Sitting of 19 June 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS AFTER PRAYERS
    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
    CHARING CROSS AND WESTMINSTER MEDICAL SCHOOL BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I very much regret the continued damage and disruption to pupils' education being caused by the teachers' strikes. As the House will know, at the request of the management panel, a meeting of the Burnham primary and secondary committee is to be held on Friday to seek agreement on terms under which the school teachers' pay dispute might be referred to arbitration. Throughout this pay round the Government's position has been that there can be no question of additional resources being made available to local authorities. No reference to arbitration or an arbitrator's award will change that position.
    Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend share my three regrets: that the teachers, unlike their Scottish colleagues, did not accept the 4·5 per cent.; that any additional money which they succeed in extracting can only be at the cost of jobs and services; and that those who have taken this so-called industrial action have shown just how far they are from being a profession?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with all my hon. Friend's regrets. I do not see what justification there was for the original action.
    Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are, as I detect, two distinct problems in this pay
    126
    dispute: the general level of teachers' salaries, and the pay structure of grades? Do I take it that the arbitrators will be able to offer advice on the latter as well as on the general level of pay settlement?
    Sir Keith Joseph: That is not to be taken for granted. The terms of reference for an arbitrator remain to be agreed between the two sides of the Burnham committee.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that, although the Government in theory support strike actions as a sign of democracy, the only one they ever supported was in Poland? Have not the teachers had their Houghton pay award of 30 per cent., approved by the Labour Government in 1974, totally eroded? Although they are a group of the best behaved people in the country in terms of action—and I personally think that they should have taken it long ago—they have been driven to take it by this remorseless Government who are now causing more strikes throughout the country by their intransigence. Is it not about time that the Government paid the teachers their due and allowed the matter to go to arbitration?
    Sir Keith Joseph: It is one thing to recognise, as the Government do, that people in a free society cannot be forced to work against their will, and thus to recognise that strikes will occur from time to time within the law, but it is quite another to support individual strikes, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. As for the idea that each group should return to its best year, as the hon. Gentleman suggests is right for teachers, it would be a recipe for endless leap-frogging, for an inflationary spiral and for more unemployment.
    Mr. Madel: Did not Her Majesty's inspectors' recent report on local authority expenditure point out that better management of resources and a more coherent curriculum would improve teachers' pay and status? Should not teachers work towards that and abandon industrial action?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that there was evidence in the HMI annual report that the management of resources by local education authorities and the quality of teaching itself could substantially improve the effectiveness of education and the use of the vast sums of public money devoted to it.
    Mr. Alton: Why was it right for the Government to urge arbitration on railway men and water workers, when it is not apparently right for teachers?
    Sir Keith Joseph: In the teachers' world there is a limit to the amount of money available without eroding other parts of the education service, other parts of local authority services or placing an additional burden upon the ratepayers. That is why the Government have steadfastly maintained throughout the dispute that arbitration is not the answer.
    Mr. Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 teachers' salaries have been ahead of inflation? They have risen by 71 per cent. as against a rise in the retail price index of 69 per cent. Can he further confirm that the average teacher's salary has doubled since 1978?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Without accepting the precise figures given by my hon. Friend, I agree that his general thesis that teachers' pay has improved slightly in real terms since 1979 is valid.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his refusal to pay for any possible arbitration award has two

    127
    consequences: first, to discredit the arbitration system; and, secondly, to damage the teaching profession by driving out able people and discouraging other able people from entering the profession?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not accept either thesis. Arbritrators will need to take account of the fact that there is no more money available from the Government or local authorities.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strikes are causing great damage to children and their education, whether or not they are in examination classes? Does he agree that it is desirable—indeed, essential—for teachers to move towards a no-strike agreement?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly agree that the teachers' deliberate action to disrupt schooling is immensely damaging to the children. I am not prepared to agree with my hon. Friend's second point. That would be a matter for negotiation between the two sides, if it were to be on the agenda.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State realise that in the city which both he and I represent 30,000 children yesterday had their education disrupted because of the industrial dispute? Given that the right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying no to arbitration, how does he intend to resolve the dispute and ensure that the children of Leeds obtain the education that they deserve?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not accept that any blame for the disruption of children's education, be it in Leeds or elsewhere, falls on the Government. It is entirely the responsibility of the teachers.
    Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many teachers have entered into industrial action reluctantly and with some misgiving? Will he take this opportunity once again unequivocably to assert that there will be future opportunities for those responsibly concerned with education to express their views in a wider education debate?
    Sir Keith Joseph: If my hon. Friend means a debate in the House, that will be for the usual channels; but there is no lack of opportunity for responsible teachers, of whom there are very many, to express their views.
    Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State understand that had he supported the decision to go to arbitration at the beginning of April the disruption of the past eight weeks would have been avoided? The truth is that his handling of the teachers' dispute has been insensitive, bumbling and highly damaging to the education of our children.
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, which I hope he does not really believe, cannot hide the fact that the teachers have chosen deliberately to damage the education—the schooling—of children. I see no justification for the original action; I see absolutely no justification for its continuation now that the Burnham negotiating machinery is in play; and I see no justification whatsoever for any intensification of the action.

    Schools (Collective Worship)
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the collective act of worship in schools; and what changes are contemplated.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations suggesting that changes should be made in the statutory provisions on the collective act of worship in schools. The Government have no plans to propose any changes in those provisions.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the propaganda against school worship has come not from the non-Christian denominations but from unbelievers? While respecting all faiths, will the Government resist the adulteration of Christianity and uphold the law, which is being broken in many cases?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend does the House a service by bringing this problem to our attention. We will uphold the provisions of the Education Act 1944, which require a daily act of worship and religious instruction to take place in our schools. I condemn the efforts of those who seek to take religion out of schools.
    Mr. Latham: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the education profession, does he take the opportunity to stress the fact that they have legal duties which are not enforced at present?
    Mr. Dunn: On the many occasions when I meet those who represent education, I clearly point out their duty, both legal and moral, to see that religion plays a part in the life of the school. That is my view now, and it will continue to be my view for as long as I am a member of this place.

    Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the implementation of the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that some students have been placed in an invidious position because they have been told that they may be suspended from their studies? For others, there is the possibility that degrees or certificates will be withheld unless fees are paid. Is that an attitude with which the Government agree?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the institutions concerned have discretion in this matter.

    "Training for Jobs"
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the White Paper, "Training for Jobs."
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local authorities on the subject of his White Paper, "Training for Jobs."
    Sir Keith Joseph: The Government are committed to introduce the new funding arrangements for non-advanced further education which were announced in the White Paper, "Training for Jobs". My right hon. Friend the

    129
    Secretary of State for Employment and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions with representatives of the local authority associations.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that the Government intend to take away several hundred million pounds from colleges of education? Is it fair to expect the Manpower Services Commission to negotiate with the local authorities when Tory as well as Labour-controlled authorities completely reject the White Paper? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the whole situation and withdraw his White Paper?
    Sir Keith Joseph: No. It is true that the local authority associations are still reluctant to accept the Government's decision, but the hon. Gentleman presents the facts wrongly. We are proposing not to take away hundreds of millions of pounds from non-advanced further education, but, in the first instance, to move the spending of £65 million from the decision of local authorities to the decision—preferably after consultation—of the MSC.
    Mr. Freud: Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has said, is this not yet another case of the Government treating local government with undeserved contempt?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his use of the word "contempt". The Government formed a view, which has recently been reinforced by an HMI report, that not all non-advanced further education provision is as it should be. Much of it is excellent, but not all of it is. For that the employers take some responsibility. In a desire to improve its condition, the Government announced a decision by which they stand.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is not the plus point about the White Paper the fact that it is trying more exactly to measure preparation for work with available jobs? Ought we not to keep an open mind about the method by which we can best combine education and training to that purpose?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes; my hon. Friend is right. The Government are trying to identify the latent demands for skills without falling into the trap of manpower planning.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that his White Paper continues to provoke conflict and confrontation between the Government, trade unions, local authorities and the Manpower Services Commission? Given the right hon. Gentleman's known interest in standards, would it not be in the interests of non-advanced further education for him to reconsider and rally to the standard raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) this weekend and move in the direction of what are described as the traditional Tory values of compromise and conciliation?
    Sir Keith Joseph: There is an immense amount of common ground between local authorities, college authorities, the MSC and the trade unions. We all want more effective non-advanced further education. The question is whether the Government's proposed method, in alliance with local authorities, will make improvements relatively quickly. We think that it can and will.

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what meetings he has had with the teaching unions concerning the teachers' pay dispute.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Following my announcement in the House on 15 May that I stood ready to meet the teachers unions, only the National Association of Head Teachers asked to see me, and I met it on 7 June.
    Mr. Beith: Is not the unanimity of the sometimes divided teacher unions a clear demonstration that throughout the teaching profession there is deep dissatisfaction at how the dispute has been handled and a clear willingness for what in almost every other context is regarded as proper—arbitration?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The House will have to decide whether it regards any member of the so-called alliance as an expert on unanimity. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman advances the argument by his question.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Has my right hon. Friend had further thoughts about the possibility of unifying the two bodies that deal with the teaching profession in regard to pay and conditions of work? He will be aware that they are separated at the moment. Does he think that it would be better if they were united?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am still ready to be convinced that that would lead to improvement, but I remain sceptical about changing the machinery, which would still require the good will of both sides to enhance the prospect of progress.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should a teacher settle for anything less than a policeman? Is his contribution to society any less or any more?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Or, for that matter, anyone else. The idea that pay can be settled in a free society by equality for all, or some vision of social justice, is a recipe for endless leap-frogging — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked a question and he should allow me to answer it. It is a recipe for endless leap-frogging, an inflationary spiral and—which the whole House would regret—increase after increase in unemployment.
    Mr. Rowe: If my right hon. Friend meets the teachers' unions, will he consider discussing with them the possibility of their departing from their age-old preoccupation with every teacher on the same grade getting the same pay and seriously examine paying teachers according to merit?
    Mr. Flannery: Silly boy.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Far from my hon. Friend being a silly boy, he is entirely right, and I am delighted to tell him that the teachers' unions seem to think the same because, despite the dispute, they have honourably continued to negotiate for just such a possibility of structural change in teachers' pay as my hon. Friend wishes to bring about.
    Mr. Radice: Will the Government, at Friday's meeting, support the employers' decision of last Monday to go to arbitration? The Secretary of State says that there is no money. What about the unallocated local government money and the Contingencies Fund?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reveal the Government's instructions to their representatives on Burnham. As for his rhetorical questions, there are many claims on the Contingencies Reserve. The unallocated margin is to meet the gap between the proper level of expenditure by local authorities, as seen by the Government, and their efforts to bring down the present rate of spending to that level.

    Schools (Parental Influence)
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how long after 1 October 1984 he anticipates introducing legislation to implement proposals in his Green Paper, "Parental Influence at School".
    Sir Keith Joseph: When the Government have considered responses to the proposals, they intend to proceed to legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that informative reply. Does he appreciate that there is a big head of steam of support behind and around him for increasingly harnessing the interest and concern of parents to help him in his outstanding drive to raise standards, an aim which is very dear to the vast majority of parents?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I thought that a "but" was coming at the end. I was glad to hear his words.
    Mr. Loyden: If the Secretary of State is committed to the idea of parental influence, why has he ignored the approaches made by the Liverpool area school parents' association on the question of secondary reorganisation and the fact that the policy of the Labour party has been confirmed by parents at the last two elections.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that that has anything to do with the main question.
    Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about seven years since a working party group on policy decided that there was far too much abuse of politically appointed governors and recommended that the majority of school governors should be chosen from among parents? Is it not a matter of urgency that we should proceed with that recommendation?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful for the reminder by my hon. Friend that I am on the party line in this case. We are going through a serious, necessarily slightly longer than usual, process of consultation so that we may be sure of understanding all the implications of what we intend to do.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no paving legislation by which, in the interim, democratically elected parent governors will be appointed until they can be re-elected?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman puts ideas into my head.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most parents are against all the changes that are being suggested in the education curriculum, and are more concerned that their children should be taught to read, write and add up, instead of schools going in for some other cock-eyed system that would again mess up the whole education curriculum? Can we concentrate on that kind of parental influence instead of experimenting?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Without universally condemning every single change that might be accepted, I agree that the influence of parents will probably be used for a wise conservatism.

    Adult Education
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to take any new initiatives to increase opportunities for adult education with particular reference to the Open University and the Workers' Educational Association.
    Mr. Brooke: We have taken a number of recent initiatives to improve opportunities for adult education, including the expansion of the PICKUP programme for developing vocational updating, launching a programme to develop educational opportunities for the adult unemployed, the increase in grant to the adult literacy and basic skills unit, and financing an adult continuing education development unit within the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. In addition, we have agreed in principle to fund the Workers' Educational Association's proposals for tutor training. We are continuing to support the Open University's undergraduate programme, and are encouraging the university to expand its continuing education programme.
    Mr. Hamilton: How does the hon. Gentleman square that answer with the fact that in the past four years the Open University's fees have doubled and that it is proposed to reduce public expenditure on adult education from £91 million to £80 million in the next three years? The Government repeatedly say that there is no more public money available to spend, so how have they managed to find more than £2,000 million to spend on a few hundred people in the Falkland Islands during the next three years?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions. I can square my answer with the hon. Gentleman's assertions, because I answered the question that he asked me to answer. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the rise in the Open University's fees. In the current year they constitute 13 per cent. of the income derived from fees and Government grant combined. There is an element of comparing apples with pears when looking at the fall from £91 million to £80 million, since there is an unallocated margin for the local authorities of £660 million in the current year, some of which I expect to be spent on adult education.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Open University represents one of the most remarkable developments in recent years? Will he pay particular attention to its concerns and its future?
    Mr. Brooke: I am happy to respond to that question. I had the pleasure of seeing the vice-chancellor only last week, and I am delighted to be in frequent contact with him.
    Mr. Wilson: Although I am gratified by the Minister's last answer, will he bear in mind that there is real concern in Scotland about the restriction of the Open University's role? That university offers a remarkable opportunity for adult education, and I think that both sides of the House would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would reconsider how it could be expanded and developed for the benefit of our population.
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Open University visiting committee to

    133
    play a part in identifying and appraising the various options open to the university. They will be discussed in the coming months.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Why has the adult education movement not been harnessed to assist the youth training scheme?
    Mr. Brooke: That is an interesting question for which, I must confess, I am not fully prepared. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is serious concern on Teesside about the future of a day release course for steel workers and another course on child development? Does he realise that that concern stems from the Government's cut over three years of 14·3 per cent. in adult education? What assurances can he give that adult education choice on Teesside will not be severely limited?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not immediately recognise the figure of 14·3 per cent., but I suspect that it is a reference to the extra-mural departments, which are not the subject of this question.
    Mr. Cormack: Why cannot the Department come up with a slightly more felicitous phrase than "PICKUP scheme", and what does it mean, anyway?
    Mr. Brooke: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. Like so many such words, PICKUP is an acronym and stands for "professional, industrial and commercial updating".
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the hon. Gentleman persuaded the Secretary of State to visit the Open University? Is he now prepared to pay tribute to its work, particularly in science and technology training? Have there been any discussions with the Workers' Educational Association about payments to those with an organising role as opposed to merely the provision of teaching?
    Mr. Brooke: I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the pleasure that I have derived from visiting the Open University. I have received another invitation to visit a summer school during the coming year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Open University's invitation is still open. There are certain things involving the visiting committee that lie ahead of us.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of pupils taking up the assisted places scheme.
    Mr. Dunn: In the current academic year, the third year of the scheme, there are more than 13,000 places in England.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the purpose of the scheme, which is to widen opportunities for at least some children from less well-off families. What is the average cost per pupil working out at? Does that not have to be compared with the average cost of educating somebody in the state secondary system?
    Mr. Dunn: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the cost to the Department per assisted pupil is not very much different from the average unit cost in maintained secondary schools.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that large numbers of private schools are dependent on this public money? Whereas most people think that there are only one or two assisted students in private schools using public money, there are, in fact, many of them. Is not this money being taken away from the state system of education, which needs it urgently?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the uptake of places. On his general thesis, he is wrong now, as he has been wrong in the past, and I dare say he will be wrong again in the future.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the words spoken to him by working-class parents who met him a few months ago, whose children are now benefiting from the assisted places scheme? Will he continue to strive for more money for this excellent scheme?
    Mr. Dunn: I can give no undertaking on the latter point, but in the 1983–84 school year, 40 per cent. of the assisted places attracted the full fee remission and nearly 75 per cent. of the places went to pupils from families with below average incomes. That is a fact of which the House should be proud.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider giving a new name to those schools in the private sector that will have more than 50 per cent. of their pupils paid for out of public funds?
    Mr. Dunn: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that the assisted places scheme provides a ladder of opportunity for children from disadvantaged homes whose parents cannot afford a college of excellence, and that these are the very children whom the Opposition pretend to support?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation. A great deal of humbug is talked by Opposition Members when they wish to exercise their right to choose schools for their children, but deny the same right to other people.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Over the next few months, will my hon. Friend consider extending the assisted places scheme to children of average and below average ability, who will probably benefit as much from having a choice of the independent schools as those of above average ability?
    Mr. Dunn: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the Department has no plans to take such points of view into account at the moment.

