedial expenditure on other non-traditional property types.
The point behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stallard is to indicate that we are a nation, I believe, that has a record second to none in giving our people even-handed treatment. This is no such thing. I warned the Government in another place when they acquiesced in the request of their own Back-Bencher, the honourable Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (as it was then) that they were opening a can of worms. They are, in fact, opening a can of worms but the only worms that they are catching and treating are the private-sector worms. The people in the public sector are to be left to carry a large part of the financial burden that is required to correct the Government's policies in dealing with this situation.
In the case of Leeds, I am not proposing to hold anything up or to bolt the gate tonight, but as far as I am concerned I would ask whether the Government can give some undertaking or understanding that they will look at this problem and find additional finance. I think my noble friend Lord Stallard is perfectly correct in saying that we are not criticising this Government. In my speeches in another place, I made the point that it was the fault of successive governments. My noble friend Lord Stallard was right. The national target at the time was 300,000 housing units a year. This monstrosity of a problem that we are left with arose because Ministers of various political colours periodically taking office and changing office wanted to inflate that total of 300,000 with 100,000 houses or flats or units of accommodation built by system building.
I close on this. During the debate, I think on Second Reading, in another place, the Member for Manchester, Central, spoke of the problems of Manchester. That is a problem different from that contained in the Bill. Manchester's problem is one of deck-access flats and system building and it is part of the iceberg which is surfacing in London and all over the place.
The first financial commitment that I read of nationally was a national appraisal given by the AMA of £5 billion. The second report 12 months afterwards was £10 billion. And so it goes on. I would suspect that of all the authorities in the country, Manchester—where I was the chairman of housing for a while and was bitterly opposed to system building but lost the vote on the basis of the way that the subsidy at the time was structured—would have a far bigger debt per capita of its population to pay than any other major city outside London. They are demolishing what were known as the "forts", which were built by Bisons, and
244
the cost on those is astronomical. They have not been built 15 years and now they are having to demolish them. I suggest that it is about time the Government—and I am not only blaming this Government: past governments and past Labour governments were as much to blame—took on board this responsibility and gave some hope to the authorities that they are grappling with the situation. Finally, let me say that if they are to do that—and, by all justice, they should—let it be separate from the housing investment programme and not be masked in that, leaving the authorities with insufficient funds to do what they wish to do to put this problem right.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to address myself to the amendment. All that the amendment asks us to do is to consider whether it would be helpful in dealing with this problem to impose a delay on designation by the Secretary of State until such time as he and the local authority associations have agreed about the resources required. I really do not think that that would be helpful. There is a major problem here: we heard all about it at Second Reading and on Committee and we have heard all about it again just now. The first way of tackling this is to define it with as much precision as is possible and the final stage in that definition is designation by the Secretary of State. So anything that would delay designation is going to be unhelpful. Therefore, I would not want to see this amendment incorporated.
I have no doubt at all that, as and when these classes are designated and the size of the problem is determined, that will make the tackling of it that much easier. It will certainly be very difficult for all the reasons that we have heard over and over again and not least because of the difference between the kind of problem faced by the private owner as compared with the kind of problem faced by the council tenant. But delaying designation will not help and I hope therefore that noble Lords opposite will not press the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I wish that all Second Reading speeches were constructed and delivered as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in moving this amendment. I make no complaint about this because he has a major point to make on the financing of this sector of local government expenditure.
With this amendment we return to an issue which has been dicussed at considerable length, as my noble friend Lord Sandford has reminded me, both in this House at Second Reading of the Bill and at Committee last week, and in another place. It gives me as much pleasure to tell the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that he is right in his survey of the scene, as it has been for him to tell me so. The amendment would require the agreement of local authority associations on the availability of resources before a designation could be made. I have read again with interest, as I promised, what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said in moving the amendment at Committee stage last week. But, with respect, I think noble Lords are still missing the point as to what the Bill is all about.
This Bill is not about tenants and the houses in which they live. The objective of the Bill is to provide

245
for a scheme of assistance to private owners of defective dwellings who bought in good faith—and at defect-free value—from the public sector. The Building Research Establishment has identified 28 types of dwelling that have inherent defects of design or construction, the existence of which has considerably reduced the value of those dwellings. The Bill recognises the public sector's responsibility to those private owners who bought such dwellings and proposes that they should be compensated for the loss they have suffered.
In the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in the speech of his noble friend Lord Dean, on the relationship between the Department of the Environment, Smith houses and Leeds, I did not understand correctly the relationships—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the argument of the Minister in another place in hesitating about or not including Smith houses was that he was not too sure that the Smith house illustration in Birmingham represented a national situation rather than a special, local, built-on-shale situation. What my noble friend has been trying to do with some modest success is to demonstrate that Smith houses were built on a national scale and the problem is national. It was no more than that. I just saw the opportunity of reminding the noble Lord the Minister and those who read the debate that the matter is still open.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is fair comment. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is absolutely right.
What this short debate really centres on is the question of resources. I have said before that authorities' expenditure under the Bill in repairing their own stock has been, and will continue to be, taken into account in HIP allocations. We had quite a long discussion spread over several amendments at the Committee stage. I have said that the department is discussing with the local authority associations ways in which the HIP calculations could reflect authorities' needs for spending on defective housing. I brought up the point at Committee stage that local authorities' own stock and finance for it provided by central government will be allocated when local authorities have themselves put those repairs in their particular budget. I also said at the time that it is for the local authorities to decide how the general HIP allocation should be spent.
Under that arrangement, which was introduced in response to the request of the local authorities, it is of course difficult for the local authority to know how recognition has been given to a particular need. Here I must part company with the arguments of noble Lords opposite. It ought not therefore to be represented that no such recognition has been given, although I accept that unless you have a piece of paper in front of you it is sometimes rather difficult to accept that point.
Getting back as my noble friend did to this amendment, although I assume like him that it is on the Marshalled List to probe, it seeks to establish full agreement with local authorities about resources before a designation can be made. I believe that it is unrealistic ever to expect full agreement with local
246
authorities on an issue such as resources and that it is unrealistic to require that designations should be contingent upon such agreements. We all complain about money—in our personal lives, in our business lives and in our working lives. I think, however, that I illustrated to the House at earlier stages of the Bill that the Government do have and will continue to have regard to the expenditure needs of local authorities on defective houses. If local authorities need further discussions on this matter, my door or that of my noble friend is always open.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I must first of all apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Dean, who was called out of the Chamber before he was able to hear the Minister's full reply. But as the noble Lord the Minister rightly says, the noble Lord was right in his survey of the problem. He used Leeds as an example and it was a perfectly good example to use because, as I understand from the department's own figures, of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built during the 1940s and 1950s, Leeds still has 7,104 in local authority ownership. As my noble friend said, 227 are privately owned, and those 227 concern the people who will benefit from this Bill, and the 7,104 concern those whom we have been trying to bring to the attention of the Minister. Multiplied throughout the country that will be the size of the problem.
While I recognise and accept what the noble Lord the Minister has said about all the discussions that are going on, I do not think that we will ever agree—certainly not at this stage; perhaps he will at some future stage—about there being a grave problem —an administrative problem and a psychological problem—attached to the partiality of the Bill. Of two people living next door to each other, one will get the full compensatory rights arising from the Bill, which means financial compensation with a transfer to alternative accommodation and the right to buy that other accomodation; the other fellow will have to remain for all sorts of reasons in the rented accommodation. He will still be arguing for the transfer which he so badly needs because of his family and so on, but he will not be able to get it. Not only will he be convinced that he lives now in a defective dwelling but "defective" will take on the connotation of "unsafe" and we will see all the organisational problems that flow from that. I foresee great difficulties there as well as the local authority administrative problems.
Having said that, I recognise and accept what the Minister has said. I hope that the negotiations going on through the HIP channels and so forth will be fruitful, and that something will come out of the debates that we have had on this amendment. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Entitlement to reinstatement grant or repurchase]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 3, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.
Amendment No. 6: Clause 4, page 8, line 14, at end insert—
("(cc) the amount of expenditure which, in their opinion, may properly be incurred in entering into any associated arrangement;").
Amendment No. 8: Page 8, line 38, at end insert—
("(6) In this Act, "associated arrangement" means any arrangement which—

(a) is to be entered into in connection with the execution of the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling, and

(b) is likely to contribute towards the dwelling being regarded as acceptable security by a lending institution.").