    Youth Service
    Mr. Lawlerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is now in a position to announce his conclusions on the recommendations in the Thompson report on the youth service about providing for a statutory basis for the youth service and the establishment of a National Youth Advisory Council.
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend expects consideration of the outstanding recommendations in the report of the review group on the youth service, including those on legislation and on an advisory council, to be completed in time for a Government response very shortly.
    Mr. Lawler: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he appreciate the uncertainty caused by the Government's long delay in issuing a response both to the outstanding recommendations of the Thompson report and the Cockerill report? Is he aware that this uncertainty is felt by those involved in the youth service and is having an effect on planning in the National Youth Bureau, where there is a certain amount of demoralisation among the staff? Therefore, will my hon. Friend hasten the Government's response?
    Mr. Brooke: I take my hon. Friend's comment about uncertainty, but if a week is a long time in politics, a month is a hiccup in history. I hope that the time that we are taking on investigation will lead to the right answers coming through. As to the National Youth Bureau, the framing of a comprehensive response to the report will need to take account of the Government's response to the youth service report. Consideration is being given to the report on the bureau.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that during the period of almost two years when his Department has been sitting on the report, all its recommendations have been a lowest common denominator for the youth service? Is he aware that at this time, when 1·25 million young people under 25 are unemployed, the needs and demands for a youth service are greater than ever? Further, is he aware that next year is the international year of youth? Perhaps his Government will not be very interested in that, because the themes of that year are peace, participation and democracy.
    Mr. Brooke: It is not wholly correct to say that the Government have been sitting on the report for two years, as there was a substantial consultation period, and this Government believe in consultation. As to the hon. Member's question about the international youth year, I hestitate to correct him, but the third objective is development and not democracy.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Can my hon. Friend say how many young people have grown old since the proposals that Thompson reiterates first saw the light of day and were ignored by previous Governments? Can he resolve to be the first Minister in history to come to the House with positive proposals in this respect?
    Mr. Brooke: I know the part that my hon. Friend has played in this process in the past. He looks so youthful himself that he is a tribute to his own stamina in this regard.

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from parents on the subject of teachers' pay.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Since the beginning of the current dispute I have received about 50 letters from parents.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the schoolchildren themselves, the groups that are most severely affected by the teachers' strike are single parents and working mothers? Does he agree also that in this instance, as in so many others, the effects of a strike and, indirectly, of trade union action, are to hit at the most disadvantaged groups in society?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. I say again that I do not see any justification for what the teachers have done and are doing in this dispute.
    Mr. Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say what he has heard from parents, not only on teachers' pay, but on the performance of teachers in being able to teach their children the basic reading, writing and arithmetic necessary to enable them to earn a living later, as opposed to the current system under which children have peace studies and other nonsense put into their heads?
    Sir Keith Joseph: That is a different question and I do not have the answer available. There is a great deal of satisfaction among parents with many schools and there is also a lot of dissatisfaction, not all of which results in letters.
    Mr. Madden: If a majority of teachers were to vote in a ballot for the pay award to go to arbitration, what influence would that exert on the Secretary of State?
    Sir Keith Joseph: We have had a lot of questions on that, but that does not arise on this question.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that parents are very worried about the disruption to examinations caused by the teachers' dispute, especially in my constituency, where Hampshire schoolchildren are having it taken out on them by teachers simply because the chairman of the employers' side of Burnham happens to be the chairman of the local education authority? What guidelines will my right hon. Friend's Department give to examiners dealing with examinations taken during the period of the dispute?
    Sir Keith Joseph: This is another example of the unjustified nature of the teachers' action. As for young people who feel that they have suffered during an examination process from some external cause, it is open to them to write to the examining body.
    Mr. Skinner: How can the Minister justify refusing the teachers the opportunity to get a decent pay award when only a few days ago this same Government decided to appoint a top civil servant at £75,000 a year? If they can find money for top civil servants at that wage, why can they not pay teachers a decent wage as well?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman missed the long session that we have had during this Question Time on teachers' pay. This question is about letters from parents on the subject.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Have the 50 or so parents, in the representations that my right hon. Friend has received, expressed grave concern over the future of their children's examination results? Does he condemn the action of the teachers, which is endangering good examination results throughout the country?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not have an analysis of the contents of each of the 50 letters, but I know that there is widespread anxiety among parents.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that many parents have every sympathy with the teachers and believe that the trouble with the dispute is that it is clearly the Government's responsibility and that they should have offered more money earlier? Had the Government offered a little more money they could have

    137
    settled the dispute long ago and saved all the disruption in schools. Is the Secretary of State demanding total surrender from teachers?
    Sir Keith Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman is correct, those parents share with him and, apparently, with all Members of the Opposition, an indifference to the consequences that would follow, which are higher inflation and higher unemployment.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hayesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.
    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. This evening I am holding a dinner at No. 10 to mark the centenary of the NSPCC.
    Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the British people, never mind their political persuasions, are deeply shocked at the ugly scenes of violence on the picket line at Orgreave? Does she agree that that behaviour is representative, not of the true tradition of British trade union lawful picketing, but of the rule of the mob? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise the British police for their courage and dedication and for their discipline in combating a difficult situation?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the scenes at Orgreave yesterday had nothing to do with peaceful picketing, either under the law or under the rules laid down several years ago by the TUC. However serious the strike — and it is serious — the consequences of giving in to mob rule would be far graver. Thanks to the courage of the police, yesterday's attempt failed. I agree with my hon. Friend that the law must be, and will continue to be, upheld.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that, if she were to make an effective and helpful intervention in the dispute, she would not be giving in to mob rule or anything like that, but would merely be fulfilling her responsibilities as Prime Minister of this country? Her absolutism, as her right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) would put it, has brought us Britain's first billion pound industrial dispute. It has brought violent conflict on a scale that has virtually been unknown in this country, certainly for the past 50 years or more. Will the Prime Minister tell us why she wants this chaos, conflict and cost to go on rising?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could forthrightly and unequivocally condemn the scenes that took place outside Orgreave yesterday. He has made no attempt to do so. He knows full well that what we saw there was not peaceful picketing, but mob violence and intimidation. I am astonished that he should suggest that, because one faction of the National Union of Mineworkers adopts these disgraceful tactics, it should be given what it wants. If we were to do that, we would lose in two ways. First, we would be asking the National Coal Board to adopt a policy which would destroy the prospects
    138
    of an efficient industry; and, secondly, we would be accepting that violence and intimidation are an acceptable part of industrial relations. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman: will he condemn those scenes of violence outside Orgreave?
    Mr. Kinnock: That is no challenge at all. I have repeatedly, in spite of the Prime Minister's continual fiction, condemned without reservation the use of violence by any and all parties in industrial disputes. It is about time, and I appeal for the fourth or fifth time in the past 15 weeks to the Prime Minister, to concentrate on the real issues and stop treating the dispute like a political football.
    I further say this to the Prime Minister, since she asks me about the National Coal Board. Does she not appreciate that there is still a strong basis for a negotiated settlement and that the National Coal Board and its leadership have made an agreement on two vital areas of the future of the coal mining industry? I ask the right hon. Lady now to stop being preoccupied with the horrific but nevertheless indirect consequences of the strike, to concentrate on the sources of the strike and the future of the coal mining industry, and to use her influence, just for once, to sponsor a speedy settlement to the dispute and to get the parties back to the negotiating table. If the right hon. Lady expended a fraction of the energy that she gives to political posturing on trying to promote a settlement, we would have ended the strike by now.
    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman referred to mob rule as political posturing. I can say to him only that whatever Government are answering from the Dispatch Box, if they gave in to mob rule, that would be the end of liberty and democracy. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at present 43 pits are working normally and 12 partially in a number of National Coal Board areas. In other words, some 50,000 miners are working. I note that the right hon. Gentleman is against the miners who are working. He knows full well that the Government have carried out their task of seeing that the law is upheld, that there is an abundant supply of money for investment in profitable pits, and that those who take voluntary redundancy have an excellent deal.
    For example, in 1979, when the right hon. Gentleman's Government were in power, a 49-year-old miner opting for voluntary redundancy would have received a capital sum of £1,450, whereas now he would receive £33,000. The facts are known. This Government have given a better deal to the mining industry than any other, and a better future. I hope that one day the right hon. Gentleman will urge people to obey the rules of the TUC on peaceful picketing and that he will have some regard for the 50,000 miners who are working.
    Mr. Kinnock: That was not an answer; it was a recitation of arrogant complacency, an evasion, and a betrayal of the national interest. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tony Favell, Question No. 2.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, who is shouting and posturing, is more accustomed to it than I am. We have seen violence which he has not —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise that the Prime Minister did not hear that I called Question No 2.
    Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there was conflict between the police and miners yesterday, that was precisely what those masterminding the strike had intended from the outset? These people have shown no respect for democracy, either inside or outside their union, and have never ceased to take any opportunity to incite people to show the utmost disregard for the police. As a result, young policemen have had to endure taunts and jibes——
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Favell: —and bricks and spit.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that these violent tactics have been used to try to impose the will of one faction of the NUM on the rest. Those people have tried, by those tactics, to destroy the steel industry. They have failed. They have tried, by those tactics, to disrupt the power stations. They have failed. They have tried, by those tactics, to destroy those who are still going into work in the many pits around the country. They have failed. In every single way, they have tried to use violence to impose their will. So far they have failed. The lorries got through; the coal is getting through. I hope that that will continue, as I hope that the overwhelming majority of workers in this country will join all people of good will to see that mob violence does not prevail.
    Mr. Steel: Why does the Prime Minister not remind the country that the civil law is there to be used against secondary picketing? Secondly, why does she not give some encouragement to miners who deplore their leader's tactics by persuading the Secretary of State for Energy to call both sides together under his chairmanship to ascertain whether there is a way forward, rather than leaving the issue as though it were a private television battle between Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Scargill?
    The Prime Minister: The facts are well known. The fact that the Government have given a better deal to the mining industry than any other previous Government is well known. The fact that the offer has been taken up by 50,000 miners is also well known. The House knows that 50,000 miners are working and are continuing to work —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen who are interrupting from a sedentary position cannot give any example where any other Government have given a better deal to the miners. It is up to those who could use the civil law—that is those who are aggrieved—to go to the courts to use it if they choose. That is a matter for them and not for the Government.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend concerned at the development of ballistic missile defence systems in space by the United States and the Soviet Union? Such systems weaken the stability of nuclear deterrents. Will she use the London summit declaration on East-West relations to press for a negotiated end to such developments?
    The Prime Minister: That is one very early experiment. It is far too early to deduce anything for future prospects from one experiment with infra-red heat sensors used against one target in the skies. It cannot be assumed
    140
    that that can rapidly be transferred by technology into a mass capability to stop every missile going into space. For as long as we can foresee it will be necessary to have a strong nuclear deterrent, and Trident will be that deterrent in future.
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Now that one out of five of the electorate has voted—[Interruption.] Now that one out of five of the electorate has voted for the alliance parties, will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister—if there were some quiet the right hon. Lady might be able to hear my supplementary question—justify to the House, to the millions of electors and to the other nine democratic members of the European Community how, in spite of the alliance gaining what amounted to 20 per cent. of the votes cast, there will not be one alliance Member out of the 81 Members of the European Parliament for the next five years? How will she justify that distortion of democracy?
    The Prime Minister: That is quite simply because no alliance candidate won the constituency which he sought to represent.
    Mr. Onslow: May I revert to the disorders at Orgreave and elsewhere? As it must be clear that these unlawful assemblies are neither spontaneous nor unco-ordinated, how long is it likely to be before the police have sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against those responsible for controlling and directing these riotous mobs?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, there have been a number of arrests on all of the violent pickets. I do not know whether the police will have sufficient evidence to bring the sort of charge to which my hon. Friend has referred. As he knows, it is a matter for the police and it would be quite wrong for politicians to interfere in duties for which the police are responsible.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Prime Minister inform the House when she has sufficient blood on her hands to satisfy her hatred of the miners?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, in 43 pits 50,000 miners are working and looking after their families. The hon. Gentleman seems to disregard those completely. They have accepted the offers and look forward to a prosperous future for the coal industry. Those who brought the miners out on strike are responsible for ending the strike. They now have fewer prospects and have damaged the coal industry considerably.
    Mr. Forth: Although the Prime Minister is entitled to feel satisfied about the Conservatives winning 44 of the 78 mainland seats in the European Parliament elections, does she agree that we should be grateful that we do not have proportional representation, which has allowed the far Right National Front to be elected in France?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A proportional system of election often allows extremists to be elected.

Coal Industry Dispute
3.30 pm
Dr. David Owen(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about what measures the Government intend taking to prevent a repeat of the violence and public disorder that happened yesterday in connection with the industrial dispute in the mining industry.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The violence yesterday was concentrated at the Orgreave coking plant. The police estimate that at nine o'clock yesterday morning some 10,000 people were in the vicinity. They were there to stop the British Steel Corporation from exercising its lawful right to remove coke from the plant. The police were subjected to a considerable level of violence, and to deal with it found it necessary to use both mounted officers and officers equipped with shields and helmets. Ninety-three arrests were made. Of those arrested, 26 have since been charged with riot. The remainder have been charged with unlawful assembly, assault and public order offences. Twenty-eight police officers suffered injuries. The disorder, during which large numbers of missiles were thrown at police officers, continued until after mid-day. Apart from the physical violence, a field close to the lines of police officers was set on fire and three vehicles were removed from a local yard and set on fire. A car filled with rubble was pushed down a hill towards the lines of police officers. Fortunately, it merely hit a wall. A barrier was erected in the road and set on fire.
In spite of the large numbers of people present and the violence which arose, the police were able to ensure that the vehicles due to go into and out of the plant were able to do so as required.
With regard to the possible repetition of events of this kind, no Government can guarantee that violence will not recur if there are people who are determined to resort to it. The Government can and must give the police the support that is needed in their difficult task of preventing and containing violence, and dealing with it when it arises. The Government have done that and will continue to do so. The Government must also ensure that the law relating to public order is adequate and that the courts haze proper powers to deal with offences against it. For the most part the provisions of the criminal law relating to such offences as obstruction, intimidation, criminal damage and riot are adequate, and the courts' powers very substantial. I do not believe that there is a need for major changes in this area although, as the House will know, that is a matter we have under review. What there is need for now is unequivocal and unanimous condemnation of the use of violence as a means of securing political or industrial objectives; and full support for those who are determined to ensure that violence shall not prevail.
Dr. Owen: Is the Home Secretary aware that the public mood is one of increasing frustration and fed-upness at seeing the police force subjected night after night to such a degree of violence and battering on our behalf? Does he agree that it is not altogether surprising that last night one or two people under great provocation acted in a way that will probably need to be inquired into and may require disciplinary proceedings?
142
The major question, however, is this. Why are the police being used in this way outside that coking plant? Secondary action is taking place, but no action has been taken under the civil law to prevent mass picketing by thousands of people night after night, when the TUC code of conduct provides for six people on a picket. Is it not time that the Home Secretary took action? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said outside the House today that the Government had no view on whether they wished the civil law to be invoked. Why, then, did the Secretary of State for Transport advise Mr. Reid on 2 April to avoid an approach to the Attorney-General's office?
The fact is that the Government have indeed taken a view. They have decided that they do not wish the BSC or the NUR to invoke the civil law. It is time that they told the House why they take that view and it is time for some of us to tell them that they should no longer take that view and that the BSC should stop the secondary picketing outside that coking plant tomorrow.
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the public mood is not one from which I would substantially differ. Seeing the pressure under which the police are being put by the criminal acts that have occurred, the public are bound to feel sickened that that should happen in our country today and to wish to express strong support for the police in their response to that violence.
On the use of civil action, I cannot accept many of the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions, which were largely assertions without proof or demonstration, but I will say this. If those responsible for determining whether civil action should be taken—that is, the public or private bodies affected by what is going on—wish to resort to the civil courts, the Government do not seek in any way to stand in their way.
Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only law that is likely to deter people who are out to commit acts of violence of the kind that took place yesterday is the criminal law and that that is the law that must now be made to deal with what happened yesterday? Does he agree that if people are so criminally minded that they will not even take notice of the criminal law, they are most unlikely to take any notice of the civil law?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to stress the primacy of the criminal law in dealing with acts of violence. The considerations that he brought to bear are highly relevant to the question of when the civil law should be used, although in appropriate circumstances it undoubtedly has an important role to play.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: An inquiry has been announced into yesterday's horrifying events, and Mr. Tony Clement, assistant chief constable of south Yorkshire, has emphasised that only a small number at most could have been criminally involved. Why has the Home Secretary one-sidedly anticipated the outcome of that inquiry? Will he admit that the police force have been pitchforked against their will into an intolerable situation that the the nation is sick at heart at having to witness? As Mr. Tony Clement rightly complains, the police have become the "jam in the sandwich".
The Prime Minister today admitted that the Government are using the police to enforce the civil law.

143
[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, she did. She should have the humility to ask herself why it is under her premiership that the nation has been forced to witness scenes unprecedented in an industrial dispute. The present dispute has cost the taxpayer £1 billion. The Prime Minister's face is not worth that amount of money. Nor is it worth the confrontation that her intransigence has deliberately engineered and manipulated. She should stop exploiting the police as scapegoats. The public expect her to accept her responsibilities, to recognise the strength and validity of the miners' case and in the public interest to help to bring the parties together so as to bring this costly dispute to an end.
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman has subjected the House to a characteristic farrago of distortion. As to the inquiry of which he made so much, and which he had the effrontery to accuse me of pre-empting, that is the chief constable's inquiry into the limited point of establishing the identity of the officer concerned and the facts of a particular case. I made no reference in my statement to allegations against the police or to the outcome. Therefore, I cannot begin to think how it can conceivably be said that I have pre-empted that inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman then continued on his journey through mischievous fantasy by accusing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of calling on the police to enforce the civil law. Nothing that she said can conceivably bear that interpretation. It is perfectly clear that the task of the police is to enforce the rule of law, to prevent crime and to deal with it as and when it arises. Of course they are placed in an invidious and difficult position, and they deserve the sympathy of the House rather than the right hon. Gentleman's crocodile tears, which carry no conviction.
As to bringing the parties together, the right hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that at present the coalmining industry receives a subsidy of £1·3 billion a year. It is common knowledge to anyone with the faintest knowledge of the industry that there are uneconomic pits, and given that the leader of the NUM absolutely refuses to contemplate, discuss or consider in any way the closure of even the most uneconomic pits, what the right hon. Gentleman calls for carries no credence whatever.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that what the police most resent is not the sticks, stones and bottles thrown at them from the picket line but the verbal stabs in the back that they are receiving from some hon. Members? Will he therefore repudiate the notion that somehow the police are involved in political or paramilitary policing, when all they seek to do is to uphold the law of Parliament? Will he also tell the Leader of the Opposition that there is no equivalence in the notion that illegal force used to stop men from going to work if they wish is virtually the same as the use by the police of whatever lawful force is required to uphold the law and the civil liberties of our people?
Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is quite right. In no way are the police involved in political activity. They are involved in handling matters which lead to breaches of the criminal law, which is part of the law of the land, has been for many years and is quite unrelated to politics in any shape or form.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that I can easily respond to his request that there should be a complete denunciation of violence from wherever it comes? However, coming from a Government that is not enough. In recent days I have felt that there is an analogy with Northern Ireland in 1969, when young people were frustrated, not merely about pay and so on. At that time the Government in Northern Ireland did not understand the problems that those people faced, and violence erupted.
It is not enough to ask us to condemn. That can easily be done. I ask that the Government of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a member should not treat coal miners as if they did not matter. They should not keep on saying how much money has been given to subsidies the coal industry. Instead, their attitude should be one of conciliation and understanding, because without that we in Great Britain will go down the royal road which Northern Ireland went down in 1969.
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman's unequivocal condemnation of violence is as welcome as it was expected. I do not recognise his description of the Government as a Government who treat miners as if they do not matter. I find it difficult to understand how a Government who treated miners as if they did not matter would be spending £2 million a day on investment in the coal industry. I find it impossible to understand how a Government who treated miners as if they did not matter would ensure that no miner who wishes to work is going to be made compulsorily redundant as a result of what is going on. I find it difficult to understand how a Government who treated miners as if they do not matter would devote so much effort and energy to developing modern pits in which they can work safely and have an assured future. I do not recognise that description, and I venture to suggest that the majority of miners do not either, the proof of which is that the National Union of Mineworkers seems to be afraid to put it to the test by means of a ballot.
Mr. Tony Marlow: How can it be possible for one man to organise a private army running into thousands, to take it into battle against the police, to use such weapons as stone, fire and stakes against police horses, and to direct it with a walkie-talkie, and for that man not to be guilty of a serious criminal offence? When is Mr. Arthur Scargill going to be arrested?
Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be wrong for me to judge or condemn any particular person as guilty of a criminal act on the basis of any particular reports, but, of course, the question of prosecution of any individual is a matter, at least in the first instance, for the chief constable of the area in which the alleged offence might have taken place.
Mr. David Winnick: In condemning violence, did the Home Secretary see on television the sight of a police constable lashing out time and again with his truncheon at a picket? What action is going to be taken about that and similar cases? In the light of what is happening, do the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister recognise that an increasing number of people in the country are aware that the Government have virtually declared war on the miners, that the miners are fighting

145
for their jobs and their security, and that the Government are not going to win any more than they won against the miners in 1972 and 1974?
Mr. Brittan: I utterly repudiate the suggestion of the Government declaring war on the miners, and I have given ample reasons in my answer to the previous question why that is manifest and utter rubbish, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. As to the allegation that the hon. Gentleman made about what he saw on television, as he knows, there is a procedure for the investigation of complaints against the police, and, indeed, in relation to that particular act——
Mr. Winnick: Condemn it.
Mr. Brittan: —I understand that it is that one which is the subject of the inquiry which is being conducted by the chief constable of South Yorkshire.
Mr. Winnick: Condemn it.
Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Gentleman might wish to consider, if he is talking about inquiries, whether it would be appropriate for him to bring to bear his influence on the National Union of Mineworkers to consider inquiring into the events which, under the generalship of their leader, led to so much violence occurring yesterday.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is the Home Secretary aware that the right hon. Gentleman who asked this Private Notice Question voted against the Second Reading of the Employment Act 1980 which brought in the very powers on secondary picketing that he now seeks to have used? Is he further aware that the miners are happily destroying their very mines by allowing them to collapse over a 15-weeks' strike, when they could be saved now if the miners only returned to work?
Mr. Brittan: I was aware of the second point. I must confess that I was not aware of the first point, but I would certainly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's change of mind, if it has occurred.
Mr. Tony Benn: Could the Home Secretary tell the House the extent of his personal involvement in, and responsibility for, police operations which to those in the coalfields appear quite differently from the way in which they are reported in the House? Does he not realise that one of the greatest problems is an apparent lack of understanding by the Government of the determination of the miners not to see their jobs, their industry and their communities destroyed by Mr. MacGregor?
Mr. Brittan: The conduct of police operations is the responsibility of the chief constable in the area concerned. On the question of the determination of the miners, I do not see a single-minded determination; I see a diversity of determination. I see a determination by 50,000 people lawfully to go about their jobs. I see the absolute, passionate determination of those 50,000 that they should not be prevented from doing so by criminal acts conducted on the purported behalf of the majority of their fellow workers, without the matter ever having been put to the test of a ballot.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Can it ever be lawful, peaceful picketing to lead 10,000 men to break into premises with which they have no concern? Can it
146
ever be lawful, peaceful picketing to hurl stones at police and horses? Is it not typical of the leader of that mob that when he is mildly injured in doing that, he immediately cries foul?
Mr. Brittan: I would not wish to engage in any character analysis, tempting as it is. Of course the use of violence of the kind my hon. Friend describes cannot have anything to do with peaceful picketing. Indeed, I shall go further and say that the numbers involved show that neither as a matter of common sense nor as a matter of law can anyone believe that the purpose of 10,000 people going to a coking plant is peacefully to persuade the people there not to allow goods to leave the premises. The only possible purpose of such numbers is to make it physically impossible for people to do what, of their own free will, they would wish to do.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman really like to try to be helpful today? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him, and ask her to disregard entirely Mr. Ian MacGregor's statement that negotiations between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board are adjourned sine die—or "sin die" as we would say in Scotland? Will he try to influence the Prime Minister to tell Mr. MacGregor that "nope, nope, nope" in industrial relations means nothing in Britain and has no influence in bettering industrial relations? Only by bettering industrial relations will we solve the problem.
Mr. Brittan: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The last round of negotiations concluded because the leader of the NUM said that he was not prepared to consider, in any shape or form, the closure of any uneconomic pit. That is the way to require the taxpayer — the ordinary citizen in this country — to continue the indefinite subsidy of an industry uniquely singled out for that purpose, not because of any particular industrial reason but because of the muscle of those who choose to exercise it.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: If my right hon. and learned Friend heard the question that I put to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few minutes ago, can he now tell the House whether the police have advised him whether those arrested and charged with criminal offences following yesterday's riots at Orgreave include any of the ringleaders who so obviously incited and inflamed the mob?
Mr. Brittan: That depends on whom my hon. Friend regards as the ringleaders. A number of charges have been made. The exact evidence about what happened, what has been alleged and what can be proved will have to wait until the cases come before the courts.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Home Secretary aware that this national strike is now turning into a national tragedy? Is it not time to put the passion, anger, indignation and recriminations to one side? Do we not now need a court of inquiry as a concrete foundation upon which reasonable men on both sides can try to create a reasonable settlement? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to that?
Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that a court of inquiry would be a useful way forward.

147
What we are seeing is not a national strike. It is a very partial strike. It has not been endorsed by the majority of members of the union involved, and 50,000 people are continuing to work. I do not call that a national strike.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Since a limit of six pickets has been accepted in the past by the TUC and the NUM as a wholly reasonable limit on lawful picketing, and since the TUC is unable, and the NUM unwilling, to enforce their voluntary code, is it not time for the Government to consider making that limit legally enforceable?
Mr. Brittan: I will consider what my hon. and learned Friend says, but I do not myself believe that it is a lack of law that is the problem at the moment.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind the fact that many thousands of miners would like to return to work but are understandably afraid to do so, is the Home Secretary satisfied that the existing law is sufficient to protect those who are faced by intimidatory conduct which falls short of physical assault?
. Mr. Brittan: I think that the law is adequate, but, plainly, in the situation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, there is a problem of law enforcement. During Question Time a few weeks ago, I announced to the House the extra concentration of resources to be brought to bear by the police 'to deal with such intimidation. I believe that that concentration of resources on intimidation of the kind which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred is important and will be valuable.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that the Government have not and will not put private pressure upon the management of the British Steel Corporation to prevent it from using its remedies at civil law against both the funds and the officials of the NUM?
Mr. Brittan: I made it clear at the outset that the Government will in no way stand in the way of the BSC if the BSC's judgment is that that is the right thing to do.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Home Secretary aware that last Friday a constituent of mine, Mr. Joseph Green, was killed on the picket line while engaged in peaceful picketing, with no police presence, within the framework of the law?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentlemen inform the Prime Minister that my constituents believe that the right hon. Lady is responsible for causing the strike in the first place? That was the second death to occur in my area. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Prime Minister should use her authority now and intervene in an attempt to get the parties round the table for sensible and meaningful talks to put an end to this miserable affair?
Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman with the family on the sad death that occurred, but I have also to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman's constituents on being represented by a Member who thinks it appropriate in such circumstances to make such absurd allegations against my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the only thing that could be worse than the vicious scenes of violence that we saw yesterday would be another Saltley, in which the police were overpowered and mob rule prevailed? Would he not also agree that neither the civil law nor any other remedy so far suggested would be adequate or realistic when compared with the alternative of the police standing firm and doing their duty?
Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both points.
Mr. Michael Welsh: At Orgreave yesterday, the chief constable of south Yorkshire must have ordered a tremendous number of policemen to carry out their duties there, but then he also brought in the cavalry. There were light troops on horseback hurting the lads on strike and wielding their batons unmercifully. We then saw the riot squad move in and do the same think to our lads—belting them across the head. The result was that 16 loads of coal left the depot for an undertaking that had no desire for it. In Saltley in 1972, the miners went to picket and the chief constable closed the depot down. Nobody was hurt. Which of those chief constables acted most rationally?
Mr. Brittan: If a highwayman holds one up, it is always possible to avoid violence by handing over to him what he wants. I do not commend that course to a society that believes in freedom.
Mr. Robert Adley: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear, at the beginning of these exchanges, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asking why the miners were behaving like this in the face of a Conservative Government — the implication being that it was the Government's behaviour? As five times as many pits were closed under the previous Labour Government, is that not indeed a pertinent question and should we not remind ourselves that this exercise is politically motivated? It is organised by Mr. Scargill, who is aided and abetted by the Opposition.
Mr. Brittan: The more thoughtful people in the mining industry are asking themselves exactly the type of question that my hon. Friend has asked. They are asking whether the interests of the ordinary miner are best served by those who try to persuade him to perpetuate the dispute or by an industry that is trying to modernise with the assistance of large sums of public money and generous provision for those who wish to leave the industry voluntarily.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that when I visited Orgreave in the aftermath of yesterday's violence, a lady who lives nearby asked me to ask the Prime Minister why the dispute has lasted 10 times longer than the Brixton and Toxteth riots, why it has involved 10 times as many arrests and why after Brixton and Toxteth there was an immediate inquiry and Ministers visited the area? The Government acted when Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer had their windows kicked in but they are doing nothing now because they want the violence to continue, thinking that it gains votes for the Conservative party.
Mr. Brittan: That is not a difficult question to answer. When violence occurred at Brixton and Toxteth it was perfectly plain that there were profound underlying causes that needed examination. The causes of violence in the

149
present dispute are not difficult to understand. They are the determination of a group of people to use physical force to achieve industrial ends.
Mr. David Maclean: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in addition to the miners who have been arrested on public order and rioting offences, there are hundreds of others who have been arrested and charged with criminal damage, riot, theft, bodily harm, burglary, and drugs and drunkenness offences? Does he agree that not even the apologists of criminal disorder on the other side of the House can claim that by any stretch of the imagination these offences have anything to do with peaceful picketing?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right to say that some charges that are not public order charges have been made. I should not like to confirm the list that he gave but I have answered written questions giving the details.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Home Secretary consider the causes as well as the symptoms? Will he bear in mind the fact that the most recent round of meetings broke down but that some progress was made at an earlier meeting? Is it not significant that the chairman of the National Coal Board was not present at the earlier meeting? Does he agree that it is only when the chairman is present that there is a problem? Does he agree that, in the interests of industrial relations, the matter would be better left to people who understand the industry so that they can achieve a settlement? As the coke run at Orgreave is to be stopped, why was it started in the first place? Why was it considered so necessary?
Mr. Brittan: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that the chairman of the coal board was present at the meeting which the hon. Gentleman regards as the more constructive one. In regard to why the Orgreave coke run was started, I do not think that that question need be asked as I see no reason why any justification, explanation or apology need be made for a commercial enterprise removing its goods from one place to another.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a weasel use of words for the Opposition to condemn the violence on both sides? Is it not a fact that Arthur Scargill opened this Pandora's box of violence and lawlessness to which the police must respond if society is not to fall to pieces? Is it not time that the Opposition were honest on at least one thing and condemned the violence which means that the police must respond with force and use riot shields and helmets which they would not have to use if the miners conducted themselves lawfully?
Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my shon. Friend. Anyone who leads 10,000 people to a place such as Orgreave bears a heavy burden of responsibility if some of those people get hurt and if policemen are injured. Whereas generalised condemnations of violence are better than refusals to condemn violence, there would be much weight in people who carry some conviction in the matter feeling it possible to say that they condemn violence generally and leading 10,000 people to a place such as Orgreave, from which violence was bound to ensue.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Home Secretary not understand that those who create the
150
conditions for violence are just as guilty as those who take part in it, from whichever side of the argument they come? Does he not understand that he is causing the most serious breakdown in police-public relations that the country has ever know, which will be almost impossible to repair when the strike is over? Far from agreeing with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who no longer represents the view of the Police Federation in this matter, why does the Home Secretary not agree with the chairman of the Police Federation who has appealed to the Government several times, including at the recent Police Federation conference in the presence of the Home Secretary, to intervene and stop the police being used as they are by the Government?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented the Police Federation view and what was said on that occasion. He would do well to consider whether he thinks any useful purpose would be served if he and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends tried to dissuade the leaders of the union from leading thousands of people to a place in such a way as is bound to lead to violence.
Mr. Derek Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the apologists of violence who wear a moderate face are just as worthy of condemnation as those who openly espouse violence?
Mr. Brittan: I think that they might be slightly more worthy of condemnation because they are more dangerous.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Home Secretary had time to analyse the results of the European elections? If he has, he will have noticed that there was a big swing to Labour, especially——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be directly related to this matter.
Mr. Boyes: —especially on the coalfields, where the miners are under threat. The reason is clear—no jobs are available. The main reason, however, is that most people realise that the Prime is being hypocritical when——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question that relates directly to the subject. He is going far too wide.
Mr. Boyes: The Prime Minister is hypocritical when talking about violence on the picket line and——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has abused his opportunity.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Home Secretary and those accompanying him on the Government Front Bench accept once and for all that the Opposition have condemned, and will continue to condemn, violence on the picket line and elsewhere? Is he aware of the serious concern that is felt by people throughout the country at the sight on television of mounted police and CRS-type squads armed with shields, visors and hickory sticks? Will the Government accept that they have a role to play in this situation, remembering that all the members of the National Coal Board are appointed by them? Will the Government now bring confrontation to an end by seeking arbitration and reconciliation in the interests not only of the miners and the police but of the nation?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to the fact that the Opposition condemn violence. Do they

151
condemn the bringing of people to the picket line in such numbers that violence is bound to ensue? Until they answer that question, their ritual condemnations of violence will ring hollow.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary and the Government are using the police as a private army to carry out the Tory Government's political dirty work? Why did the Government operate double standards about three weeks ago in relation to farmers who blocked the roads of Aberystwith?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be related directly to the question under discussion.
Mr. Skinner: They stopped the traffic, yet not a single arrest was made. It is high time that the Government stopped using the police in this fashion and treated every citizen equally. They should not pick on the miners in the way that they have been doing.
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will not persuade us any more than he will persuade his 300 mining constituents in Bolsover who went to work last week.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people would agree with a constituent of mine, the mother of a miner and a policeman, who said that, in her opinion, Mr. Arthur Scargill was nothing more than a mischievous, revolutionary, evil rabble-rouser?
Mr. Brittan: I have probably said enough about all that, but the House will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point that touches on two basic rights which the House looks to you, Mr. Speaker, to enforce. The first is the right of hon. Members in this House to free speech and the second is the right of individuals to a free and unbiased trial when they are charged with offences.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), in commenting on an incident shown on television in which a police officer was shown to be using a truncheon, condemned that man in this House in advance and asked the Home Secretary to condemn him too. As you know,
152
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances surrounding that picture are not known; they are being inquired into and it is likely that that will lead to legal proceedings, if the Director of Public Prosecutions agrees, or to a disciplinary tribunal.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of two recent cases. There was, first, the Waldorf shooting, in which this House regrettably heard direct condemnations, in advance of the trial, of the police officers concerned. When brought to trial, they were found innocent by a British jury, and subsequently a police complaints tribunal threw out all the disciplinary charges against them.
The second was a more recent case in which newspapers printed a picture of an officer apparently kicking a picket. That too brought condemnation of that officer in this House. Subsequently, however, when a witness who had been abroad came forward, the judge terminated the case and the officer in question was found not guilty.
It is wrong for hon. Members in this House to condemn people who are entitled to a free trial before that trial has taken place.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need further points of order on this subject. I heard the question asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who need not, I think, say anything further. I also heard the reply which was given by the Home Secretary. Having heard what the Home Secretary said about an inquiry, I do not think that any point of order arises.
Mr. Kaufman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the pursuit by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) of his position as paid adviser to the Police Federation become an abuse of the procedures of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on.