Amendment No. 9: Clause 5, page 9, line 2, at end insert ("and in respect of any associated arrangement.").
Amendment No. 28: Clause 23, page 28, line 8, at end insert—
(" "associated arrangement" has the meaning given by section 4(6) of this Act;").
Amendment No. 29: Page 28, line 18, at end insert—
(" "lending institution" means any building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1962 and any of the bodies specified in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Schedule to the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978.").
Amendment No. 31: Schedule 1, page 32, line 13, at end insert ("and entering into any associated arrangement").
Amendment No. 32: Page 32, line 14, after ("work") insert ("and entering into any associated arrangement").
Amendment No. 33: Page 32, line 39, leave out ("or")
Amendment No. 34: Page 32, line 41, at end insert—
("(c) there is an amount of expenditure which may properly be incurred in entering into an associated arrangement but no such amount is stated in the notice under section 4(2) of this Act or a previous notice under this paragraph, or
(d) where such an amount is so stated, the amount of expenditure which may be properly so incurred is greater than that amount,").
Amendment No.35: Page 32, line 43, after ("to") insert ("that amount or, as the case may be,").
Amendment No. 36: Page 33, line 1, after ("grant") insert ("in respect of the qualifying work").
Amendment No. 37: Page 33, line 8, at end insert—
("(3) The appropriate authority shall pay reinstatement grant in respect of any associated arrangement when payment in respect of the expenditure incurred in entering into the arrangement concerned falls to be made.").
I think that this group of amendments will be welcomed by the whole House. During the passage of the Bill through this House and through another place concern has been expressed as to whether these houses will be mortgageable after repair. We have been asked to explore the possibility for warranties for the repairs themselves. In this context, the House will recall that we are discussing both issues with the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 10, after ("modify") insert ("or omit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 30, after ("of") insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: With permission, my Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. Both are technical, drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment No. 7: Clause 4, page 8, line 28, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").
Clause 4 [Notice of determination]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 6:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to both these amendments with Amendment No. 3, and I beg to move them en bloc.
Clause 8 [Purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
Page 12, line 24, leave out ("subsection (4) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section").
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("and").
Page 13, line 11, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 12 and insert—
("(c) any amount which, apart from this paragraph, would be payable by a housing authority under subsection (1) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc. Clause 8 provides in compulsory purchase cases for a top-up payment to make up the difference between the price that an owner would have been paid under the Bill (that is, 95 per cent. of the defect-free value) and the amount of compensation he received as a result of the compulsory acquisition. The purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that any well-maintained payments received by the owner should be deducted from the top-up payment. Unless that deduction is made, there will be an element of double payment, which is clearly undesirable. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause:
("Rights of pre-emption etc.
.—(1) This section applies in any case where (apart from this section)—

(a) a person (in this section referred to as "the owner") is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase in respect of a defective dwelling, and

(b) there is a covenant relating to his interest in the defective dwelling whereby—

(i) before disposing of the interest he must offer to dispose of it to a public sector authority, or

249

(ii) where, in the case of a leasehold interest, he may require a public sector authority being his landlord to accept a surrender of the lease, he is otherwise prohibited from disposing of it.

(2) If the public sector authority concerned are the appropriate authority, the covenant shall be disregarded for all purposes in relation to anything done by the owner in pursuance of the rights conferred on him by section 6 of and Schedule 2 to this Act.
(3) If the public sector authority concerned are not the appropriate authority, then—

(a) so long as the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above applies, the owner is not to be treated for the purposes of section 6 of this Act as entitled to assistance by way of repurchase, and

(b) if the owner disposes of his interest to the public sector authority in pursuance of the covenant or lease, as the case may be, and the interest acquired by that authority on the disposal subsists only in the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it, the owner is entitled, subject to subsection (6) below, to be paid by the housing authority the amount (if any) by which 95 per cent. of the defect-free value exceeds the consideration for the disposal.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the defect-free value is the amount that would have been the consideration for the disposal if none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question related had been affected by the qualifying defect and in subsection (3)(b) above and this subsection, "the consideration for the disposal" means, where the consideration for the disposal is required to be reduced by any amount under section 19(7) of the 1980 Act or any provision to the like effect, the aggregate of the consideration for the disposal (after that reduction) and that amount.
(5) If the public sector authority concerned are not the appropriate authority and the condition in subsection (3)(b) above is satisfied, section 9 of this Act shall apply in the case of the owner—

(a) as if the public sector authority were the appropriate authority and the interest acquired had been acquired by the authority in pursuance of section 6 of this Act,

(b) as if the reference in subsection (7) to the service of a copy agreement were a reference to the time of disposal, and

(c) where the public sector authority are not one of the bodies mentioned in section 22(7) of this Act, with the modifications set out in section 22(8) of this Act.

(6) A housing authority are not required to make a payment to any person under this section unless he makes a written application to them for the payment before the end of the period of two years beginning with the time of disposal.
(7) Where a housing authority refuse an application for a payment under this section they shall give to the owner a notice in writing stating their reasons for doing so.
(8) Any question arising under this section as to defect-free value shall be determined by the district valuer if the owner or the housing authority so require by notice in writing served on the district valuer.
(9) Before making a determination in pursuance of subsection (8) above, the district valuer shall consider any representation by the owner or the authority made to him within four weeks from the service of the notice under that subsection.
(10) A person serving a notice on the district valuer under subsection (8) above shall serve notice in writing of that fact on the authority or, as the case may be, the owner.
(11) In this section—
"district valuer" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act;
"housing authority", in relation to a defective dwelling, means the housing authority in whose area the dwelling is situated; and references to the owner include a reference to his personal representatives.
(12) This section applies to Scotland as if—

(a) the references to a covenant were references to a condition in the title to the defective dwelling;

(b) in subsections (2), (3)(a) and (5)(a), for "section 6" there were substituted "section 7";

(c) in subsection (3)(b), for "appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it" there were substituted "pertinents belonging to or usually enjoyed with the dwelling or any part of it; and

(d) in subsection (5)(b), for "a copy agreement" there were substituted "an offer to purchase".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13, and I should like to speak also the Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.
Amendment No. 17: Clause 15, page 20, line 34, after ("8(6)") insert ("(Rights of pre-emption etc.) (8)")
Amendment No. 18: Clause 16, page 21, line 12, after ("8(6)") insert ("(Rights of pre-emption etc.) (8)")
Amendment No. 19: Clause 17, page 21, line 34, after ("8") insert (" or (Rights of pre-emption etc.)")
Amendment No. 20: Page 21, line 40, after ("8") insert (" or (Rights of pre-emption etc.)")
Amendment No. 21: Page 22, line 5, after ("8") insert (" or (Rights of pre-emption etc.)")
Amendment No. 22: Page 22, line 40, after ("8") insert (" or (Rights of pre-emption etc.)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, among those amendments is a new clause. The purpose of the new clause and the consequential amendments to Clauses 15, 16 and 17 is to make provision for cases where there may be a conflict between the duty imposed on a housing authority under the Bill to repurchase the dwelling and a right of pre-emption applying to that dwelling. For example, under the Housing Act 1980, if a tenant exercises the right to buy in an area of outstanding natural beauty, the local authority can impose a covenant under Section 19 of that Act, giving it first refusal on any disposal within 10 years of acquisition. Unless the Bill provides otherwise, the pre-emption covenant could cut across the owner's right to assistance under the Bill because repurchase under the covenant would be at market (that is, defective) value.
This is a complicated matter. The new clause deals only with cases where pre-emption covenants have been imposed by public sector bodies; it does not attempt to interfere with rights of pre-emption as agreed between private individuals.
Essentially the new clause provides that if the beneficiary of the pre-emption covenant is the authority which is to repurchase the dwelling under the terms of the Bill, the covenant shall cease to have effect and the owner can get assistance under the Bill in the normal way. If the beneficiary is a public sector body other than the authority with an obligation to assist under the Bill, then the clause provides that the owner should, if he has to sell to the other body, be entitled to a top-up payment from the housing authority similar to the arrangement we have discussed in Clause 8 for compulsory purchase. The top-up payment will be equal to the difference between what he would have received under the Bill and what he actually receives under the covenant, which would have reflected the existence of the defects. We are seeking to place the owner as nearly as possible in the same position as owners who get assistance under the Bill but who are not affected by pre-emption covenants. I hope, with that explanation, the House will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 11 [Designation under local schemes]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
[Printed earlier: col. 235.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move