Coal Industry Dispute

  NEW MEMBER
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
  Michael Thomas Hancock Esq., for Portsmouth, South.

Rent Acts (Amendment)
4.17 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Acts to make new provision in relation to the supply of private rented accommodation.
In less than the span of a normal life the private landlord has all but been eliminated. At the end of the first world war, 90 per cent. of the population lived in privately rented accommodation. Unlike other European countries and the United States, virtually no house building has been undertaken for private renting since the second world war, and the figure has now been reduced to a mere 9 per cent.
The reason for that is easy to see. In part it has been the growing demand for owner-occupation and in part subsidised competition from local councils, but the major cause has been the imposition of rent control and security of tenure stemming from the first world war's temporary legislation.
Rents were fixed, even allowing for modest permitted rises, at levels too low to allow the property to be maintained, let alone to produce any profit. Property inevitably deteriorated and had to be demolished. The lack of any return meant that building for rent ceased, and security of tenure meant that individual property owners could not regain the use of their property when they needed it. At the first opportunity they therefore gave up letting. There is little need for me to reiterate these basic facts at length. Everyone knows that they are true, even those who, for political reasons, are loudest in denying them.
In any case, we should concern ourselves now with the consequences, with the fact that sections of society which traditionally depended upon the private landlord for accommodation now have the greatest difficulty in finding somewhere to stay, the fact that single people and families with young children, the most vulnerable and the least desirable tenants, are among those hardest hit, and the fact that thousands of houses are lying empty because their owners will not take the risk of renting them under the existing rules. According to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, there were 550,000 empty dwellings in the spring of 1977, of which 220,000 were previously in the private rented sector.
Thousands of properties are leased only to foreign nationals, who do not enjoy the protection of the law, and millions of pounds of housing investment has been destroyed during a period when an acute housing shortage has been the normal state of affairs. The result has been to deny many people access to housing, because councils have been reluctant to cater for minority groups, for the young, the mobile, and so on. Indeed, in 1974 controls were extended to furnished accommodation, and by 1976 150,000 lets had been lost. There was a 20 per cent. drop in the number of advertised lettings throughout the country.
We have created a position in which the mobility of labour has all but been destroyed——
Mr. Dennis Canavan: There is no labour to move to, because the Tories have destroyed all the jobs.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should be interested in the fact that it is often preferable to be in secure, low-rent accommodation and unemployed than to be employed
154
with housing problems elsewhere. Even in the private sector, with all the problems of regulation and restriction, there is a higher rate of movement among the occupants than in the council housing sector. A study by the economic and statistics unit of the Scottish Economic Planning Department suggested that about 48,000 fewer families moved every year in Scotland because the great bulk of rented accommodation was in the public rather than the private sector.
The result has also been to force many families into buying property when they would have preferred to rent but could not do so. It is one of the great ironies of the past 60 years of housing that the activities of those on the Left who support rent control have done as much as all the housebuilders taken together to increase owner-occupation. Half of the houses that are now owner-occupied came from the privately rented sector, and many of their new owners would have preferred to rent them.
The Government have done much for the council tenant and to encourage home ownership. They must now help those who need, but cannot find, private rented accommodation, by encouraging the creation of a new supply.
My Bill seeks to build on the initiatives taken in the 1980 Act — shorthold tenure and assured tenancies. Complete de-control — to which I am ideologically attracted—would not increase the supply in the short term, as Labour's threats to reintroduce regulation would frighten landlords out of the market and reduce the supply of rented accommodation, as regrettably happened in 1957. There would also be substantial public expenditure implications in terms of increased housing benefit, and there would undoubtedly be hardship to some tenants.
The assured tenancy scheme allows landlords approved by the Minister to build houses for let at market rents, but with tenants having security of tenure. My Bill would amend the scheme in the following way. At present, the scheme applies only to England and Wales, and to newly built property. It should be extended to cover Scotland, of course, and to cover rehabilitated property, in order to encourage the revival of our inner city areas—precisely where there is the greatest demand for private rented property. The body blow dealt to the scheme by the phased withdrawal of capital allowances in the Budget should be mitigated by making projects eligible for urban development grant, and housing associations should be brought into the scheme. Capital allowances, far from being reduced, should be extended to cover the cost of land and services.
If Conservative Members are honest, we should admit that the shorthold tenure experiment has been a grave disappointment. In the first 13 months of its operation, 5,128 shortholds were created in England and Wales. Of those, 4,751 were outside London and a mere 377 were in the capital, where it is compulsory to register a fair rent. Even that exaggerates the position in terms of creating new tenancies, as probably not all of them were new lets.
The reason for the failure of shorthold lies in our mistaking the importance to the landlord not just of being able to regain possession but of securing a reasonable return. Fair rents are often substantially below market rents, as in London, where the scheme has failed and rented accommodation is badly needed. New lettings should not be subject to any form of rent control. In that

155
way we can provide an incentive to landlords that will increase supply, while in no way affecting the position of existing tenants.
There is increasing evidence that it is already happening informally. A survey of Leeds students in 1982 showed that 60 per cent. of the tenancies created were in the form of a licence. The Small Landlords Association told the Environment Committee:
"Not one of our members who relets property ever lets it out again under the terms of the Rent Act."
Let us replace the loophole with a shorthold that allows market rents.
Finally, my Bill seeks to guard against the tiny minority of unscrupulous landlords who might be tempted to exploit deregulation by winkling out secure tenants. It increases the penalties for harassment and illegal eviction. I believe that its provisions will provide hope for substantial sections of our people who find it impossible to obtain rented accommodation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being present in the Chamber, and I know that he is undertaking a review of the effects of the Rent Acts. If nothing else, I hope that this Bill will prompt him into taking urgent action to help that group of people.
4.26 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) rose——
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, Sir.
In common with other Labour Members, I had some doubts as to the reason for introducing this Bill. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) let the cat out of the bag when he referred to the ideological reasons that lead him to such a conclusion. If the Government's supporters and the Government themselves feel that such a measure is important, they should have the courage to present it as Government legislation and not seek to introduce it in this way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the housing problems that we face. I should point out — I hope with some modesty—that I spent some time in, local government trying to undo the damage done to housing by such legislation. It has not always been the case that those involved and interested in housing could rely on the private sector. In my time in local government, some of the worst examples of bad housing and squalor were specifically related to the private sector, yet the hon. Gentleman wishes to give that sector priority. That was so despite the fact—notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's arguments—that profits were being made by the private sector and by those who owned huge estates, who were not all that concerned about the impact of their rents.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any confidence in our rent tribunals, despite the great interest of the Secretary of State for Scotland in their appointment. I believe that, by and large, they have acted fairly. Property owners who feel cheated or badly treated can go to them. Indeed, I have heard very little criticism of them.
The housing problems which we need to consider stem from the fact that the lowest number of houses has been built in the public sector since the war. There are still problems of squalor, overcrowding, dampness and so on. The Government have treated the whole matter in a
156
disgraceful way. Given all the problems, it would seem that the hon. Gentleman has failed to persuade the House that his Bill would contribute one iota to a solution. He has failed to persuade the House that what he is saying is relevant to the solution of the grave housing problems that we face. For those reasons, and to avoid the problems of housing that we have had in the past, including Rachmanism, which may be rearing its ugly head again, I shall oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 126.

Division No. 372]

[4.29 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Franks, Cecil

Aitken, Jonathan

Freeman, Roger

Alexander, Richard

Freud, Clement

Alton, David

Gale, Roger

Amess, David

Galley, Roy

Arnold, Tom

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Ashby, David

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Baldry, Anthony

Greenway, Harry

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gregory, Conal

Batiste, Spencer

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

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Grist, Ian

Beith, A. J.

Ground, Patrick

Bendall, Vivian

Grylls, Michael

Benyon, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Berry, Sir Anthony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Best, Keith

Hancock, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hannam, John.

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hargreaves, Kenneth

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

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hayes, J.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hayward, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bright, Graham

Heddle, John

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Henderson, Barry

Browne, John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Bruinvels, Peter

Hind, Kenneth

Bryan, Sir Paul

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Buck, Sir Antony

Holt, Richard

Budgen, Nick

Hordern, Peter

Bulmer, Esmond

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

Burt, Alistair

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Howells, Geraint

Cartwright, John

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cash, William

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunter, Andrew

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Irving, Charles

Cockeram, Eric

Jessel, Toby

Conway, Derek

Johnston, Russell

Coombs, Simon

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cormack, Patrick

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Couchman, James

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Crouch, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dickens, Geoffrey

Kirkwood, Archy

Dicks, Terry

Knowles, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Latham, Michael

Dover, Den

Lawler, Geoffrey

Durant, Tony

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Eggar, Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Emery, Sir Peter

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Fallon, Michael

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Farr, John

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Favell, Anthony

Maclean, David John

Forman, Nigel

Maples, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marland, Paul

Forth, Eric

Marlow, Antony

Fox, Marcus

Mates, Michael

157

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Speed, Keith

Meadowcroft, Michael

Spencer, Derek

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Monro, Sir Hector

Steen, Anthony

Montgomery, Fergus

Stern, Michael

Moynihan, Hon C.

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Neale, Gerrard

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Norris, Steven

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Onslow, Cranley

Sumberg, David

Oppenheim, Philip

Tapsell, Peter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Terlezki, Stefan

Parris, Matthew

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Pawsey, James

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thornton, Malcolm

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thurnham, Peter

Raffan, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rathbone, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Rhodes James, Robert

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Wallace, James

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Waller, Gary

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Walters, Dennis

Rowe, Andrew

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Whitfield, John

Ryder, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Winterton, Nicholas

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wood, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Woodcock, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Yeo, Tim

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Silvester, Fred

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sims, Roger

Mr. Christopher Chope and

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mr. Henry Bellingham

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Anderson, Donald

Cohen, Harry

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Conlan, Bernard

Ashton, Joe

Corbyn, Jeremy

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Craigen, J. M.

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Crowther, Stan

Bell, Stuart

Cunningham, Dr John

Benn, Tony

Dalyell, Tam

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

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

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

Boyes, Roland

Deakins, Eric

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Dewar, Donald

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Dixon, Donald

Caborn, Richard

Dobson, Frank

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Dormand, Jack

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Douglas, Dick

Clarke, Thomas

Dubs, Alfred

Clay, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Clwyd, Ms Ann

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

158

Eadie, Alex

Maxton, John

Eastham, Ken

Michie, William

Ellis, Raymond

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Evans, John (St.Helens N)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Ewing, Harry

O'Brien, William

Fatchett, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Flannery, Martin

Park, George

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Parry, Robert

Forrester, John

Patchett, Terry

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Pavitt, Laurie

George, Bruce

Pendry, Tom

Golding, John

Pike, Peter

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Radice, Giles

Harman, Ms Harriet

Redmond, M.

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Haynes, Frank

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Robertson, George

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rogers, Allan

Hoyle, Douglas

Rooker, J. W.

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

John, Brynmor

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Leighton, Ronald

Skinner, Dennis

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Litherland, Robert

Strang, Gavin

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Straw, Jack

Loyden, Edward

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wareing, Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Welsh, Michael

McTaggart, Robert

Wilson, Gordon

McWilliam, John

Winnick, David

Madden, Max

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Tellers for the Noes:

Martin, Michael

Mr. John Home Robertson and

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Marcus Fox, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. Alan Howarth.

Rent Acts (Amendment)
  RENT ACTS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Michael Forsyth accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Rent Acts to make new provision in relation to the supply of private rented accommodation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

Question of Privilege
4.41 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: I wish to draw attention to words spoken by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) during the debate on 12 June —Official Report, columns 830 and 840–1—and I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Last Tuesday, 12 June, the House debated the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) proposed an Instruction to the Committee considering the Bill to make part of the Greater London council's capital expenditure subject to Treasury consent. During the debate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said:
"I know what projects will be hit if this instruction is carried. I shall use what small influence I have at county hall to ensure that we hit the constituencies of those Conservative Members who vote in favour of the instruction. There will be a certain degree of 'selective vindictiveness' —I use a phrase that has been mentioned before. There is no way that Conservative Members should think that they can escape from the consequences of their actions. I shall do my best as an individual member of the GLC to ensure that retribution is visited on the heads of Conservative Members. I hope that the GLC will ensure that the constituents of Conservative Members know exactly who is responsible for cutting projects in their areas."
Then, following an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the hon. Member continued:
"Conservative Members will not be allowed to get away with quietly passing this measure. No one is reporting this debate, so it will not get a great deal of publicity. They must not believe that they will get away with this action, without some retribution being visited upon them. I shall certainly use whatever influence I have at county hall to ensure that they pay the price."
Later, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) rebuked the hon. Member with some force, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West intervened to say:
"I do not apologise for one word that I said, but I want the hon. Gentleman to know that I spoke as an individual Member of this House and as an individual member of the Greater London council. I do not apologise. I shall use my influence in just the way that I described."—[Official Report, 12 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 830, 840–1.]
The hon. Member was invited to withdraw those words. He has not done so. Meanwhile, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West repeat similar remarks in a radio broadcast.
All local councillors in any local authority have some executive role in that local authority. I believe the hon. Member will not mind if I say that for some years he has been a leading and influential figure on the Greater London council. He has been chairman of two important committees. We must assume that he meant what he said and that it was not meant to be an empty threat.
Because of the meaning of the words that he used, it must be right for the House to refer the matter to the Select Committee of Privileges. The words "selective vindictiveness" in that context mean that the constituents and the constituencies of hon. Members voting in a certain way would be singled out from other constituencies for damaging reprisals.
160
It is the essence of parliamentary democracy that hon. Members can speak or vote without threat to themselves or to their constituents, and without intimidation. On that "Erskine May" is quite clear. It says:
"Attempted intimidation of Members. To attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is … a breach of privilege."
The House cannot let this go by. We cannot submit to threats or blackmail, financial or otherwise. As Kipling put it:
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
4.46 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I believe that this motion represents an unpardonable waste of parliamentary time. There are 4 million people unemployed, and the Government are at war with the people; yet the House chooses to debate a motion about whether comments I made should be referred to the Committee of Privileges because some London Tory Members of Parliament feel sensitive about them.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has somewhat overstated the case. In the debate last Tuesday, 12 June, I spoke as an individual Member of the House and as an individual member of the Greater London council. I am not in control of GLC policy and I cannot commit the GLC to a particular course of action.
I remind the House of the situation on Tuesday, 12 June, when the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill was debated. The Government were proposing—I admit they put up a number of Back Benchers to do it —a series of massive reductions in the GLC's capital spending programme for 1984–85. The effect of the instruction to the Committee was that there should be a 52 per cent. cut in the council's planned new capital expenditure. That would affect projects throughout London. When I said that I knew the projects that would be affected, I was referring to all the projects throughout London, in whatever constituency they happened to be. Those projects include nursery classes, indoor lavatories, playing fields, provision for the single homeless, new homes, environmental improvements and new roads. Why should London Tory Members of Parliament believe that they could enforce cuts in capital spending and get away with it scot free?
The hon. Member for Twickenham correctly quoted from the Official Report What I said. He seems to have taken exception to the phrase "selective vindictiveness". The implication of my words needs to be clearly understood. The meaning was that, when decisions were being taken at county hall as between which capital projects should proceed, and where all other questions were equal, I would argue, as an individual member of the GLC, that discrimination should be exercised against those projects which were in the constituencies of the Tory Members of Parliament who forced the cuts to be made in the first place.
I am sure that the overriding concern of the GLC would always be the needs of Londoners, as it always has been; but where hard choices have to made, and all other things being equal, I believe that the voting record of Tory MPs should be taken into account.
The word "blackmail" has been bandied about. Blackmail presupposes a threat to extract something. Last

161
Tuesday, as ever, Tory MPs were beyond reason or threat. I told them honestly what I would seek to do after the vote. There was no thought whatsoever in my mind that hon. Members would or should interpret my words as a pre-vote threat; rather, that they should interpret them as a post-vote promise.
All Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, must accept the consequences of their actions and not whinge afterwards. When it comes to acting vindictively, few could match the record of the present Government. The entire local government strategy is based on vindictiveness——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the motion before us and not go wide of it.
Mr. Banks: But the term "selective vindictiveness" is one that seems to have affected hon. Members opposite. I was merely seeking to demonstrate that selective vindictiveness lies at the centre of the Government's strategy with regard to local government.
The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils is based on selective vindictiveness. They are all Labour-controlled authorities. The rate-capping hit list that we have heard so much about is similarly based on a Government strategy that is singling out those Labour local authorities that choose to defend their services, rather than bow down to the diktats of the Government.
I ask the House, to balance the Government's real selective vindictiveness against my few gentle words. I spoke honestly, if somewhat robustly, during the debate last Tuesday. I was not seeking to influence the voting of hon. Members opposite. They are beyond hope. What I said was in the spirit of robust debate and, in my opinion, was not a breach of parliamentary privilege.
The hon. Member then withdrew.
4.54 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: It is with sadness that I rise to speak on this matter, because the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is, like myself, a new Member of the House. We came here on the same day. I have listened with regret to the attitudes taken by the hon. Member during his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order"]
Mr. Speaker: I must say to hon. Members that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is withdrawing in accordance with precedent.
Mr. Tracey: It must be accepted by us all that when we are Members of such an august place as this we must conduct ourselves according to the rules. We must be the guardians of our own rules and stand up for them. It is for that reason that I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) in writing to you, Mr. Speaker, on the matter.
I was shocked indeed to hear what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said during the debate. He continued to say it, not once but several times. It was, of course, heavily reported in the press. I was shocked to hear him once more speaking in an interview and repeating the same sort of threats on LBC during last Wednesday morning.
Because of the heavy reporting, I and other right hon. and hon. Members in London have received very worried
162
messages and telephone calls from constituents. I am sure that their fear is shared by many Conservative leaders of borough councils in London. It was made clear—and I shall repeat one of his sentences in answer to what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—
"I shall do my best as an individual member of the GLC to ensure that retribution is visited on the heads of Conservative Members."—[Official Report, 12 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 830.]
That was a very clear threat to those of us who supported the instruction on the Bill. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that that was a typical act, of the sort that we are beginning to see certainly in London politics, but also in a wider area, and which often comes from hon. Members who are not prepared to accept the rules.
4.56 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will decide to refer this matter to the consideration of the Committee of Privileges, and for a very specific reason. There seems to me no doubt, if the words in question had been spoken by anyone who was not an hon. Member, that that would have constituted a most gross contempt of the House and it would have been incumbent upon the House to proceed against him. But that does not necessarily apply to an hon. Member. We must be particularly careful that we do nothing that limits the freedom of expression and of speech of hon. Members in the Chamber and in their capacity as Members of Parliament.
This is a matter on which we need advice, after the precedents have been carefully considered and, in a cooler atmosphere, after the matter has been debated by the Committee of Privileges. I would be sorry if we should fail to deal with an allegation that might tend in future to limit the freedom of debate and of speech in this House. I think that the Committee of Privileges can serve us best, and I hope that we shall seek its help.
4.57 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I rise to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that, not for the first time, there is an extremely serious error in "Erskine May" on this matter. As far too many right hon. and hon. Members regard "Erskine May" as authoritative, I should draw this matter to the attention of the House. At page 174, "Erskine May" says, quite wrongly:
"Where the Member complained of is present when the complaint is made, or attends pursuant to the order of the House, it is the rule that he should be heard in explanation or exculpation as soon as the question on the motion founded upon the comp taint is proposed from the chair, and then withdraw".
It goes on to say at the end of the paragraph:
"If the Member does not withdraw, of his own accord, the Speaker will direct him to do so."
That is wholly incorrect, Mr. Speaker. I raised this very point in the Maudling case, and Mr. Speaker Thomas, your predecessor, ruled that neither a Standing Order of the House nor any other requirement entailed an hon. Member withdrawing. It was the clear wish of the House that hon. Members complained of should hear all charges made against them.
Because this false doctrine has been repeated in the latest edition of "Erskine May", I want formally to place on record once again the danger of relying on "Erskine May". I suspect that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has withdrawn from the debate

163
in the erroneous belief that there is a rule that he should do so, and has founded his erroneous belief on the false statement in "Erskine May". The House should be warned, once again, of the danger of relying on a fallible reference work, as if it were a statement of authority, which it is not and never can be.
4.59 Pm
Mr. Michael Foot): I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has spoken on a matter of privilege, because we have usually been in agreement on these matters. I strongly disagree with what he said to the House a few minutes ago, and I should like to say why.
Over the past few years there has been a change in the procedure for dealing with privilege. That has brought about a great improvement. The change has meant that fewer issues of privilege have been raised. They have been sifted through Mr. Speaker's Office, which has meant a great reduction in the number of privilege cases brought to the House. That is greatly to the benefit of the House of Commons, and it has sustained the principle that the right hon. Gentleman was enunciating—that we in this House should strongly uphold the rights of free speech and do everything in our power to prevent any interruption of that process.
However, under the new procedure, even when it is agreed by you, Mr. Speaker, that an hon. Member should have the right to move his motion, that does not mean that the House of Commons has to agree with that proposition. We have every right to listen to what is said by the mover of the motion, to take into account various factors, including those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South, and to decide that we do not want the matter to be sent to the Committee of Privileges. I shall give some reasons why it is wrong in this instance.
If the matter is sent to the Committee of Privileges, there will be an elaborate investigation, and it is likely that there will be disagreement in the Committee. The matter will then have to come back to the House, and that will not settle the question. There will have to be a debate. Far from that ending the matter, it is likely to be extended over a much longer period.
Therefore, I appeal to the House to exercise its sense and to finish the matter here and now. The best way to do so is, having aired the matter, for the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) to withdraw his motion. If he does not do that, I urge the House to reject his motion. Members of Parliament, above all other people, must show that they have thick skins to stand up to these matters. They have available the means of answering all the accusations made against them. If some London Members did not like the accusations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), they have every opportunity of answering them inside or outside the House. That is the proper way to deal with those matters.
If the matter were referred to the Committee of Privileges, and if the Committee upheld the claim made by the hon. Member for Twickenham, there would be a limitation on the speech of hon. Members. It is much better for us in the House to show that we are in favour of the full cut and thrust of debate.
164
Privilege matters are not for the Government. I hope that the Leader of the House will not support this proposition.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen) indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. In most cases, we have been in agreement.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Twickenham that the best way to deal with the matter is for him, having aired it, to withdraw his motion. If he does not, I urge the House to reject it, in the name of free speech.
5.3 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you played your part in deciding to give precedence to the motion in today's business. Under our new procedures for discussing matters of privilege, that is how we go forward.
I was provoked by what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) to speak at this point. It is right to consider whether it is sensible, whether we are right, and whether the House of Commons is sufficiently seized of the matter to go through the procedure and rigmarole of reference to the Committee of Privileges. I should like to put two or three points to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, to show why, in my view, it would be a mistake so to proceed.
My arguments are these. First, I remind the House of a ruling that you gave, Mr. Speaker, on another matter concerning the use of unparliamentary language. You said that a great deal depended upon the context in which the alleged offence took place. I agree that the context is extremely important. If we stand back for a moment from the passions involved and consider the context in which those exchanges took place and those words were said, we see that the context was part of a series of debates on the Greater London council, which, whatever other hon. Members think, is faced with limitations on its powers and its expenditure, rate capping, the abolition of voting in London and the abolition of the council itself. Whatever else the House may say about that, there is likely to be a highly charged atmosphere. It was in that highly charged atmosphere that the remarks were made. Therefore, the context is important.
My second point concerns the seriousness and gravity of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is, as he went out of his way to stress, one member of the GLC. I remind the House that last time we considered a matter of privilege it was on almost exactly the same issue. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that it was a voice from outside the House, so it was much more serious. It was alleged that voices were heard in county hall threatening Members with a selective cut off of benefits and capital allocation if they voted in a way that the GLC disapproved. It turned out not to be the case. A letter was read out by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, on 19 January 1983, making it absolutely plain that it was the policy of the GLC that
"decisions on which projects would proceed would not be based on how MPs voted but on the needs of London."
The leader of the GLC added these words:

165
"'the GLC will continue to allocate resources on the basis of need. To do otherwise would be to penalise the working people of London'."—[Official Report, 19 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 339.]
I have no doubt that that remains the policy of the GLC and would remain the policy supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, who is a member of that authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] The third thing that I shall mention is what my hon. Friend did say, and his intention, which he expressed a few minutes ago. He went out of his way to say that he was not seeking to influence the vote on the day. That is what he said to the House in what must be considered a personal statement involving his personal honour. He said that he was not seeking to influence the vote, although he did not withdraw what he said about taking action afterwards if he had his way. However, in no sense will he get his way because it is not part of the policy of the authority of which he is a member.
We have a vast machinery to consider matters of privilege. Among other things, "Erskine May", which, I agree, we have to read with great care, tells us that privilege is basically about an act which obstructs or impedes any Member of the House in the discharge of his duty. I do not honestly think that what was said and the influence and authority of the hon. Member who said it would in any way affect the conduct of Members of the House and prevent them from discharging their proper duties.
Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the motion or, better still, that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will withdraw it.
5.7 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I would like to believe that the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) are correct, but I do not think that they are. After the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made his statement last week, he had more than one opportunity to withdraw it in the House not only that day but again two days later. However, he consistently refused to do so.
When hon. Members are elected to this House, we are proud of the fact that we take up certain privileges. One of the privileges that we prize most is the ability to speak without fear or favour on behalf of our constituents. In this case, an hon. Member was threatening other hon. Members that if they failed to do what he wanted he would bring retribution upon them. That is an attempt to take away one of the privileges of Members of the House.
Therefore, I have no wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) to withdraw his motion. I hope that he will pursue it to a vote if necessary, because I believe that the only answer in this case is for the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
5.9 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I hope that the whole House will reject this absurd motion, which arises from the antics of weasels in Twickenham. The last time that I heard the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) speak was on 24 February this year, at the Maidstone college of art. His speech then, like his speech this afternoon, was full of unction and piety and laced with pantomime tickling and farce. He began by developing the spermatozoic theory of art. That is the
166
theory that the love of art stems from the genes in the sperm. He said that we could be sure that his love of art was genuine because his wife, his granny, his nephews and his nieces——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that an important debate is due to take place after the House has dealt with this issue.
Mr. Sedgemore: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to two matters which are pertinent to this debate and to the serious charges that, in his absurd way, he is seeking to bring against my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). First, the hon. Gentleman developed a theory of art which was in complete contradiction to that which my hon. Friend has developed. That shows that there may be an element of ideological spite in the bringing of the motion. However, in what was perhaps the worst economic diatribe ever issued on any platform in any land at any time, the hon. Gentleman went on to call for massive public expenditure cuts. That is precisely what my hon. Friend has promised the hon. Gentleman in his constituency. That being so, why is he croaking and squawking in mounting a spurious protest?
The House should reject the motion, for two basic reasons. First, it must decide whether it is an adult institution which believes in free speech. Secondly, it must decide whether it wants to become an institution which has 654 Members of little Ruritania in which we all wear funny hats and take ourselves desperately seriously and pompously on these occasions. I am sure that no one can surpass the hon. Member for Twickenham in pious pomposity. If the House is to have some relevance to freedom of speech and decency, we should reject the motion out of hand.
5.12 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) appeared to be talking about what he described as an accusation. We are talking about a threat, a promise or a declared intention, and not an accusation.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) gave the impression that the words spoken by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) during consideration of the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill were uttered in a heated debate. The fact is that it was not a heated debate and there were genuine opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the promise of selective vindictiveness. That he failed to do, and has still failed to do. Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I believe that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges and we should then consider its report.
5.13 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I support the suggestion that the motion should be withdrawn or rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was merely drawing attention to the implications for Londoners of the retribution that the Conservative Back-Bench group, inspired by the Government, was seeking to impose upon so many poor people in London. The issue that should be before the House is the treatment of British people, especially those in the poorest inner city areas, by Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. But that is not the issue before the House. The issue before the House is that which appears on the Order Paper.
Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. There must be a sense of proportion in the treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. As a member of the GLC, my hon. Friend was saying that the GLC would be grievously affected by the Conservative Back-Bench move to withhold millions of pounds by blocking the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill and he spoke of the effect that that would have on Londoners. He said that, "all things being equal", he would treat differently constituencies represented by Conservative Members as opposed to those represented by Labour Members.
Millions of pounds have been removed from London. The antics of Conservative Members have cost the borough in my constituency £2 million in housing and other forms of capital investment. Those who will be denied any opportunity of decent housing in future by Conservative Members will have no means of answering back, but Conservative Members have every means of speaking up in their own defence at every stage.
I hope that the House will reject the motion. Conservative Members have adequate access to speaking in this place and their friends in the media have the power to ensure that their views are known. London's homeless and those of other inner city areas do not have that right.
5.15 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The electorate will find it strange when it hears that the House is upset that one of its Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), decided to say on one occasion, when there were many other opportunities, that some politicians might be hurt in their constituencies as a result of a statement made in this place, which some electors refer to as "pork-barrel palace". That happens every day that the House sits. The Government have put 4 million on the dole. Every Conservative Member has decided that in the north of England and in many other areas there will be worse unemployment than elsewhere.
What about Members who decide on their own account to restrict their own freedom? No one has made them do that. About 350 of them have decided to become directors of various companies. I am told that one Conservative Member has more than 20 directorships. Members of Parliament who have accepted directorships have decided to become part-time Members when it comes to looking after their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has not told 350 Conservative Members to take directorships and to restrict their freedom to look after their constituents. He has not said, "If you happen to run into conflict with your job as an MP"—
Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not the issue before us.
Mr. Skinner: Of course it is.
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that he must confine himself to the issue that is before the House, which is a complaint, and should not go wider than that.
Mr. Skinner: I am trying to explain the issue for the electorate, Mr. Speaker, and not for the cosy club in this place. This is a matter for everyone outside the House. The electorate will think that this place is super-sensitive if a
168
Labour Member—I stress, Labour—is called to task for saying something that many Tory Members are putting into practice every day.
It is unchallenged that many Tory Members are restricting their own freedom. If a Member has 27 directorships, it must limit his ability to carry out his work on behalf of his constituents. There are 350 directors, 150 consultancies and adviserships, 50 Lloyd's underwriters and about 100 lawyers in this place. Many of them—but not my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)— work in the courts. That is why we start at half-past two in the afternoon. Every one of them is restricting his freedom and ability to serve his constituents.
I have never known such a load of pompous arrogance in my time. Someone has had the nerve to say, "By the way, the Government are abolishing the GLC and all those who represent London constituencies and constituencies within metropolitan authorities, including Tory Members who marched through the Government's Division Lobby, will be affected." One of my hon. Friends has had the guts to say—he was fortified by some of his hon. Friends—that there will be consequences for Tory Members. He has had the guts not to bow down and we have every right — indeed, a duty — to say that the Tories are acting similarly every day.
Mr. Speaker rose——
Mr. Skinner: I have not finished yet, Mr. Speaker. You used to be a Whip, Mr. Speaker. You were in the Conservative Whips' Office for many years. You know as well as anyone else who has been in that office, including those who have been hanging around this place for a number of years, that there are many hon. Members who get trips abroad——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief. We have an important debate ahead of us and many right hon. and hon. Members, including Labour Members, want to participate in it.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is an important issue, as is free speech, and that has been said over and over again. When Members decide to go on phoney fact-finding trips—they are mainly Conservative Members who have been assisted by the Government Whips, but they include Labour Members—they are restricting their freedom to represent their constituents. That is the result of them lying in the sun in the Caribbean.
I know why some Tory Members will walk into the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Twickenham. It is because the house is based on patronage, and they have a weather eye on the Tory Front Bench. Many Tory Members will think about a tinpot job, a junior Minister's job, a bag-carrying job or, for those who have missed the boat, a knighthood or peerage. That is how the House operates.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is concluding his remarks.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Sir, I have nearly finished. The House is based on patronage, and it stinks. That is why I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West in his attempt to stop this stupid motion being carried.
5.20 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The Standing Order requires that this privilege debate takes precedence and that requires the House to show great self-discipline, because the debate comes before other business. Today it comes before a most important defence debate. This debate has been most entertaining and fairly wide-ranging and was not confined religiously and pedantically to the motion. I thank the Members who spoke, not least the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is House of Lords material of the decade.
The contributions from the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for Down, South (Mr. Powell) characterised the debate. The House could not have two more respected and revered proceduralists to distinguish its debates. They put to the House its choice. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that, although the subject was important, the House must have a sense of proportion about such a matter, and that we may find that we have done little more than cause a modest degree of martyrdom. The right hon. Gentleman is as good a martyr to many causes as any. He argued, on the principle of good, sound common sense, that we should move to next business.
By contrast, the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested that the topic was not wholly dissimilar from a recent debate regarding remarks made outside the House, when the House decided that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for further advice and consent. He said that it would be undesirable if we did not again go to the Committee of Privileges. Otherwise, it might seem that there was one attitude for remarks made outside the House and another for remarks made in the House. That raises an issue of interest and fascination, and possibly of principle.
When we vote, which I hope we shall do soon, I shall consider it a privilege to be in the same Lobby as the right hon. Member for Down, South.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 135.

Division No. 373]

[5.23 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Aitken, Jonathan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Alexander, Richard

Bottomley, Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Alton, David

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

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Amess, David

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Ancram, Michael

Braine, Sir Bernard

Arnold, Tom

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Aspinwall, Jack

Bright, Graham

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Brinton, Tim

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Brooke, Hon Peter

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

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Baldry, Anthony

Browne, John

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bruinvels, Peter

Batiste, Spencer

Bryan, Sir Paul

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Beith, A. J.