251
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 16:
[Printed earlier: col. 235.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Clause 15 [Jurisdiction of county court and rules of procedure]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 22:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 en bloc. I spoke to them with No. 13. I beg to move.
Clause 19 [Modification of Act in relation to shared ownership leases]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 24, line 39, leave out (", Scotland").
Page 24, line 40, at end insert—
("(6) This section does not apply to Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. The purpose of these amendments is to exclude Scotland from the scope of Clause 19, which was introduced at Committee stage.
Shared ownership leases in England and Wales are based on a well established concept of land tenure and are fully recognised and accepted by the legal profession. The position in Scotland, I understand, is rather different. Section 8 of the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974 largely precludes the creation of new residential leases exceeding 20 years. Indeed, the term "shared ownership lease" is unknown in Scotland.
Such shared ownership schemes as do exist in Scotland are of very recent origin and, I understand, do not operate on dwellings built in the period we are discussing in terms of defective housing under the Bill in hand. In any case, the arrangements fall some way short of the shared ownership leases found in England and Wales, although I hasten to add that they have proved entirely acceptable to building societies for the purpose of offering mortgages. There are no plans, given the existence of the 1974 Act to which I have referred, to introduce arrangements of this kind into the main corpus of land tenure law in Scotland. Therefore, as Clause 19 pertains to Scotland, it would be better to leave it out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
("Application of Act in relation to mortgagees.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of conferring rights and obligations on any mortgagee of a defective dwelling where—
252

(a) a power of sale (whether conferred by section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or otherwise) is exercisable by the mortgagee, and

(b) the mortgagor is eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling.

(2) The rights that may be conferred on a mortgagee by regulations under this section are—

(a) rights corresponding to those conferred by this Act on a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling,

(b) the right to require the appropriate authority to acquire in accordance with the regulations any interest in the defective dwelling to be disposed of in exercise of the power of sale, and

(c) where the mortgagee is the appropriate authority, the right by deed to vest the dwelling in themselves, and the rights that may be so conferred may be conferred in place of any rights conferred on any other person by this Act.

(3) Regulations under this section may provide that, where the conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above are or have been satisfied, this Act, the power of sale in question and any enactment relating to the power of sale shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Where a defective dwelling is vested in a mortgagee in pursuance of regulations under this section or in pursuance of sections 112 and 113 of the 1980 Act or section 19 of and Schedule 5 to the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 (vesting of mortgaged dwelling-house in local authority etc.), the regulations may provide for the payment in respect of the vesting of an amount calculated on the assumption that none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question relates are affected by the qualifying defect, and those enactments shall have effect subject to any such provisions.
(5) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases, and

(b) may make incidental and consequential provision.

(6) In this section "mortgagee" and "mortgagor" have the same meaning as in the Law of Property Act 1925.
(7) This section does not apply to Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Amendment No. 26: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
("Application of Act in relation to lenders on security of defective dwelling in Scotland.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of conferring rights and obligations on any person who has granted a loan on the security of a defective dwelling where—

(a) a power of sale is exercisable by the lender, and

(b) the borrower is eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling.

(2) The rights that may be conferred on a lender by regulations under this section are—

(a) rights corresponding to those conferred by this Act on a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling, and

(b) the right to require the appropriate authority to acquire in accordance with the regulations any interest in the defective dwelling to be disposed of in exercise of the power of sale, and the rights that may be so conferred may be conferred in place of any rights conferred on any other person by this Act.

(3) Regulations under this section may provide that, where the conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above are or have been satisfied, this Act, the power of sale and any enactment relating to the power of sale in question shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases, and

(b) may make incidental and consequential provision.

(5) This section applies to Scotland only.").
Amendment No. 27: Clause 20, page 25, line 12, after ("19") insert ("(Application of Act in relation to lenders on security of defective dwelling in Scotland,)").
These amendments are being brought forward in response to representations from the Building Societies Association, and if the noble Lord, Lord Dean, were here, I could tell him that they are eager to help in this matter.
The Bill as drafted provides that only private individuals, their trustees or personal representatives are eligible for assistance under the Bill. In most cases the houses will have been purchased with the assistance of a mortgage. The Building Societies Association have expressed concern that in cases where, for example, the mortgagor has defaulted or, for some other reason, the mortgagee has become entitled to exercise the power of sale, then the mortgagee should be entitled to obtain assistance on the mortgagor's behalf if the mortgagor does not take steps to obtain it.
This is a matter to which we have given careful consideration. The mortgagee already stands to benefit from the normal operation of the scheme—that is, where the indebted owner himself applies. However there is the case of the owner who, though in default of his mortgage payment, cannot be bothered or is unable through absence to take up the rights conferred on him by Parliament under this Bill.
The new clause is designed to enable the Secretary of State to make suitable provision for mortgagees who have become entitled to exercise the power of sale to be able to apply for assistance. We think that this is a sensible provision to make, and I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 26:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I spoke to it in connection with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
Clause 20 [Regulations, rules and orders]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 27:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
Clause 23 [General interpretation]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
[Printed earlier: col. 247.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 3.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 30:
[Printed earlier: col. 236.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Schedule 1 [Reinstatement grant]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 37:
[Printed earlier: col. 247.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 en bloc. I spoke to them all with Amendment No. 3.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I should point out on Amendment No. 34 that in subparagraph (c), line 4, the word "on" should read "or".
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 23rd July), Bill read a third time.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I just take this very brief opportunity to express the satisfaction of the Opposition—at least, the Labour opposition; I am certain that if the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, were in his place, as he was on Second Reading and in Committee, he, too, would express his satisfaction—with this outcome. I want sincerely to thank the Minister who has been in charge of this Bill in this place, because he has had the difficult job of reconciling competing claims, which he has done to the satisfaction of Members on the Labour Benches and, I believe, throughout the House.
I am vey pleased indeed to see that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is in his place, representing not only his own attitude on the matter but also, very fairly and successfully, the view of literally millions of people who are represented in the councils which form the Association of District Councils. I represent my party as well as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I have the pleasure and the privilege of being a vice-president, as I am of the ADC. They will be satisfied that the Government have done the right thing by the 16,000 people and their families who have been caught up in a very difficult situation.
I believe that my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Stallard, and perhaps myself, with our experience as leaders of councils and chairmen of housing committees, have been able to bring a dimension of understanding to the debates that others may not have been able to bring. All told, this has been a satisfactory outcome and I repeat that we are very grateful indeed to the Minister and his advisers, who have sought an accommodation which has made the atmosphere on this Bill a little happier than the Minister and I have experienced on others. I am very pleased indeed to support the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to do so, too. As my noble friend said a moment or two ago, the Bill deals with those houses which are now owned by council tenants who have exercised their right to buy and that is the problem that we are dealing with when