Buck, Sir Antony

Bellingham, Henry

Budgen, Nick

Bendall, Vivian

Bulmer, Esmond

Benyon, William

Burt, Alistair

Berry, Sir Anthony

Butcher, John

Best, Keith

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Body, Richard

Cartwright, John

170

Cash, William

Holt, Richard

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hordern, Peter

Chapman, Sydney

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

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

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

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howells, Geraint

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cockeram, Eric

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Conway, Derek

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Coombs, Simon

Hunter, Andrew

Cope, John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Couchman, James

Irving, Charles

Critchley, Julian

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Crouch, David

Jessel, Toby

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Dicks, Terry

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Dorrell, Stephen

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Dover, Den

Key, Robert

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dunn, Robert

Kirkwood, Archy

Durant, Tony

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Dykes, Hugh

Knowles, Michael

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lamont, Norman

Eggar, Tim

Latham, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Fallon, Michael

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Farr, John

Lee, John (Pendle)

Favell, Anthony

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fletcher, Alexander

Lester, Jim

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lord, Michael

Fox, Marcus

Luce, Richard

Franks, Cecil

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Freeman, Roger

Maclean, David John

Gale, Roger

Maginnis, Ken

Galley, Roy

Major, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Maples, John

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Marland, Paul

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Marlow, Antony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mates, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gower, Sir Raymond

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Greenway, Harry

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Gregory, Conal

Meadowcroft, Michael

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

Mellor, David

Grist, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ground, Patrick

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Grylls, Michael

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Monro, Sir Hector

Hancock, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Hanley, Jeremy

Moore, John

Hannam, John

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Moynihan, Hon C.

Haselhurst, Alan

Neale, Gerrard

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Needham, Richard

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Nelson, Anthony

Hayes, J.

Neubert, Michael

Hayhoe, Barney

Newton, Tony

Hayward, Robert

Nicholls, Patrick

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Norris, Steven

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Oppenheim, Philip

Heddle, John

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Henderson, Barry

Ottaway, Richard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Hicks, Robert

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Parris, Matthew

Hind, Kenneth

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Pattie, Geoffrey

171

Pawsey, James

Sumberg, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tapsell, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Porter, Barry

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

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

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Temple-Morris, Peter

Price, Sir David

Terlezki, Stefan

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Raffan, Keith

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Rathbone, Tim

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Renton, Tim

Thornton, Malcolm

Rhodes James, Robert

Thurnham, Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

Rifkind, Malcolm

Trotter, Neville

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Twinn, Dr Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Viggers, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Waddington, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Ryder, Richard

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Walden, George

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wallace, James

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Waller, Gary

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Shersby, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Silvester, Fred

Watson, John

Sims, Roger

Watts, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wheeler, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Whitfield, John

Speed, Keith

Wilson, Gordon

Spencer, Derek

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Winterton, Nicholas

Squire, Robin

Wood, Timothy

Stanbrook, lvor

Woodcock, Michael

Stanley, John

Yeo, Tim

Steel, Rt Hon David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stern, Michael

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Stradling Thomas, J.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Boyes, Roland

Anderson, Donald

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Buchan, Norman

Ashton, Joe

Caborn, Richard

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Canavan, Dennis

Barnett, Guy

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Clarke, Thomas

Bell, Stuart

Clay, Robert

Benn, Tony

Clwyd, Ms Ann

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

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cohen, Harry

172

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

McNamara, Kevin

Conlan, Bernard

McTaggart, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McWilliam, John

Craigen, J. M.

Madden, Max

Crowther, Stan

Marek, Dr John

Cunningham, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dalyell, Tam

Martin, Michael

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Maxton, John

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Meacher, Michael

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

Michie, William

Dewar, Donald

Mikardo, Ian

Dixon, Donald

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Dobson, Frank

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dormand, Jack

O'Brien, William

Douglas, Dick

O'Neill, Martin

Dubs, Alfred

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Duffy, A. E. P.

Park, George

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Parry, Robert

Eadie, Alex

Patchett, Terry

Eastham, Ken

Pavitt, Laurie

Ellis, Raymond

Pike, Peter

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Fatchett, Derek

Prescott, John

Fisher, Mark

Radice, Giles

Flannery, Martin

Redmond, M.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Forrester, John

Richardson, Ms Jo

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Freud, Clement

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

George, Bruce

Robertson, George

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Rogers, Allan

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Rooker, J. W.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Rowlands, Ted

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Ryman, John

Haynes, Frank

Sheerman, Barry

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hogg, N. (Cnauld & Kilsyth)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Home Robertson, John

Skinner, Dennis

Hoyle, Douglas

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

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Stott, Roger

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Strang, Gavin

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Straw, Jack

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

John, Brynmor

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Johnston, Russell

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Leighton, Ronald

Wareing, Robert

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Weetch, Ken

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Welsh, Michael

Litherland, Robert

Winnick, David

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Loyden, Edward

McCartney, Hugh

Tellers for the Noes:

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Orders of the Day

  Defence
  [SECOND DAY'S DEBATE]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [18 June]:
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, contained in Cmnd. 9227.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
  Which amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, Cmnd. 9227, avoid the real and fundamental issues relating to the defence and security of the United Kingdom; is convinced that the enormous and increasing cost of buying the Trident nuclear system from the United States will mean further cuts in, and a weakening of, our conventional non-nuclear forces; deplores the fact that the White Paper contains no initiatives to stop and reverse the escalating and dangerous nuclear arms race; and calls upon the Government to work within NATO for a change from its existing strategy to a strategy based on the no-first use of nuclear weapons, to cancel Trident and to remove all nuclear bases, including cruise missiles, from the United Kingdom.".—[Mr. Denzil Davies.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not need to remind the House that we are starting the debate rather later than expected. As I have a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part, I think that brief speeches will be greatly appreciated by the House.
  5.35 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): In opening the debate yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered the main policy themes set out in the defence Estimates. Today I wish to focus on some specific aspects of central importance to Britain's defence.
  I suggest that there can be only one logical and responsible starting point for the debate — a cool and dispassionate assessment of the potentially hostile military capabilities ranged against us. We cannot afford to take rhetoric, emotion or wishful thinking as our starting point. Although we must keep our eyes firmly fixed on the far horizon — on the firm goal of a world vastly freer of hideous weapons than it is today—we must start from a position of realism, hard experience and clear-headedness towards what is ultimately the most important responsibility of any Government.
  The realities and the past experience are uncomfortable, but to ignore them is to take refuge in illusion. The historical reality is that since the second world war the military power of the Soviet Union has been used to deny political independence to no fewer than seven countries around her borders, including one — Afghanistan —within the past five years. The present reality is that there is concentrated in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union a combination of nuclear, chemical and conventional capabilities of awesome destructiveness. The present reality is also that, as stated in the defence Estimates, Soviet defence spending is some five times higher than the published figure and constitutes between 14 and 16 per cent. of GNP—about three times the NATO average.
  174
  Right across the entire spectrum of military capabilities — nuclear, chemical, conventional and whether front-line weapons or logistics or war stocks or command and control and communication systems—the unmistakable and totally consistent pattern of Soviet procurement is of numerical increases in most areas and significant qualitative improvements everywhere. Some people try to explain this by saying that the Soviet Union is merely responding to improvements in NATO's own capabilities, but this just does not stand up to examination.
  The Soviets' military capabilities are vastly in excess of any conceivable purely defensive needs. In a number of key areas, although I acknowledge not in all, it is the Soviet Union that has initiated a major escalation. The SS20 by virtue of its range, mobility and speed of response represented a quantum jump in intermediate nuclear force capability. Similarly, the new SSX24 and SSX25 will give the Soviet Union the first mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. She has built up massive stocks of chemical weapons, totally dwarfing those of the United States, which has neither increased nor modernised her own since the end of the 1960s.
  Numerically, the Soviet. Union has the largest nuclear ballistic throw-weight in the world, the largest number of nuclear-powered submarines, the largest number of diesel-powered submarines, the largest offensive mining capability, the largest number of tanks, the largest number of artillery pieces and the largest number of combat aircraft. Those are the harsh, uncomfortable, distasteful realities about which we hear precious little, if anything, from Opposition Members, but they are realities to which the Government believe it would be wholly irresponsible to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister referred to the SS20 as a quantum jump beyond its predecessor. Does he agree that the cruise and Pershing 2 missiles which are being deployed in western Europe are also a quantum jump beyond the SS20?
  Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the SS20 deployment was well under way before the NATO deployment started.
  While we hear little about the Soviets from Opposition Members, we hear a great deal about the Americans. It is extraordinary to Conservative Members that the Opposition can be so determinedly silent about the Soviet Union, whose weapons are targeted against us, and yet so determinedly hostile, it seems, towards the Americans, whose weapons fortunately protect us. That continual sniping at, and misrepresentation of, the Americans is profoundly regrettable. Happily, I am in no doubt at all that it is quite unrepresentative of the views of the British people as a whole.
  If the Opposition really want to send American nuclear forces packing back across the Atlantic, as their amendment says, I can only say that they have learnt nothing from two world wars. They have learnt nothing of the dangers to Europe of becoming isolated from the United States, and they have not learnt that the security of Europe and of the United States is indivisible.
  Of the Opposition's various policies, there is none more baleful than that of requiring American nuclear forces in this country to return home. That policy is illusory, inconsistent and hugely damaging in defence terms. It is illusory because it is justified on the ground that getting

  175
  rid of the Americans will enhance our security, when, in fact, it will reduce it. It is inconsistent because it is a policy of continuing to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella through our membership of NATO, while at the same time denying the Americans the ability to base nuclear weapons in Britain.
  It would be hugely damaging, because the removal of American nuclear forces from the United Kingdom would not stop there. It would reinforce demands for the removal of American nuclear forces from other European NATO countries. It would also reinforce demands for, and in my view would lead to, major reductions in American conventional forces in Europe as well. The removal of both nuclear and conventional American forces from Europe would enable the Soviet Union to take a giant stride towards achieving its key political and military objective in western Europe—to undermine confidence in, to weaken, and if possible to sever the transatlantic Alliance.
  The most important military fact of life in western Europe is that the American presence on this side of the Atlantic is the linchpin of our security. It is the one factor above all that gives credibility to deterrence, and it is the best guarantee of the continuity of our own free way of life, which is in such stark contrast to the very different way of life on the other side of that wall.
  Without the American nuclear presence in western Europe, the temptation to the Soviets to resort to nuclear blackmail of the European members of NATO would be significantly greater, and there is no European substitute in sight for the 300,000 American servicemen in western Europe and their highly sophisticated equipment, coupled with the certain promise of large-scale further reinforcement from across the Atlantic.
  Instead of knocking the Americans, it should be a matter of some relief—indeed, of appreciation—that the European members of NATO have as an ally a country with the biggest economy and industrial base in the world, one that has the same commitment to freedom as we do, and one that is prepared to regard our defence as its own.
  I now wish to speak of our own forces, and shall begin with our nuclear forces. Most of the speeches in yesterday's debate were taken up with Trident, and I make no apology for returning to that subject today. The Government remain firmly committed to the Trident programme, because the arguments for Britain having an independent strategic deterrent—arguments which were accepted by previous Conservative and Labour Governments alike—are as compelling today as they have been throughout the whole of the Polaris-Chevaline era.
  Britain's strategic deterrent gives our own country a key addition to its own defences. Our deterrent is valued both by the European members of NATO and by the Americans. As was well said in a previous debate:
  "The Navy, by using what Professor Martin has called 'the shrouding quality of the sea' is able to deploy a hidden dissuader of considerable importance to NATO's strategic deterrent not solely in terms of punch, though this cannot be ignored, but as much because it represents the only European contribution to NATO's strategic deterrent and underpins the multinational and interdependent nature of the alliance." —[Official Report, 9 March 1970; Vol. 797, c. 923–14.]
  Those observations, as valid today as they were then, were made by a former Navy Minister arguing the case for
  176
  the Royal Navy's strategic nuclear role. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) would do well to re-read his own speeches.
  Dr. David Owen: Why is that?
  Mr. Stanley: Yesterday I listened with interest when the right hon. Gentleman argued that Britain should have no independent strategic deterrent at all.
  Dr. Owen: If the right hon. Gentleman read that into my speech, he must not have been in the Chamber. I made it perfectly clear that Polaris should continue until the end of its natural life. If, at the end of that time, it was necessary to consider a replacement, I outlined the form of that possible replacement — the deployment of Tomahawk cruise missiles, a strategic system with a range of 1,500 nautical miles.
  Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming what he believes, but he used the phrase, "if it is necessary". There is no commitment by the right hon. Gentleman to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent. As to the choice between Trident and Tomahawk, the alternative ways of replacing Polaris have, of course, been evaluated with very great care.
  There is no doubt whatever that the most cost-effective way of meeting our requirement for an invulnerable, strategic nuclear system which would have an absolute deterrent value is through a submarine-launched ballistic missile.
  It is claimed that if we have Trident we shall have to cut back on conventional weapons, but that, I suggest, misses the key point. The central question is not whether if we have Trident we shall have less to spend on conventional weapons—that is obviously the case—but whether the sum of money to be spent on Trident will be a better addition to Britain's and NATO's defences than the same sum of money spent on conventional weapons. That is the key question, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently stated in the House, our view is that the sum being spent on Trident will give us an amount of deterrence which we could not possibly get by spending the same sum on conventional weapons.
  There was a lot of fairly fanciful thinking in the Opposition speeches yesterday about the supposed tradeoff between scrapping Trident and improving our conventional defences. Listening to some of those speeches, one could be forgiven for thinking that one had only to scrap Trident to produce an almost unlimited increase in Britain's conventional forces—a new armada of ships for the Royal Navy, a doubling of BAOR, swarms of extra Tornadoes, and the nuclear threshold being raised all along the central front. The reality is distinctly less dramatic.
  All that we would be able to do by scrapping Trident would be to increase our conventional expenditure over the next 15 years by some 3 per cent. That is only a small fraction of the increase that we have already achieved since 1979. What sort of a deal is that? Do we really want to exchange a relatively small uplift in our conventional capability, spread over the next 15 years, for the permanent and irreversible loss of our own strategic deterrent, and for the equally permanent and equally irreversible loss of the only European contribution to NATO's nuclear deterrence? Our answer emphatically is no.

  177
  I suggest that the Tornado programme provides a useful point of perspective. In real terms, the Tornado programme is more expensive than Trident. It will give us 385 Tornadoes, delivered over 10 years. That is very welcome, but by way of perspective the Soviet Union's aircraft factories are producing about 1,000 new advanced combat aircraft every year. Not to proceed with Trident now would mean Britain unilaterally abandoning her nuclear deterrent. Happily, on this matter, the instincts of the British people appear to be much more soundly based than those of Opposition Members.
  I was struck—indeed encouraged—by the results of the recently published "British Social Attitudes 1984 Report". People were asked two very interesting questions. They were asked, first:
  "Do you think that having our own independent nuclear missiles makes Britain a safer or a less safe place to live?"
  Only 28 per cent. thought it made Britain less safe, but more than twice as many, 60 per cent., thought it made Britain safer. Significantly, that 60 per cent. included not merely a majority of Conservatives, but a majority of both alliance and Labour supporters.
  The second question was more sophisticated and the answers even more interesting. People were asked whether Britain should rid itself of nuclear weapons while persuading others to do the same, or whether Britain should keep its nuclear weapons until we persuade others to reduce theirs. Only 19 per cent. wanted Britain to rid itself unilaterally of its nuclear weapons, and a massive 77 per cent. wanted Britain to keep them. That 77 per cent. comprised the great majority of Conservatives, the great majority of alliance supporters and, once again, the great majority of Labour supporters.
  We are in no doubt that, on the need to retain Britain's deterrent, the British people are right and the Government are right. The people who are wrong, I believe, are those on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister agree that a third question in the survey asked whether people wanted to retain American nuclear bases in Britain and that, by a vast majority, there was a rejection of the Government's policy, particularly with regard to cruise weapons?
  Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cruise question, I agree that opinion is more equally divided. What I found interesting on the cruise question was that, despite the enormous propaganda campaign against it, and despite the apparent unanimity of the official Opposition on it, nearly one third of Labour Supporters want cruise to remain in the country.
  Mr. John Silkin: What was the figure?
  Mr. Stanley: I shall happily give the figures, if the right hon. Gentleman so desires. The question asked:
  "Do you think that the siting of American nuclear missiles in Britain makes Britain a safer or a less safe place to live?"
  On the Labour side, of those described as Labour partisans, 32 per cent. thought that Britain was safer by having American missiles in this country.
  Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend verify that it was a Labour Government who asked for land-based cruise and American rockets to be based in this country?
  Mr. Stanley: The position according to the published record— we do not know what went on in the non-published records and we will not know for some years —is that the previous Labour Government were firmly committed to INF modernisation in some shape or form.
  I now deal with our conventional forces. As will be clear from the Estimates, our policy is to do all that we reasonably and sensibly can to strengthen our conventional forces while retaining our nuclear deterrent. I would suggest that our achievements in this area, at a time of world-wide recession, are pretty remarkable.
  In this financial year we shall be spending over £2 billion more on defence, excluding Falklands expenditure, than would have been the case if we had simply left defence spending at the same level in real terms as it was in 1979. By 1985–86, again excluding the Falklands, the Government will have increased defence expenditure by nearly 20 per cent. in real terms. We have the highest defence spending as a percentage of GDP of any European member of NATO, apart from Greece, and we have the highest defence spending per head of all the European members of NATO without exception. Frankly, for the Opposition parties to criticise this Government of all Governments for insufficient expenditure on our conventional defences is simply ludicrous.
  I listened carefully to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Devonport who has clearly decided that this is a promising time for the alliance to try to develop a punchy gloom and doom line on defence. The right hon. Gentleman's concern for our defences would have carried a little more weight if he had reminded the House that, when he was last speaking from this Box, defence provision was nearly one fifth lower in real terms than it is now.
  I must put the right hon. Gentleman straight on one point. He claimed repeatedly that the Government are planning on defence expenditure actually going down in 1986–87. It is a misleading claim, because it is arrived at by counting in the Falklands addition. Falklands expenditure is, of course, declining by 1986–87, with the completion of the airfield, among other things. Excluding the Falklands addition, defence expenditure is not planned on the basis of any reduction in 1986–87.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the latest estimate for the Falklands airport still £215 million?
  Mr. Stanley: I answered a question about that a few days ago. The present estimate is as we stated previously, which is based on the figure which we have given previously in the House.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is it still £215 million?
  Mr. Stanley: That is the best estimate that I can give the hon. Gentleman as of now.
  Dr. Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman denying the figure in the public expenditure White Paper, confirmed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a written answer of 13 March 1984, that defence expenditure for 1986–87 will be £15,590 million, taking the base year of 1982–83?
  Mr. Stanley: As I said to the House, that figure includes the Falklands addition. The reason why I suggest that the claim made in the House yesterday is misleading is that it is not right to include the Falklands addition, because the Falklands addition is a one-off piece of expenditure involving major capital works, such as the

  179
  airfield, and, as will be seen in the White Paper, the Falklands addition is declining. Therefore, the proper way to ascertain whether the defence expenditure base is increasing is to do it on a Falklands-exclusive basis.
  The one piece of common ground in the debate appears to be that our conventional forces should be strengthened. I suggest that the point of difference is that Opposition Members are latter-day converts to that policy — and latter-day converts with varying degrees of reluctance.
  The record on expenditure on the conventional side could not be clearer. The 1974 to 1979 Government, which featured on this Bench the right hon. Member for Devonport, supported in the Lib/Lab pact period by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), managed to reduce defence expenditure by 4·5 per cent. in real terms over that period. In contrast, the present Government will have increased defence expenditure by nearly 20 per cent. in real terms by 1985–86. Since 1979, the Opposition have fought the 1983 election on a policy of slashing our conventional defences — a policy reaffirmed at their policy-making party conference last year. The Opposition had their opportunity to increase conventional spending in the 1970s, and they reduced it. We have our opportunity now, and we have increased conventional spending massively.
  I want to conclude by referring to our arms control policies. The motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition complains of a lack of initiatives in the Estimates to stop the nuclear arms race. It then proposes a series of one-sided disarmament initiatives — the scrapping of Trident, the scrapping of cruise and kicking out the Americans—which would not help to stop the nuclear arms race, but would materially reduce NATO's security.
  It simply is not correct to say that the Government have taken no steps to try to stop the arms race—and not just the nuclear arms race either. It takes two to make an agreement. If the Soviet Union either will not come to the negotiating table or insists on maintaining a position of military superiority rather than equilibrium, the negotiating room for manoeuvre that is sensible and responsible is somewhere between very limited and non-existent.
  There is no doubt, however, that if the Soviet Union is interested in balanced and fair measures of arms control and arms reduction, the negotiating field is wide open. There is also no doubt that the British Government are playing a positive and constructive role in those negotiations.
  The START talks can be resumed at any time without pre-conditions and with the American offer for both sides to cut strategic ballistic warheads by a third lying on the table. The Soviet Union can return to the INF talks at any time, where the zero option—or, failing that, reductions to equal numbers of INF weapons at any level—lies on the table. At the Geneva conference on disarmament, the new United States draft treaty on banning chemical weapons world wide lies on the table, a negotiation to which Britain, since 1982, has contributed three important sets of proposals to deal with verification.
  At Vienna, at the MBFR talks, NATO's important new proposals, made in April this year, to try to resolve the long-standing dispute about the size of Warsaw pact forces in eastern Europe also lie on the table. At Stockholm, at the European security conference, a comprehensive set of
  180
  confidence building proposals made by NATO—again, to which Britain made a significant contribution—also lie on the table. The Government are doing and have done all that they responsibly can to get balanced arms reductions talks moving.
  The Government are not prepared to be irresponsible. There is a fundamental distinction to be made between arms control proposals that would preserve balance and thus maintain peace, and arms control proposals that would undermine balance, risk our security and ultimately jeopardise our free way of life. The Government will do their utmost to achieve progress with the former, but they will not embrace the latter, and they are right not do so.
  The defence Estimates are both realistic and, in many areas, radical. They are realistic in acknowledging the scale of the potential military threat facing the West and also in responding to that threat. They are radical in the major strengthening of our defences being achieved and also in the management of the defence programme to secure greater fighting capability and better value for money.
  This is not the time either for the full-blown unilateralism of the Labour party or for the half-baked unilateralism of the alliance. This is not the time for reneging on agreed NATO deployments or for giving our most important ally notice to quit. It is a time for keeping our hand on the plough and the furrow straight so that we do not jeopardise the peace with freedom with which we have been blessed these 40 years.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. John Silkin: I congratulate the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on becoming a Privy Councillor. It is a great honour that is well deserved.
  The Minister dealt ably and pleasantly with a very bad case. The White Paper begins with the twin assertions that for the past 35 years NATO alone has maintained the peace in Europe, and that
  "history shows that a nation that desires peace in freedom cannot simply rely on the hope that it will be left alone."
  Despite the Secretary of State's endorsement of those assertions yesterday, neither of them has a sound historical basis — although there are other lessons that history teaches us, not least that what may be true of the last 35 years is no guarantee that it will be true of the next 35 years.
  It is not the Secretary of State's subjective view of history that should influence us, but the experience of those who really know. After all, many of the Ministers and senior officials who have had day-to-day responsibility for Western defence have hardly left office before they are telling us that NATO's persistent reliance on nuclear weapons has created the very dangers that we are trying to avoid.
  That applies not only in this country. In the United States there is evidence from, among others, Admiral Noel Gayler, who, until 1976, was the Commander-in-Chief of all the United States forces in the Pacific. There is evidence from Mr. Robert McNamara, the former Secretary of State for Defence, and from Professor McGeorge Bundy, who was formerly the special assistant for national security affairs to two presidents. The latter two people, together with George Kennan and Gerard Smith, wrote an article in April 1982, which, among other things, said:

  181
  "The one clearly definable firebreak against the worldwide disaster of general nuclear war is the one that stands between all other kinds of conflict and any use whatsoever of nuclear weapons."
  In our country, the same testimony has been given by former high officials in the MOD. We know about Lord Carver, and Lord Zuckerman has made his views clear in "Nuclear Illusion and Reality". He said:
  "What would be left of Europe and the USSR after an all-out nuclear exchange would not have been worth fighting for. Nor would there have been any justification for the price that the USA would have had to pay for coming to Europe's aid."
  We had a warning only last week from Sir Frank Cooper, formerly the permanent secretary at the MOD. He urged the abolition of cruise and all battlefield nuclear weapons. But the one statement above all others that has influenced me most was that of Admiral of the Fleet Earl Mountbatten, who summed it up so much more starkly than anyone else when he said:
  "Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated."
  The other day, in a profound and witty contribution that some of us heard, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, at a conference of the Council of Europe——
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am sorry to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman was leaving the lecture from Lord Mountbatten in which he said also that it was very important to keep a balance of nuclear military power on both sides.
  Mr. Silkin: That does not affect what I quoted. Lord Mountbatten was saying that reliance on nuclear weapons was the very thing that was creating the danger.
  The other day, in a profound and witty speech, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, at a conference of the Council of Europe, referred to what he called the MEGO factor. MEGO stands for "My eyes glaze over". This factor is supposed to occur when a speaker produces evidence that — however true — the listener finds it difficult to assimilate. All politicians go on MEGO trips from time to time. When we refer to the dangers of nuclear war and use the same expressions—nuclear holocaust, nuclear annihilation or whatever—the eyes of the world may perhaps glaze over. Yet the scientific reality is more frightening than any words we could find in this House, and no country is now exempt from the dangers of nuclear winter.
  A year ago I had a conversation with a leading Australian politician. He said that one of the factors that prevented people in Australia from taking the nuclear arms race as seriously as he would have liked was their belief that this was a quarrel between two superpowers in the northern hemisphere and that, even if the superpowers resorted to nuclear conflict, the Australians would be unaffected. The recent controvery over the British nuclear tests at Maralinga all those years ago has changed all that. For the first time, as the December issue of "Australian Outlook" pointed out:
  "Although there continue to be powerful constraints against a global nuclear war, the increasing tension and arms race between the US and the USSR suggest that some precautionary planning is required in Australia".
  In other words, even in Australia, which regarded itself as totally immune from all this, the dangers have become manifest and people have begun to understand what is involved.
  182
  This has been amplified by the revelations of Professor Carl Sagan and his colleagues who, in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs, showed us clearly that, in the event of nuclear war, there will be no hiding place anywhere on the planet—any sort of recognisable life will be utterly destroyed. In case the professor and his colleagues are considered to be overstating their case, we have the words of Andrei Sakharov last year:
  "A very large nuclear war would be a calamity of indescribable proportions and absolutely unpredictable consequences, with the uncertainties tending towards the worse … All-out nuclear war would mean the destruction of contemporary civilisation, throw man back centuries, cost the deaths of hundreds of millions or billions of people, and, with a certain degree of probability, would cause man to be destroyed as a biological species".
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole purpose of, and reason for, deterrence is to ensure that such an horrific scenario can never become a reality?
  Mr. Silkin: Certainly that is the purpose. I do not complain about the good will behind people's views. What I was about to ask was whether deterrence will be effective. I am entitled to ask that question. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Of course, I well understand that the rulers of both superpowers are perfectly aware of the risks they run and are in their own way genuinely trying to prevent the ultimate catastrophe. But they are going about it the wrong way. The trouble is that they think that they can settle the problem between themselves. That is why, despite much exchange of verbal abuse about their respective incursions into Afghanistan or Latin America, they are prepared to treat those actions as lying within their opponent's spheres of interest and refrain from intervening too much. The dangers lie in the disputed zones, in the middle east and in Africa—the zones outside the recognised spheres of influence. It is in those areas that the nuclear fuse might be lighted.
  The United States and the Soviet Union are well aware of the dangers. But how are they to make contact with one another in order to avert them? They try to do so by shouting in the dark. President Chernenko calls for a "no first use" declaration to show that the Soviet Union does not want a nuclear solution. President Reagan speaks of the 20 million Russians who died in the second world war, when we were all allies, to show that he appreciates he Russian concern. But neither of them receives a constructive answer.
  What is preventing a real detente is the fear that each side has that any concession made to the other will be regarded as a fatal token of weakness. It is vital, therefore, that there should be an independent mediator capable of bringing the two sides together—a mediator in whom they can both confide changes in their position without advantage being taken of them by the other side.
  Unfortuntely, Britain — under successive Governments, I would accept—no longer occupies that central position, despite her prestige as a senior member of the Commonwealth and as a founder member both of the United Nations and of NATO.
  Two related factors stand in the way. First, as a nation we have been unable to come to terms with the loss of great power status. The purchase of Polaris missiles gave us the illusion of being a superpower, but at an enormous cost to our conventional weapons budget. Now that the end of

  183
  Polaris has become a pretext for the beginning of Trident, with its ever-escalating cost, the falsity of this illusion is increasingly being recognised by a variety of experts.
  The second factor is that the desire of Britain to possess nuclear weapons, despite the rhetoric, is not about deterring the Soviet Union from attacking our island—an argument that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has dealt with very effectively in recent speeches and articles. Our original reason was much more about influencing Washington than influencing Moscow. It was, to quote one of the most illustrious of Labour statesmen, about preventing Britain from going
  "naked into the conference chamber".
  That excerpt from Aneurin Bevan's thinking has been quoted ad nauseam. What is not quoted so often is his qualification that if the policy of possessing nuclear weapons failed to give us an influence for peace the policy should be abandoned.
  What Britain hoped for at that time was that it could bring the two superpowers together in a reversal of the nuclear arms race. Indeed, there was a spell in the early 1960s — I freely admit it — when Britain showed a beacon to the world in helping to bring the superpowers together to sign the 1963 test ban treaty. But that was in the early days. Now, despite our possession of nuclear weapons—indeed, I would say because of it—we are no longer able to have the influence that ought to be ours.
  For years Britain has played no part in negotiations in Geneva or, when it was most needed, in START in Vienna. This is because the Russians now regard us as wholly in the camp of the United States, while the United States regards us as a poor relation—useful so long as we agree with the Administration's policy and a boring nuisance when we do not. The rest of the world simply does not find it credible that a nuclear weapons state can act as a bridge between other nuclear weapons states.
  The White Paper recognises none of those dangers. On the contrary, it seems so full of self-congratulation that it cannot even understand that the situation between East and West is now more dangerous than it has ever been in history. What is missing from the White Paper is the slightest idea of what strategic influence the United Kingdom could bring to bear to encourage the superpowers to draw back from the brink. So others are now asking the question that Britain should be asking. Others have taken the initiative.
  On 22 May this year, the leaders of India, Mexico, Tanzania, Greece and Sweden issued a joint declaration to all five nuclear power states. The declaration contained these words:
  "We will do everything in our power to facilitate agreement among the nuclear weapons states. We will continue to keep in touch with one another about the best ways and means of achieving this objective. We will be consulting with the leaders of the nuclear weapons states and with other world leaders as well as pursuing discussions through United Nations channels … There can be no assurance of safety for one side only. That is why we attach such importance to a halt in the nuclear arms race that allows for renewed talks on nuclear disarmament."
  The five leaders offered their services as intermediaries to all the nuclear weapon states, but, of course, in particular to the superpowers. They called especially on the United States and the Soviet Union, but also on the other nuclear weapon states, to
  "halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems"
  184
  and to offer adequate measures for verification. The coupling of those two steps — nuclear halt and verification — in fact met the major concerns of the two superpowers.
  The declaration was immediately welcomed by His Holiness the Pope, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, by the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, by Willy Brandt, by the President of Argentina, by the Prime Ministers of Spain, Finland and Canada, and, in our own country, by Cardinal Hume, who has made a statement of personal support and encouragement. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also said that he is most encouraged by the initiative.
  As far as the Governments of the nuclear weapon states are concerned, the United States' Administration were the first to reply. The State Department opposed the idea of a nuclear freeze. It must be said that that represents no change in its policy. However, the speed of the reply, the fact that the reply stated that
  "The US respects the sincerity of purpose and commitment to peace"
  of the world leaders who issued it, and discussions that have followed, give us some slight grounds for believing that the Administration would not be totally averse to the mediation of the world leaders.
  The Soviet Union was slower to reply, but made a rather longer statement. After expressing the view that its own specific programme of measures would be the best way of moving towards peace—that will come as no surprise to any of us—it nevertheless went on to state that it would be prepared to co-operate in this matter.
  The Prime Minister of the People's Republic of China, eight days after the initiative, stated:
  "The people of different countries [must] take their own destiny in hand … and co-ordinate their efforts to press the superpowers to end their dangerous arms race."
  Here we come again to the unasked question in the White Paper—what should the United Kingdom's role be in the nuclear age? Judging by the response of the British Government on 24 May to the world leaders' initiative—not very much. The Government's response was:
  "We are fully aware that a nuclear holocaust, if it were allowed to occur, would be an unprecedented disaster for mankind."
  I am glad they have got that far. It continues, and I can almost hear the Secretary of State saying this:
  "But it serves no useful purpose to induce a misplaced sense of panic or fear about the likelihood of this happening … The greatest contribution to preserving stability at lower levels of military force would be through the negotiation of balanced reductions in the levels of US and Soviet nuclear weapons."
  What an answer. It mentions no other nuclear weapons at all. Faced with perhaps the most dynamic challenge of our times, the British Government opt out. The sad truth is that the British Government and Britain are no longer part of the solution. Britain has unfortunately reverted to the unsatisfactory role of being part of the problem; and, while it stays supine, the torch that Britain carried during that short period in the 1960s, when the world seemed to be moving towards detente, has now passed elsewhere.
  The defence White Paper this year could have been one of vision and imagination. It could have seized the moment. It could have recognised that the world is living through the most dangerous part of its history. It could have put Britain back again along the path of world peace. It could have given hope in a world that is steadily getting