255
we are dealing with this Bill. But my noble friend must bear in mind that local housing authorities are dealing on the one hand with that problem, and on the other hand with the remedying of the defects in those same houses which are still occupied by council tenants. That poses a much larger problem in terms of scale and a different problem in terms of striking an equitable balance between those two groups. We have quite enough of a problem on our hands without having to worry about lack of resources, and I beg my noble friend to bear in mind the importance of ensuring that they are there.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who has not spoken in this very short debate, for their constructive attitude towards the Government and for being behind the purposes of this Bill. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who said at Committee stage that I did not go all the way with them. But noble Lords know perfectly well that I would have been shot if I had. However, the points made at the last moment by my noble friend Lord Sandford are very well taken.
I have spoken on numerous occasions on the subject of HIP allocations and this is something that there will, very naturally, be discussions upon every year in the future, until perhaps—who knows?—at some stage in the future we get to a point where some other method of local authority finance for building maintenance and construction is arrived at. But that is very much for the future. For now, I beg to move.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
8.36 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Clause 24 [General arrest conditions]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 22, line 9, after ("offence") insert ("punishable by imprisonment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in the temporary absence, I trust, of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, whose recovery into rude health we hope to hear news of at any moment now, I beg to move this amendment. I wish that it had been a minute ago, which would have saved me the onerous responsibility of moving an amendment which is in his name but which I support enthusiastically.
Clause 24 deals with the important matter of arrest with general arrest conditions. Clause 24(1) reads:
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because general arrest conditions are satisfied.".
So it is a very serious and important provision creating grounds for the arrest of a person.
Of course, arrest is a very serious matter and one which is embarked upon only within the strict limits of
256
the provisions of the law. But the effect of the language of Clause 24, as we see it, is that the most trivial offence could well be grounds for the power of arrest which is given to a constable. The relevant words are,
"for suspecting that any offence … has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted".
Already in the Bill substantial powers of arrest have been provided and it is right that they should exist in regard to the offences that really matter, such as wounding, assault, public order offences, thefts, receiving, taking and driving away cars, housebreaking implements, drugs, firearms, the Official Secrets Act, immigration and breaches of the peace. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pointed out earlier, those matters are already provided for in the provisions of the Bill.
Then we suddenly find this clause providing, as the language I have read out indicates, a very substantial extension of the powers of arrest, because it is giving powers to arrest for any offence—that is to say, any offence known to the law—in certain circumstances. As I have indicated, they may be offences so trivial as to carry no penalty of imprisonment.
One of the justifications and explanations of the amendment which I have moved—namely, that offences should at least be punishable by imprisonment before these sanctions and powers can apply to them—is in order to avoid the merely trivial, like dropping litter in the street, or picking wild flowers, or the other minor offences known to the criminal law, which, unless this clause is amended, would remain as a ground for arrest and then, as a further step, for being taken into custody.
Therefore it is an important and essential amendment which should be made in order to limit the power of arrest which at present is provided by the language of the Bill. As I have said, arrest is a very serious deprivation of liberty and it must be founded only in justifiable and necessary circumstances. This amendment will come nearer to achieving that intention. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for so ably moving this amendment. The position at the moment is that if somebody drops litter and a policeman tells him he must not and asks him for his name and address and that person says, "Lord Carrington, House of Lords", or whatever it may be, the policeman has no power to go further. This subsection gives the policeman the power to go further. We maintain that for trivial offences it is not necessary to give this extra power. It is an extension of the power of the police in relation to trivial offences which we believe to be absolutely unjustifiable. We wish to limit it to those offences which are punishable by imprisonment. It is as simple as that. This is a very undesirable extension of police powers. I am very happy to support my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I fear that the new power which, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, is being given by the clause will be a fearsome weapon for any police officer with which to harass people he

257
does not want to permit to do things which are quite trivial but technically unlawful, such as parking or camping in the wrong place, or matters of that kind. At least let us take away that weapon of harassment by limiting this clause to offences which are of sufficient seriousness to warrant a sentence of imprisonment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the amendment would limit the power to arrest under the clause to offences which are punishable by imprisonment. It is sad that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, was not here to move the amendment in person. I mean no reflection on the ability of the noble and learned Lord when I say that it would have been preferable to hear it from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I understand that his absence is due to the fact that he is not well and may be in some discomfort. I hope that his return to health, which I would not normally describe as rude, will be accomplished as speedily as possible.
I appreciate the concern which the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have expressed that the powers of this clause should not be used in the case of trivial offences, but I believe that what is proposed is wrong, both on the question of principle and on the way in which the noble Lord has attempted to define which offences are serious. Two balancing principles underlie this clause: first, that the police should be equipped with the powers necessary to enforce the law and, second, that the citizen should not be deprived of his liberty except when it is absolutely necessary.
For the relatively minor sort of offence with which the amendment is mainly concerned, the usual way for the police to proceed should be just as it is at present—by way of summons. To ensure that arrests do not take place where the summons procedure can be used, we have adopted the "necessity principle" proposed by the Royal Commission. An arrest may take place only if one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) applies. Arrest is a coercive power which we hope will not be needed, but the power should be available if the cirumstances justify its exercise. The circumstances which justify its exercise are set out in subsection (3) of Clause 24.
The circumstance which has most often been referred to is that the person who has committed an offence is unknown to the constable and his name cannot be readily ascertained by the constable, or he gives an obviously fictitious address. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, did not mean to imply that if my noble friend Lord Carrington were to drop litter in Piccadilly and be stopped by a policeman and give his address as "Lord Carrington, House of Lords", anything untoward would have happened. The noble Lord omitted to say, of course, that the identity of the culprit should in this case be other than that given. But the fact remains that in some cases and in some circumstances, the use of a summons will not be practicable or appropriate.
If the law is to be enforced and society to be protected, the police must have the power to arrest where the alternative is to let a blatant offender go scot-free, whether it is a question of dropping litter, offending against the wildlife legislation, committing minor motoring offences, or cases of drunkenness. It is
258
no good putting legislation on to the statute book and then saying that people ought to obey these laws only if they feel like it. They must be required by some machinery to obey the law. If people give an obviously fictitious name or an obviously fictitious address so that a summons cannot be served against them, which is the alternative to arrest, the constable must either let them go or arrest them. If the provision is on the statute book and makes what the person is doing an offence, your Lordships are surely not going to say that it is up to the constable to decide whether Parliament was right or wrong in making it an offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, adopts a posture which sometimes means acute attention and sometimes an intention to interrupt. I am quite happy to give way if the noble Lord wishes me to do so.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in diagnosing my position. The noble Lord has described exactly the present position. We are opposed to it being altered.
Lord Elton: Very well, my Lords. Let us, however, look at the amendment. As I was saying, if a person can flout the law with impunity under the eyes of a police officer, it brings the law, the police and, I believe, Parliament into disrepute. What is a police officer supposed to do if somebody commits a non-imprisonable offence under his nose and then declines to identify himself so that he may be prosecuted? Unenforceable laws are bad laws. If we knowingly render good laws unenforceable, we knowingly turn them into bad laws. It seems to me that that is what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do.
By inserting the words "punishable by imprisonment" into the second line of Clause 24(1) one limits those offences for which a constable may arrest an offender if that offender puts himself into the categories set out in subsection (3) by not giving his address, or by giving an address which is manifestly false, or the other reasons there set out. The amendment would not leave the law as it is. It would actually deny the constables the power to enforce laws which are not punishable by imprisonment if the people who broke them did not want the officers to enforce them.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the alleged offender gave his true name, which the police realised was his true name, is he still liable to the sanctions of the section?
Lord Elton: Of course not, my Lords, because he does not then satisfy subsection (3) and therefore he is not arrestable and is proceeded against by summons. It is just possible that the noble Lords opposite and on this side actually want the same thing.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I still submit that the substitution of the power of arrest for the power of summons is a very powerful threat to the liberty of the subject. While I know that some of the ancient towns police consolidation Acts of the early part of the century made provision for arrest without warrant, we are dealing with arrest without warrant in this provision in the clause. While the whole tendency of

259
the criminal law is moved towards arrest by summons and not by way of what is proposed in the Bill, this touches upon what I submit is a serious new encroachment of the power of arrest into a field where hitherto it has not existed. Accordingly, I have been a little pained by the way in which the perils involved have been so readily dismissed by the Minister in this matter.
Lord Elton: Would the noble and learned Lord forgive me, and would the House permit me, to intervene in case I have not made myself clear? I am trying not to dismiss anything lightly and if I have done so it may be because I have not seen it. Clause 24(1) provides at present that,
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence"—
these are the minor offences the noble Lord refers to—
"has been committed or attempted, [and] … if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate becaue any of the general arrest conditions are satisfied"
then he has a power to arrest.
What are the circumstances under which he has a power to arrest? They are circumstances set out under subsection (3); otherwise he does not have it. The circumstances set out in subsection (3) are that the name of the relevant person is unknown to him and cannot be readily ascertained—in other words he claims to be Lord Carrington and manifestly is not—that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether the name furnished is real or not; that he has not given an address at which the summons can be served; or doubts whether the address given is an address at which service would work.
There are dozens and dozens of existing powers of arrest without warrant. Clause 25 repeals them in favour of Clause 24. Therefore if we look at the clauses together we are actually reducing what the noble and learned Lord sees as a peril and saying that his power which is at present at large may in future only be used if it is essential to use it because the procedure by way of summons is either not possible or not appropriate. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord. Perhaps he would consider between now and Third Reading whether I have reassured him. I am not trying to argue for advantage or political advancement or anything else. It seems to me that what I have said is actually a true statement of what we are doing. What we are doing is very close to what the noble and learned Lord would have us do.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask this question? Would he not agree that the necessity principle that we hear so much about—I am not lawyer enough to know when you can or cannot use it—cannot apply to a trivial offence?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords. I do not think the noble Lord is right at all. It is here applied to a trivial offence. This is what Clause 24 is about. Let me sum this up and sit down because your Lordships will want to move on soon. The noble Lord is saying that you should not apply the necessity principle to trivial offences. He is saying that you should not apply it because trivial offences should not be subject to arrest.
260
If trivial offences are not subject to arrest, they are not enforceable; if they are not enforceable there is no earthly point in having them on the statute book because as soon as people find they can commit offences under the noses of the police and waltz away saying that they are Charlie Chaplin, they will do so, and your Lordships will have brought the law into disrepute. What do you do? You either allow the constable to take the person to the police station and ascertain who he is; or you take the statute book alternative. There are dozens and dozens of such offences. People who are keen on fritillaries will not want you to sweep away the wildlife laws protecting them. If people who have broken that law should do so in front of a policeman and refuse to say who they are, or how a summons can be served, then it seems to me that they have brought arrest upon themselves.
Lord Trefgarne: Hear, hear!
Lord Elton: That was a rather chauvinistic piece of support but I am trying to present this as gently as I can. I hope I have persuaded your Lordships. If I have failed, now, I shall never succeed, so I shall sit down.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we still feel that the powers of arrest in this clause are far too wide; but in view of the undertaking of the noble Lord the Minister to look at it again—or words to that effect—or to think about it, or ponder about it—
Lord Elton: My Lords, what may have come across through the ether, though not through my speech, is that I hope the noble and learned Lord will do some thinking about it between now and Third Reading.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I still submit with confidence that this is far too wide a provision. There is the machinery of summons. I know that it adds difficulties to the police that there should be limitation on the power of arrest without warrant. But I think it might be useful to test the opinion of the House on this matter just to see how we are getting on.
8.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Kagan, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kirkhill, L.

[Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ewart-Biggs, L.

McNair, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gifford, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

[Teller.]

Raglan, L.

261

Stedman, B.

Walston, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

White, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Stone, L.

E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winstanley, L.

Underhill, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Avon, E.

Cox, B.

Belstead, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Blake, L.

Davidson, V.

Boardman, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ferrier, L.

262

Gainford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norfolk, D.

Glanusk, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gowrie, E.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gridley, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hives, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hood, V.

Suffield, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ingrow, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kilmany, L.

Vickers, B.

Lawrence, L.

Westbury, L.

Long, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wynford, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.6 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, Amendment No. 59A on the supplement to the Marshalled List: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning? Not moved. Amendment No. 60—
Lord Renton: My Lords, Amendment No. 59A is to be moved. On behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and at his request, I beg to move Amendment No. 59A:
Page 23, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
If your Lordships will turn to Clause 25, which is the next clause, you will see that all powers of arrest in any Act are to cease to have any effect. That seems to be so whether or not they are repealed by Schedule 7, which is uncertain. But some few powers are preserved by subsection (2) of Clause 25 and they are set out in the second schedule.
One wonders to what Clause 24(6) refers. What purpose is there in it? There is nothing relevant left and so according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—and I must confess that I think he is right—we should leave out subsection (6) or else specify the detail to which it refers.
The matter seems to be clinched by the Notes on Clauses. I must let your Lordships into a secret. The Notes on Clauses say that subsection (6) of Clause 24 has the same effect as subsection (8) of Clause 23. Indeed, the wording of them was exactly the same. But, at the behest of the Government, in Committee we deleted subsection (8) of Clause 23 from the Bill. So, why should we not delete subsection (6) of Clause 24 at this Report stage? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in Committee we did indeed accept an amendment moved, not by the Government but by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, to leave out subsection (8) of Clause 23 which said exactly what subsection (6) of Clause 24 now says. The chief effect of these subsections was to preserve intact the power of the police under common law to arrest in order to prevent or deal with a breach of the peace, but we concluded that it was not necessary to have two identical subsections in different clauses to do the same thing. Accordingly subsection (8) of Clause 23 disappeared, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, leaving subsection (6) of Clause 24 to do the work on its own. It also makes it clear that Clause 24 does not apply to arrestable offences or Schedule 2 powers. It is now this subsection which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seeks by proxy to leave out.
Subsection (6) of Clause 24 preserves powers of arrest conferred otherwise than by Clause 24 from the effects of that clause. The powers of arrest preserved are, specifically, the common law power of arrest, which is a power of arrest in order to prevent or deal with a breach of the peace, and the powers of arrest preserved in Schedule 2 from repeal by Clause 25. We have already discussed in connection with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, what forms a breach of the peace may take and it is quite clear that many breaches of the peace which ought to be preventable by the use of the power of arrest simply will not fulfil the general conditions of arrest set out in Clause
264
24(3)(d), for example. That would mean that the amendment would effectively prevent the use of arrest in many circumstances in which I am sure the noble and learned Lord would agree they should be available.
However, we are talking not only about common law powers; we are also talking about statutory powers and, in particular, the powers preserved in Schedule 2. I take only one example. I refer my noble friend to the second power listed in the schedule. This is the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Section 12(1) provides the power of arrest of a person who mistreats or causes suffering to an animal. Here again, a person who fulfilled none of the other conditions in Clause 24(3) would escape being arrested because he did not fulfil the conditions in (3)(d), which deal exclusively with people and property. It is an animal, and not a person, which is here at risk. In fact, Schedule 2 is in the Bill only because it is necessary to have a category of arrest powers not controlled by the conditions in Clause 24 because they are unsuitable for one reason or another, as I have illustrated with one example.
I hope that the example I have given serves to explain why this should be so and that my noble friend will agree not to press the amendment on behalf of his noble and learned friend but to give my reasons to him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his very thorough reply. Before I go any further I think I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, as I failed to attribute to him the initiative and wisdom which I attributed to the Government. I hope that my apology will be accepted by him.
My noble friend has, with his usual thoroughness and persuasiveness, given reasons for not accepting the amendment. I feel obliged, however unconvinced, to accept those reasons. I make only one further point just in case, during the long Recess, it may appeal to my noble friend. It is this. We can generally assume that nothing in any statute will prejudice anything said in any other statute. So it would seem that the words,
"This section shall not prejudice any power of arrest conferred apart from this section"
are not strictly necessary. We should always avoid writing unnecessary words into any statute. Leaving that thought in the great mind of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Arrest without warrant for fingerprinting]:
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 23, line 29, at end insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my pleasure at my noble friend's compliment being slightly alloyed by the tones in which it was delivered, I move on to move Amendment No. 60 and to ask leave of your Lordships to address also the matter of Amendment No. 61.
Amendment No. 61: Page 23, line 33, leave out from ("conviction") to end of line 38 and insert ("any constable may at any time not later than one month after the date of the conviction

265
require him to attend a police station in order that his fingerprints may be taken.
(1A) A requirement under subsection (1) above—

(a) shall give the person a period of at least 7 days within which he must so attend; and

(b) may direct him to so attend at a specified time of day or between specified times of day.

(1 B) Any constable may arrest without warrant a person who has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) above.")
Clause 26 as drafted attracted a fair degree of criticism in Committee. It was pointed out by noble Lords that it was unsatisfactory that a convicted person should be liable to summary arrest for refusing to go immediately to a police station to be fingerprinted, even though he might have a very good reason for refusal, such as a prior dental appointment, and might be perfectly willing to go later that day or on the next.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne undertook to bring forward an amendment to give the person a reasonable period of grace. These amendments ensure that a person who is convicted of a recordable offence, without having had his fingerprints taken in connection with it, has at least seven days to comply with the requirement to go to a police station for that purpose. I hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships. They will ensure that the power of arrest conferred by Clause 26 is very much a power of last resort. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 61:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Voluntary attendance at police station etc.]:
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 24, line 26, after ("Where") insert ("at the request of a constable")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this as a probing amendment. I want to make sure that the rights of the accused, of the detained, or of the person helping the police with their inquiries are clearly explained to them. When we argued this point in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that it would look pretty silly if a lady came to a police station saying that she had lost her pearl necklace and she was immediately told that she could leave if she wanted, nothing that she said would be used against her without a solicitor being present, and so on. We thought that if the phrase in the amendment were added, so that Clause 28 read:
"Where for the purpose of assisting with an investigation at the request of a constable a person attends voluntarily",
it would get round the situation of a person who is making a complaint to the police, who clearly does not want to be told his rights because that does not arise.
I think that the matter is a little more serious than that. In Committee when I said that the Government seemed to have a certain reluctance about people in a police station being told their rights, I was told that that was contrary to the truth. I want to be sure that it is.
266
This is a probing amendment to see whether what is in the Bill and what is in the code of practice amounts to making absolutely certain that somebody who is asked to go to a police station after a serious accident, in which he may be in the wrong, although at that stage nobody knows who is in the wrong or who is in the right (which is normally the case when it is said that somebody is helping the police with their inquiries), is told his rights. I want to be sure that that is so. If your Lordships accept Amendment No. 63, it will be so.
Amendment No. 63: Page 24, line 31, after ("be") insert ("informed as soon as practicable that he is")
The relevant part of the clause would then read:
"he shall be informed as soon as practicable that he is entitled to leave at will".
I want to look at the code, and I want the noble Lord to tell me that in his belief and that of the Government it is a totally and absolutely clear duty on the police to tell somebody who is at their request helping them with information in relation to an accident, fault, suspected theft, or anything else, what are his rights. There are two relevant provisions in the code. The first is paragraph 3.2, which states:
"At the same time the custody officer must inform him of the following rights … the right to have someone informed of his detention … the right to legal advice in accordance with section 6 below … the right to consult this and other codes of practice".
That does not say that the person has the right to leave the police station at once if he wants to, and it does not say that he has the right to have a solicitor.
Secondly, Paragraph 11.4 states:
"If a person is not under arrest when a caution is given the officer concerned shall say so. If he is at a police station the officer shall also tell him he is free to leave if he wishes and remind him that he may obtain legal advice if he wishes".
I think that that is probably all right, but I believe that we should go through the provisions. It is extremely important that somebody who is roped in by the police, and who in fact happens to be innocent, should be told: first, that he can leave at will; secondly, that he need say nothing if he does not wish to; and, thirdly, that he is entitled to a solicitor. That is very much more clearly put in my amendment. If the noble Lord the Minister and other noble Lords are satisfied that what I have read out from the code of practice meets the case, I shall take the matter no further. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I well understand the reason for the sense of worry that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, feels. By repeating in a way the amendment that he moved at Committee last time, he is saying that any person voluntarily attending a police station at the request of the police to assist in an investigation would have to be told that he was free to leave at will unless placed under arrest. As my noble friend explained when we debated this proposal in Committee, the Government fully agree with the intention underlying the amendments but believe they are far too wide in application.
My noble friend pointed out in Committee that many people attend police stations voluntarily for all kinds of reasons. They include, for example, victims of burglary attending to identify property and victims of assault attending to identify a suspect or provide a statement. It would be unnecessary and indeed

267
counter-productive to insist that all victims and witnesses should be implicitly threatened with arrest in the way proposed. It is easy to see how a statement of the right to leave could produce entirely the wrong impression with people who had come in to help.
I acknowledge that the noble Lord has attempted to deal with this objection and to narrow the scope of the amendment, by providing that the duty on the police should arise only when the person goes to the police station at the request of a constable. That is, excluding those cases where the first that the police know about a person is when he arrives at the inquiry desk at the police station.
However, I have to say that this still does not meet the objection that my noble friend advanced in Committee. Suppose, for instance, that a woman is attacked by a man who then runs off. A suspect is later arrested and the police want to arrange an identification parade. They ask the woman to go to the police station for this. Are they really obliged by law to go through the absurd rigmarole of telling her when she arrives that she is free to leave unless arrested?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, may I intervene at this stage? Surely it is not an absurd rigmarole to tell somebody that they need not do it if they do not want to, which is their right. If they dislike the idea of an identification parade, if they are frightened of one, they need not do it and they should be told that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood me. It was the lady who had been robbed and who was to see the people who were going through the identification parade, who would then be told that she was free to leave unless arrested. She is a totally innocent party, there for quite a different reason: to protect herself.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am sorry to argue this. It is not a question of being told to leave, unless arrested. Under the Bill, if she wants to leave, she does so. It is not a question of whether or not she is arrested. She cannot go if she is arrested: but arrest does not come into it. She is free to leave if she wants to leave. She is free to refuse to attend an identity parade if for some reason she objects to it, and in my view she should be told so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may leave this particular lady for a moment and continue. I can assure your Lordships that in those circumstances the police, who are perfectly sensible, will of course not say anything to her. I cannot believe that your Lordships, knowing this, would amend the Bill in such a way as to require the police to be in breach of its provisions for acting in a common-sense way.
If I may get on to the particular point that the noble Lord raised, as my noble friend explained in Committee, the difficulty with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to this problem is a failure to distinguish properly between suspects and others. The addition of the words "at the request of a
268
constable" does not affect this distinction. It is of course very important indeed—and my noble friend made it perfectly clear in the Committee stage of the Bill—that any person who was at a police station voluntarily as a suspect should be fully aware of his position and his right to leave. That is to ensure that he is there voluntarily and not under a disguised compulsion.
The draft detention code of practice includes precisely this safeguard. Section 11 of the draft code requires the police to caution a person as soon as there are grounds to believe he has committed an offence. Paragraph 11.4 deals with the case of a person who is not under arrest. He must be informed that he is not under arrest, and if at a police station,
"the officer concerned shall also tell him he is free to leave if he wishes and remind him that he may obtain legal advice if he wishes".
This provision is also found in paragraph 3.8.
I should emphasise that the code requires the caution to be given as soon as there are grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence. There do not have to be reasonable grounds. Thus a person must be cautioned and thus also told that he is free to leave the police station if he wishes as soon as he is a suspect in the eyes of the police.
The draft code thus already meets the point of substance in these amendments and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press them. He did say that these were two probing amendments. It would, I think, be difficult to incorporate the relevant provisions of the code into the body of the Bill without also drawing in other related matters such as the timing of the caution which are pre-eminently matters for a subordinate code. Paragraph 3.2 to which the noble Lord refers relates to detained persons. Obviously, they do not have a right to leave. Paragraph 3.8 relates to the volunteers.
As to the general question of the distribution of material as between the Bill and the codes, I repeat what was said in Committee. Throughout our proceedings noble Lords opposite have expressed the view that the codes provide a lesser degree of authority than the Bill and can be treated in a sort of easy-going way or ignored. That is not true. The codes are backed up by discipline. A translation of material from code to Bill would provide nothing additional in the way of safeguards for the suspect, since the disciplinary consequences of a breach of the code are already established by Clause 66.
The question of Bill versus code is not in itself important. If noble Lords opposite make a great issue of it, the message going out to the police service will, if material is moved from code to Bill, be that the codes are indeed less important to observe and less authoritative than the Bill. That, as I am sure all would agree, would be a regrettable result.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I shall not take this further. It was however, important to discuss it. Paragraph 3.8 says that,
"Any person attending a police station voluntarily for the purpose of assisting with an investigation may leave at will unless placed under arrest".
I cannot see why the code should not say,
"and should be informed of this right".

269
I shall not, however, press it further. Noble Lords have heard the background. It has been well discussed. I do not think that the code goes quite far enough. However, it would be unreasonable to try to put it into the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 63:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: Exactly the same argument applies to this amendment. Having moved it, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause:
("Voluntary attendance.
When a person attends voluntarily at a police station or any other place for the purpose of assisting with an investigation of an offence and that person is subsequently arrested for that offence the fact of his voluntary attendance and the period of time during which he so attended shall be entered on the custody record.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It is by way of a new clause following Clause 28 dealing with voluntary attendance at police stations. The amendment provides that when a person attends voluntarily at a police station or any other place for the purpose of assisting with an investigation of an offence and that person is subsequently arrested for that offence, the fact of his voluntary attendance and the period of time during which he so attended shall be entered on the custody record. Both requirements are intended for the benefit of the person who has attended voluntarily at the police station.
First, for the subsequent treatment of the person concerned, the fact that he attended voluntarily is something that the courts might well take into account in later considering how he should be dealt with. But perhaps more important is the requirement that the period of time during which he has attended should be entered on the custody record. That is, of course, relevant to the elaborate provisions as to the time in which a suspect or an accused person may be held in custody and brought before the courts. The period of time in which the volunteer, so to speak, has remained in custody should clearly, in fairness to him, and so that he may benefit from the time provisions that are set out in the various clauses of the Bill from Clause 40 onwards, be counted to his advantage. That would seem to be fair and just, and, accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I accept from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that what he has put forward in this amendment is commendable practice. But the question arises whether it should be the subject of legislation. Earlier on, and not long ago, my noble friend Lord Elton said that we should not make laws that are not enforceable; and one wonders how this law would be enforced if we were to make it. What would be the consequences for the accused person, or for the police officer who failed to make the record, if the law
270
were not obeyed? We should bear in mind factors of that kind before accepting a provision of this kind.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, if I may, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. It seems to me that the custody record—which I rather assume was known in my younger days as the charge sheet; probably it is the same document—contains a vast amount of information in any event, and to ask that it should contain these two additional items can do no harm and might be of very great advantage in the course of a trial.
It might be desirable that there should be a record made officially of whether a person had attended voluntarily. It is much more important that there should be a record made officially of the period of time during which he attended, so that that should be available during the trial if an issue arose as to whether a defendant had been put under pressure as a result of being at a police station for a very long period of time before or during his questioning. I can see no harm whatever coming from this amendment, and I think that a certain degree of perhaps rather marginal benefit might result.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this new clause arises from the suspicion that a person may be at a police station voluntarily for a considerable period before being arrested, and that this provides an opportunity for abuse. I do not believe however that this new clause is either a necessary or a practicable means of checking such abuse.
In the first place, the new clause goes very wide indeed, and taken literally would impose a huge new bureaucratic burden on the police. Every time that any member of the public meets up with a police officer in the context of an investigation—say, a householder called home from work when a break-in is reported, or the proprietor of a shop brought back from lunch when there has been a case of shoplifting—the police officer concerned would have to note the exact time just in case he later had to arrest the person concerned for an attempted insurance fraud. This case would come within the scope of the new clause, because that person would certainly be voluntarily attending his house or shop in order to assist the police investigation. It is easy to see how heavy this new bureaucratic burden would be, which rather bears out the remarks, for which I am grateful, of my noble friend Lord Renton. While police officers keep a note in their pocket books of their daily duties, they do not do so in the detail that the new clause would require.
The situation would be no better even if the new clause extended only to voluntary attendance at a police station. Suppose that the householder goes to the police station to report the theft of his car. It is a busy Friday night and he has to wait until he can see the officer at the inquiry desk. He then has to wait to be interviewed by a CID officer. No record is being made of the time that he is waiting or when the interview starts; nor is there any reason why it should. But, again, it may be that in the course of the interview the police officer is given sufficient grounds to suspect a fraud to justify an immediate arrest.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, would the noble Baroness forgive me? Is she saying that, if she goes to a police station and reports the loss of her motor car, somebody there does not make a record of the time at which she is seen?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, surely the time is the time that this man is waiting before he is dealt with by the police for the loss of his car. Perhaps noble Lords would allow me to finish my few brief remarks. It would be very difficult for the police to know how long he had been at the station prior to arrest, and in any event that information would be entirely void of significance.
However, I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that information which might be of significance will have to be recorded without bringing in the bureaucracy of the new clause. I suggest that what matters is not the time spent at the police station as such—because, as I have demonstrated, this could happen in a wide variety of situations—but the time spent at the police station being interviewed under caution—that is, as a suspect in the eyes of the police.
Paragraph 11.5 of the draft code of practice requires a record to be made of the giving of a caution, which is the point at which a person's status changes from that of victim or witness to suspect. Paragraph 2.5 requires a record to be made of each interview with a suspect, whether or not at a police station. The record must state the time that the interview begins and ends, and the time of the caution must also be recorded in the interview record as a result of the combination of paragraphs 11.6 and 2.6. Therefore, I believe that the draft code of practice already does the job required.
If the interview record is looked at together with the custody record, the time spent under caution but prior to arrest will be apparent. The new clause is, therefore, not necessary and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I cannot add very much to the arguments advanced so cogently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, except to express great surprise that the Government are resisting this worthwhile and extremely modest amendment, which one might imagine would attract support from all quarters of the House. I cannot really believe that the bureaucracy argument holds much water.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, to call this modest proposal a huge bureaucratic burden is a huge piece of bureaucratic nonsense. It is only when the person who volunteers his attendance is subsequently arrested that these particulars are required: first, that he did attend voluntarily and, secondly, the period of time during which he so attended.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, found some ground for thinking that the provision was unenforceable. But if later at the trial an issue arose as to the period of time spent, which ought to have been entered in the custody record, that would emerge at the trial. Indeed, if it were the case that there could be a foundation for an unlawful detention, or whatever it might be, other proceedings could produce evidence upon these matters. So in the fullness to time the record would be a valuable measure of defence for the arrested person and a valuable element in his defence.
272
I confess that, like the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, I find the reaction to the modest proposal quite extraordinary. The provisions that were provided for in the code of practice were not, if I may say so, directly relevant to the situation with which the amendment deals. But in any event this is of great significance and importance if we are to make a reality of these elaborate rules that people who are suspect or who are later arrested shall not be kept indefinitely in police custody—a point to which we attach great importance. This is a modest provision to protect the subject against a mischief of the kind with which the amendment is inclined to deal. In the circumstances, I move the amendment and will seek the views of the House upon it.
9.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 64) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

McNair, L.

Attlee, E.

Mar, C.

Auckland, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Monson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Raglan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Ezra, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gifford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Inglewood, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Lockwood, B.

E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Avon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Belstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blake, L.

Hives, L.

Boardman, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ingrow, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cox, B.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V.

Norfolk, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Rochdale, V.

Faithfull, B.

Savile, L.

Ferrier, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gainford, L.

Suffield, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Trefgarne, L.

273

Trumpington, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Vickers, B.

Wynford, L.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.48 p.m.
Clause 29 [Arrest elsewhere than at police station]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 24, line 38, after ("constable") insert ("for an offence").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 29 as drafted requires that a person who is arrested should be taken to a police station as soon as practicable. While this provision is clearly right in the case where a person is arrested for an offence, we have come to the conclusion that it would lead to undesirable and unintended consequences where the arrest is otherwise than for an offence. The case of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides a good example. This empowers a constable to arrest a person who is apparently suffering from a mental disorder and in immediate need of care or control and to remove him to a place of safety. A place of safety may he a hospital, residential home or other suitable accommodation as well as a police station.
We do not want to require anyone arrested under Section 136 to be taken to a police station when it would otherwise be perfectly feasible to take him direct to a hospital. The amendment ensures that the clause does not interfere with other powers and I feel your Lordships will all welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this would seem to be a beneficial provision.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 24, line 39, at end insert ("for an offence").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Search upon arrest]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 67:
[Printed earlier: col. 221.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this amendment, which is consequential on Amendment No. 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 26, line 33, leave out ("police detention") and insert ("lawful custody").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 72.
Page 27, line 30, leave out from ("that") to ("or") in line 31 and insert ("he might use it to assist him to escape from lawful custody").
Clause 31(2)(a)(i) permits a constable to search an arrested person for an article which he might use to help him to escape police detention. Police detention, as defined in Clause 115(2), only begins once an arrested person is taken to a police station. Clearly it is
274
as desirable to prevent an arrested person from escaping en route to the station, as it is after he gets there. The first amendment therefore ensures that escape equipment may be seized on arrest whether it is to be used at the police station or on the way there. The second amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 69:
[Printed earlier: col. 221.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 27, line 2, at end insert—
("(3A) The powers conferred by this section to search a person are not to be construed as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, proposed that the same rule governing search in public which is contained in Clause 2(9)(a) should apply to Clause 31. We agree. This amendment is the result. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for attributing the paternity of this amendment to my noble friend Lord Gifford. We of course approve of that of which we claim paternity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 71:
[Printed earlier: col. 221.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 72:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 73:
[Printed earlier: col. 224.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Limitations on police detention]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 29, line 7, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, similar amendments were proposed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. We accepted their principle. These amendments honour the undertaking then given. They will ensure that the custody officer's

275
duty to direct the release of a person in police detention if there are no longer grounds for detaining him applies even if the person is not at the police station at the time but is, say, under police guard at a hospital. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 29, line 7, leave out ("at a police station").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
Page 29, line 9 leave out ("at that station")
Page 29, line 15, at end insert—
(" (2A) No person in police detention shall be released except on the authority of a custody officer at the police station where his detention was authorised or, if it was authorised at more than one station, a custody officer at the station where it was last authorised.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for my earlier slip. May I move this amendment and the next one en bloc. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 76 and 77.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

London Transport Bill
The Queen's consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Health and Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Portsea Harbour Company Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes before ten o'clock.

Written Answers
Baroness Sharplesasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish the evaluation of the experiment with tougher regimes in detention centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): The report of this evaluation, which has been carried out by the Young Offender Psychology Unit of the Prison Department and overseen by a committee with two independent members, is being published today, and copies have
276
been placed in the Library and the Printed Paper Office.
We are now putting in hand a programme of work to establish a consistent regime for the whole detention centre system—including those establishments which have been operating the experimental regime—with a view to enhancing the role of detention centres as a distinctive feature of the penal system commanding the confidence of the courts. The experiment will now be concluded. Of the features particularly associated with the tougher regimes experiment, the new regime for all detention centres will include increased emphasis on parades and inspections; demanding work; earlier lights out; an initial period of restricted association, privileges and outside activities; and a brisker tempo. On the other hand, formal drill sessions and extra physical education will not be continued: many trainees came to find them undemanding and their inclusion would leave less time for other features—notably work—which the new regime will emphasise.
This programme will take full account of the evaluation findings, experience of running the tougher regimes, informed comment (including the memorandum which the Prison Officers' Association sent to us in 1982), and the way in which detention centres generally have geared their regimes to the new sentencing structure which was introduced last May. The experimental regime has made an important contribution to our decision of what form of regime should now be standard practice in detention centres. The evaluation report finds that the experimental regime had no statistically significant effect on the rate at which trainees were reconvicted: while it was right to test whether any such effect would be produced, this conclusion is not surprising against the general background of research findings on the identifiable deterrent effect of particular sentences. Nor does it alter in any way the need to establish a positive and well-defined detention centre regime. The evaluation rightly goes much wider: its particular value lies in the practical information it presents about the operation of the experimental regimes, their impact on both trainees and staff, and the suitability of differing regime elements.
The report's confirmation of the impact on inmates of the first few days of sentence is especially important. We shall build on this finding—and on the changes made by detention centres in May 1983 to accommodate the new two-week minimum effective sentence—to make a brisk and structured initial two-week programme a key feature of the new regime. This will highlight basic and unpopular work such as scrubbing floors; increased emphasis on parades and inspections; and minimal privileges and association. As in the experimental regimes, trainees will now have to move briskly from activity to activity, and their lives will be conducted at a brisk tempo and within a well defined and clearly organised framework.
For the subsequent part of sentence the operation of the grade system will be sharpened so that incentives such as eligibility for association, privileges, the less unpopular types of work and any outside activities will be clearly dependent on good conduct.
Trainees will have physical education for an average of one hour each weekday. The content of education

277
classes will be in keeping with the regime, and trainees of compulsory school age will participate in education, including physical education, for at least 20 hours a week. The interest taken by staff in the progress and well-being of trainees was a central feature of the tougher regimes experiment and this, together with the firm but fair approach towards trainees which has long been followed by detention centre staff, and whose value the report has reinforced, will be maintained.
The Prison Department will work with the governors of detention centres and their staff on the detail of the regime adjustments which will be required. The prison service unions will be fully consulted at both local and national level. By early next year the new regime will be in general operation in all detention centres, including those which have taken part in the experiment. It will be monitored by the Prison Department. At the same time the analysis of certain reconviction and related data outstanding from the evaluation of the tougher regimes experiment will be completed.
The new detention centre regime will be a marked improvement over the regime which was in operation before the tougher regimes experiment was introduced in 1980. In incorporating much of the experimental regime on a permanent basis it will provide a penalty to which the courts can turn with confidence when dealing with an offender for whom a short period in custody is necessary.

Written Answers

  PASSPORTS: NEW FORMAT
  Lord Morrisasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will make a statement about the issue and format of passports.
  Lord Elton: The Prime Minister's statements in another place on 23rd March 1981 (Official Report, Vol. 1, cols. 219–220) announced the Government's intention to introduce a machine readable passport and the commitment, with our European Community partners, to introduce a common format passport. In taking forward these proposals, our objectives have been to provide a speedier service to the travelling public in the issue of passports, and to do so most economically in terms of public expenditure; to put United Kingdom passport holders in a position to benefit from the use of new technology to reduce delays at frontier controls, and to try to provide opportunities for British high technology industry in this field. To meet these objectives we have now decided:

  (a) to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the subsequent Rayner review of the Passport Office, to computerise the issue of passports. Our aim is to have a computerised system serving the public in place in 1987;

  (b) to introduce at the same time as computerisation, a machine readable passport designed to reduce delays at frontiers.
  278
  This will involve some changes to the form of the passport, and family passports which include the particulars of a wife or husband will have to be discontinued, although it will remain possible to include children.
  The new passport will have a more flexible cover to facilitate machine readability. The passport will contain no more information than at present. The holder will be able to read all the information read by the machine;

  (c) to produce the new passport in the agreed common format in accordance with the agreement reached by our Community partners.

  We believe that it is sensible that the various changes should be made at the same time.
  Passports issued in the present form will of course retain their validity, and their holders will not need to obtain new ones until their passports expire. The passport will retain the Royal Coat of Arms and the traditional written requirement to allow the holder free passage and protection. The status and privileges of the passport holder and the citizen's eligibility for a passport are in no way affected.
  For the benefit of the House a prototype of the new form of passport together with a supplementary note giving more detailed information about it have been placed in the Library.
  We expect the travelling public, including our businessmen, to benefit from these changes. Although we do not intend to read the new British passport by machine as a matter of routine at our own immigration controls, the time taken for visual inspection of passports at our controls should be significantly reduced because all the information about the holder will be visible on one page; and the growth of machine readability overseas should significantly benefit British passport holders. Following the Fontainebleau European Council, and the recent resolution on the easing of frontier formalities, we and our Community partners will continue to examine frontier procedures seeking to bring benefits for the travelling public. The machine readable common format passport will be a major step in this process. We hope that British industry will take full advantage of the opportunities which demand for a new technology in machine readability will present at home and overseas.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: CONTROL OF RESOURCES
  Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What specific measures they intend to take to prevent the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils from disposing of their resources in advance of the abolition of those authorities.
  Lord Bellwin: In order to protect ratepayers in all successor authorities and maintain equity between them we shall seek in the main abolition Bill this

  279
  autumn Parliament's retrospective approval to a measure whereby all provision of financial assistance by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to the London boroughs, to metropolitan district councils or to any other local authority will require the specific consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Similarly any means whereby the GLC and metropolitan county councils propose to finance activities undertaken by other local authorities under agency arrangements will also require consent. This control will apply to all such transactions or arrangements entered into with effect from today, 24th July 1984, other than payments made under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 which were dealt with in my earlier statement of 26th June 1984. [Vol. 453, col. 904–905.]
  In the event of any such transactions or arrangements being entered into by the GLC or MCCs without my right honourable friend's consent in advance of the main abolition Bill passing into law, that Bill will contain proposals enabling the Secretary of State to reserve the right to require the authorities which benefited from these arrangements or transactions to repay the money, with interest, to the donor authority before 1st April 1986.
  Measures already in the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will require that any proposals by the GLC and MCCs to dispose of land, and to enter into contracts above a certain value, after the date of Royal Assent to the Bill must have my right honourable friend's consent. Consent will also be required to expenditure under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the "2p rate") incurred after 1st April 1985.
  We have decided to use the existing powers available under Section 230 of the 1972 Act to require the authorities to supply my right honourable friend with
  280
  full information about such activities with effect from the date of announcement of the new measures, 12th July 1984. This will enable us to make available information about activities that might be seen by ratepayers to be contrary to their interests. In addition, we are withdrawing, with immediate effect, the present general consents which permit the GLC to dispose of housing land and vacant property for improvement and on-sale. Right-to-buy sales and other sales to sitting tenants and intending owner-occupiers are not affected.
  We will continue to monitor the activities of the GLC and MCCs and will not hesitate to take whatever further steps are necessary to prevent irresponsible uses of ratepayers' resources.

  BRITISH TELECOM: CORRESPONDENCE DELAYS
  Lord Balfour of Inchryeasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they are aware of the large number of complaints of undue delay in obtaining replies from British Telecom, London South Central Area, and whether they will urge them to improve their administration so as to ensure that letters written are acknowledged and replied to within a reasonable period of time.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): Matters connected with day-to-day administration are the responsibility of the board of British Telecom. However, the noble Lord's comments have been made known to them.