  185
  more cynical and desperate. But it did not. Instead, it repeated every cliché of the past five years. So far from answering the question as to what should the United Kingdom's role be in the nuclear age, it did not even ask the question.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
  "The White Paper might have addressed those issues more fully" —[Official Report, 18 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 43.]
  He told us that, if he is still Secretary of State, he intends to do so in future years. Our task is to see that the generations yet to come will be able to live out those future years in peace. The challenge is not tomorrow; it is with us today. For that, if for no other reason—there are many other reasons—it is right that we should condemn the White Paper, and I ask the House to reject it.
  6.25 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am glad to be speaking in this important debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) will bear with me if I do not take issue with him today, the first time that I am speaking here.
  Maurice Macmillan, my predecessor, served his country, this House and his constituents with dedication and honour. He had a distinguished parliamentary career, representing first Halifax from 1955 to 1964, then Farnham, and then Surrey, South-West, from 1966. Among his positions in government, he served in the Treasury and was Secretary of State for Employment. He was a man of vision who was prepared to exercise independent views. Locally, he and his wife, whom everyone in the constituency knows as Katie, worked tirelessly for his constituents. He is greatly missed there and here.
  It is a daunting task to follow in the steps of a Member of Parliament of such calibre. I share the experience of Maurice Macmillan of coming to this place to join a close relative. A difference that might be noted is that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), my close friend, is not Chancellor of the Exchequer—yet. That was the position that the then Harold Macmillan held when my predecessor made his maiden speech.
  My constituency is an especially beautiful and essentially rural area, spread around the three well preserved old towns of Godalming, Haslemere and Farnham. Before the most recent boundary changes, much of it was admirably represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). A new hon. Member could not follow two more worthy and honourable predecessors.
  Successive generations have been determined to protect and defend the environment and the character of the area. Their efforts benefit the 88,000 people who live there now, as well as the many who visit. Edmund Burke referred to a Conservative as having
  "the disposition to preserve and an ability to improve."
  I hope in time, both here and elsewhere, to help to find solutions to the many problems that face the constituency. Among them are the needs for adequate roads, for greater safety and to avoid congestion, the question of the development of gas, the future of education and health services, the preservation of the countryside and the wide range of issues that face individuals and families. A Member earns respect and political credibility by constituency casework.
  186
  I shall be a vigilant campaigner, although perhaps not such a prolific writer on rural matters nor such a radical as William Cobbett, who was born in Farnham more than two centuries ago. Carlyle called him
  "a pattern John Bull of his century."
  In at least two ways William Cobbett had a great deal to do with the present House of Commons. He began a series of reports of Parliamentary debates which we now know as Hansard. Mr. Hansard, his printer, later bought the publication from him. Cobbett was also a leading figure in the reform movement that produced the Reform Act 1832. He was elected to the reformed House of Commons, but he never felt at home here. Indeed, he died within three years of being elected. I aim to survive and serve for longer than that. William Cobbett joined the army at the age of 19, and within three years had been promoted to regimental sergeant major, which returns me to the subject of the debate.
  Surrey, South-West has major links with the services and defence industries. The statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services announcing improved pensions for war widows will be welcomed. The practical guide "Selling to the Ministry of Defence", laying open MOD procurement policies, has been well received. Overcoming ignorance of procedures of procurement and reducing the undesirable advantage of established suppliers have been important initiatives.
  The steps taken by the Secretary of State to open tendering at all levels of procurement and supply provide opportunities for many smaller firms which previously felt excluded from what can be a major source of business. The White Paper states that some 45,000 new contracts, many under £10,000, were placed last year by the MOD purchasing branches. Competition is often the best form of co-operation. It leads to better value for money. The Secretary of State reminded us yesterday that savings of up to 30 per cent. could be obtained by the simple process of competitive tendering.
  We are in a period of transition and there is a tension between two ends that we are trying to achieve. One is breaking down subcontracts for outside tender and seeking more sources of supply, with the encouragement of competition, which provides opportunities for more domestic firms as well as being cost-effective. Secondly, we are looking towards the long-term need to establish longer production runs and move towards European — and, hopefully, NATO—common procurement.
  As we make progress, I am sure that we shall look back with amazement at the waste involved in the different national standards and requirements. We need to move towards greater harmonisation—an inelegant word but a necessary process — in defence procurement. Imagine what the American army would be like if different divisions had different bullets or if neighbouring regiments had tanks with different motors. It would be laughable and wasteful, and obviously so.
  Let us be absolutely clear at what our defence policies are aimed. It is the preservation of peace with freedom and security. For nearly 40 years this has been achieved in Europe. It is founded on a determination to preserve liberty and defend democracy. It is based not just on equipment, materials and men, but on a national political will.
  This debate on the White Paper is a function of a free society, exposing Government policy to the process of scrutiny and the challenge of debate. What could be more

  187
  unnatural in a closed society such as the Soviet Union, which has shown a consistent contempt for its own people and citizens? As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his opening remarks, about three times the percentage of GNP is committed to defence spending in the Soviet Union, but there is no opportunity for the people there to question what is done in their name. A member country of the Warsaw pact does not have the freedom to leave the pact or act autonomously in the way that NATO members do.
  Perhaps worst of all, the Soviets cannot tolerate the views of someone such as Dr. Salcharov — this was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Deptford—being put forward in public. They may have attempted, with limited success, to silence him, but he is only the tip of the iceberg of Russian men and women who have been banished or incarcerated for their political views. It is a brutal system demonstrating a disregard for human life and freedom, stifling all open thought and intimidating weaker nations.
  There is a danger that we in this country may begin to take our freedom for granted. Rather than politically subversive versions of so-called peace studies, we should concentrate on preparing our young for citizenship, both national and world citizenship. It is important that the facts set out clearly in the White Paper are widely known. I want young people to know about the balance of forces mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks. Why do the Russians have twice as many battle tanks as we have and 30 times as many offensive mines? Those questions should be asked. A visit to Berlin for every school leaver could be a salutary experience and could help more of our younger citizens to appreciate the significance and fundamental importance of defence policies to our nation. They need to understand that peace is not built just on good wishes.
  Maurice Macmillan served his country gallantly in time of war. With others, he worked consistently for European unity in peace. Like him, I believe that our membership of the EEC consolidates and strengthens the democratic foundations of western Europe. It makes another war in western Europe unthinkable.
  Many will share my regret at the disappointing turnout at the recent elections for the European Parliament. Debates may be less exciting than the drama of the battlefield, but the fact that 10 sovereign states are now committed to resolving their differences by force of argument rather than by strength of armament is a major achievement of this age.
  On the first occasion when my predecessor spoke here as the hon. Member for Farnham, he warned against an
  "appalling willingness to put our future at risk just for the sake of making the present look better."—[Official Report, 9 May 1966; Vol. 728, c. 83.]
  I believe that this debate, including, as it does, challenges to Government proposals and policies, will lead to successive improvements in defence decisions. That is the role of Parliament — proposal, discussion, debate, decision and then review.
  For several decades there has been overall bipartisan support in Parliament on defence matters. I hope that Labour Members, now that they are better represented in the European Parliament—and perhaps French Socialist
  188
  Members of that Parliament will be able to influence them —will begin, once more in opposition, to support the policies which they long advocated in government.
  Discontinuity is dangerous. It creates uncertainty in the minds of friend and foe alike. I have no doubt about the broadly based political support in the country for effective defence policies. Clarity, conviction and continuity are crucial to enable us adequately to discharge our national and international responsibilities in the furtherance and maintenance of peace.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: My first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on the quality and excellence of her maiden speech, which will be remembered as a highlight of this debate.
  Although I did not agree with the points that she made, particularly towards the end of her remarks, it was exactly what a maiden speech should be — eloquent and thoughtful, independent and forthright, showing a breadth and depth of knowledge of her constituency, historically, geographically and socially. In paying tribute to her late predecessor, she reflected the esteem in which he was held by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  We cannot have failed to have noticed the connection between the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West. Husband and wife teams are becoming more familiar in this Parliament. My hon. Friends and I hope that it will not inevitably be the case that husband and wife need vote in the same Lobby on all occasions. We look forward to hearing further contributions from the hon. Lady.
  The dominant theme of this debate has been the concern expressed by hon. Members about the escalating cost of the Trident programme, a project which is unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound. It is a project which, while escalating the risks of nuclear war, puts at risk the integrity of our conventional defences. It is a project the implications of which in cost and security are not fully disclosed in the defence Estimates.
  Not only in Trident but in other areas, the defence Estimates are more remarkable for what they obscure than for what they reveal. They are less than forthcoming, in particular, about important changes now being discussed for the royal dockyards—proposals that affect the jobs of more than 20,000 civilians and are of far more consequence for our conventional defences and national security than the much discussed hat-swapping exercise affecting the status of a handful of senior officials in the Ministry of Defence.
  I refer to the proposals for the privatisation of the dockyards contained in the report prepared by Mr. Peter Levene: proposals that have recently been debated at length by a committee chaired by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, proposals that are now being examined by the Secretary of State, but proposals that have so far been hidden from the House. They involve the most radical restructuring ever of our naval dockyards, with grave consequences for the efficiency and readiness of our Navy. Yet those proposals have far less to do with improving efficiency in the royal dockyards than with implementing the Prime Minister's instructions to privatise at all costs.
  In my view, those proposals will usher in a new era of disastrous industrial relations in previously harmonious

  189
  workplaces and will put at risk the jobs, career prospects, conditions of service, and Civil Service pensions of thousands of expert, loyal and dedicated civilians who would be subjected to the hazards of what would become a casual labour market.
  What are Mr. Levene's proposals? First, it is proposed that key areas of royal dockyard work should be handed straight over to the private sector and be detached from the royal dockyards. Secondly, it is proposed that the running of the dockyards, including the refit of the Polaris nuclear submarines, be handed over to private sector companies on a franchise basis. Thirdly, it is proposed that additional privatisation be achieved by farming out a large share of the work currently done in the royal dockyards to private sector contractors.
  The defence Estimates tell us nothing about those far-reaching proposals for privatisation. Nowhere in the two volumes of the defence Estimates is any reference made to the discussions or examinations now being carried out. At no time has the Minister appeared before the House to inform us of the appointment of the committee and of the advisers who are examining the proposals. At no time have Ministers volunteered to the House how expensive the draft proposals for privatisation are. Instead, Ministers seem to wish to present us with a fait accompli without giving us a Green Paper, an open invitation for evidence to be submitted, a Select Committee examination or any proper parliamentary scrutiny of the decision and the means by which it is to be reached.
  The Government are being secretive, because they have much to be ashamed of. Last July, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and I were told that the numbers working in Rosyth dockyard would increase. In December, I was promised that there would be new investment, more apprentices and a full workload for the dockyard. As late as Easter, the same assurances were being given. Now we find that those promises are conditional. Recruitment, investment and training will go ahead only if the recommendations of the Levene report do not.
  On what evidence is the Secretary of State proceeding to make such drastic changes? All that we have to justify those proposals is a six-page report from Mr. Peter Levene, which is only 4,000 words long, and is based on only four weeks work and on only a few hours spent visiting the Rosyth and Plymouth dockyards. Yet that report seeks to overturn the recommendations of every review of dockyard management since the second world war, and to destroy centuries of dockyard tradition and service. It is a six-page flimsy report that asserts rather than demonstrates any case for privatisation, but yet proposes privatisation in the three different ways that I have described.
  There is nothing in the Levene report or in any ministerial statement to suggest that privatisation would bring any benefits to the dockyards, the Navy or the country. There would be no savings to the public sector borrowing requirement, as under the Levene proposals all new investment would remain the responsibility of the state. Even more importantly, no one — neither Mr. Levene nor any Minister — can show that the prices charged in the private yards would be lower, that the quality of work in the private yards would be superior, or that our submarine and warship refits would be carried out more expeditiously.
  190
  I have with me a Ministry of Defence document that was written at almost exactly the same time as Mr. Levene was preparing his report. It says that the price for a refit in a private sector yard can only be
  "fixed as the work emerges".
  The study said of private firms:
  "it is difficult for them to submit realistic tenders".
  If the Government do not know whether private yards would be cheaper, or more cost-effective, if they cannot expect them to submit realistic tenders and if the final prices can only be fixed as the work emerges—if, in other words, the Government are writing a blank cheque to private industry —why why have they already made up their mind about the benefits of privatisation?
  With no evidence, and in contradiction of all previous expert reports, how can the Government insist that privatisation will save the taxpayer money, guarantee efficiency or anything else? Indeed, surely Ministers are aware that a previous Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement in a Conservative Government, when asked his views about the relative efficiency of the dockyards and the private sector, clearly stated:
  "the most obvious comparisons are wholly in the royal dockyards' favour".
  In the mid-1970s, the Chief of Fleet Support had to report of a similar exercise
  "the commercial refit cost us something like 25 per cent. more than if it had been done in a Royal Dockyard".
  Such a conclusion was confirmed as recently as 1980, when the Speed report had to conclude:
  "the comparison moved in favour of the dockyards the larger and the more complex the project became."
  If there was any evidence that the private sector was cheaper or more cost-effective, we would have heard it by now. The truth is that there is no national or international evidence for that assertion and no evidence to support the view that handing over the dockyards on an agency or franchise basis to a private contractor would yield any benefit to the nation. Every serious, respectable study of the matter during the past 20 years has clearly concluded that there is no evidence to support the agency proposal being advanced.
  In 1971, the Mallabar report was quite clear when it said of a proposal similar to that of Levene:
  "it was the way to get the worst of both the commercial and the government department worlds. We would certainly not recommend it for the dockyards".
  In 1980, during the lifetime of this Government, the Speed report said of such a scheme:
  "the disadvantages are that the management would have little incentive to make itself more efficient while the usual justification for an agent is that he has the resources and skills of the parent firm to fall back on. In the case of the dockyards the reverse is more likely to apply. We do not therefore favour this option".
  What has changed since the reviews of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s? Is it the Navy that has changed or the dockyards? I submit that it is the Conservative party, and the Front Bench in particular, that has changed, as it blindly pursues the myth of free market competition at public expense.
  If the Government are to reject the advice of admirals, naval experts, and senior officials, and if they are to overturn all the available evidence, both internationally and nationally, at whose command are they acting? The author of the new proposals, Mr. Peter Levene, is well known in the international arms world. He is chairman of the company that sells £25 million-worth of arms to this Government every year. Indeed, he sells arms to 50

  191
  regimes throughout the world. He is also vice-chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association, a pressure group for the private sector of the arms industry. He has retained all those interests while advising the Secretary of State.
  Why is the Secretary of State inclined to accept Mr. Levene's advice and overturn that of all the recognised experts in this field? Mr. Levene is not known for his expertise in dockyard or naval matters and is certainly not known for his expertise in security issues, although I suppose that it must be said to his credit that he took four weeks out of his doubtless busy schedule to prepare his report, including one or two hours spent visiting Rosyth and Plymouth dockyards. However, that does not seem to have given him much respect for a scheme of management which in his eyes has only one outstanding feature, which is also its principal shortcoming—that it is not run by the private sector.
  For Mr. Levene, the dockyards are wrong by definition and can be put right only by applying the dogma of privatisation. I understand that, despite his pressing commitments, Mr. Levene has offered his services as a ministerial adviser for no direct remuneration. But when I asked the Secretary of State, who is not in the Chamber, for assurances that Mr. Levene, his companies, or the Defence Manufacturers Association of which he is vice-chairman would not benefit financially from the proposals that he has made, he could not give me that assurance.
  Advisers, even temporary advisers, with backgrounds in sales of arms should be above suspicion — in the manner of Caesar's wife, rather than the Prime Minister's son. Never before has the commercial sector so penetrated the higher echelons of Government administration and, with more that £20 billion-worth of public assets in the shop window, never before have a Government had so much to offer their friends in the private sector.
  Considerations of commercial advantage are to take precedence, according to Mr. Levene, over considerations of national security. At no point in the Levene report is consideration given to the national security implications of what he proposes, to the implications for policing the Official Secrets Act, and to the readiness of the Fleet if the dockyard were to fall into the hands of multinationals or foreigners. This is a matter that the Speed report identified as one of the major problems. Is it not the height of Conservative hypocrisy that trade unionists lost their right to trade union membership on the pretext of national security, but considerations of national security are now to be subordinated to those of commercial advantage?
  The workers at Rosyth dockyard and other dockyards have a wider conception of what is in the national interest than this Government. They know what would happen under a private contractor. Rosyth dockyard rose to the challenge of the Falklands campaign, responded with speed and flexibility to the unprecedented stream of requests from the Navy, working flat out, manager and worker alike, to do everything asked of them, and in record time. Would a private contractor, floundering in the first few months of a four-year contract, have done half as well? Would a firm, at the end of its time, wanting only to get out, have been inclined to try? If refitting nuclear submarines and keeping the Navy at sea were as simple as running a hamburger stand, Mr. Levene's franchise methods might be worth some consideration. Those who care for the royal dockyards and the Navy know better.
  192
  There is justifiable anger among thousands of workers in Rosyth and Plymouth. It is anger at the uncertainty that has been created, at the inferior conditions of working that would result from the Levene proposals, at the redundancies that would ensue and at the dispersal of a skilled work force whose loyalty is a crucial asset to our national defences, especially during emergencies.
  Those of us who said in the last election campaign that the blind pursuit of privatisation would destroy dockyard jobs whereas Labour's non-nuclear defence policy would not are being proved right. If these privatisation proposals were accepted, the Secretary of State for Defence would become nothing more than the Secretary of State for Defence of the private sector. Those who understand that what is good for a few entrepreneurs is not necessarily good for the Royal Navy, those who recognise that the national interest is more than the sum of the interests of the private parts of the economy, those who have a wider and deeper concept of what patriotism is than Ministers will fight these short-sighted, doctrinaire and frankly unpatriotic privatisation proposals. In doing so, we shall have not only the loyal, efficient and expert work forces of the dockyards behind us, but the whole country.
  6.53 pm
  Sir Antony Buck: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the detailed and difficult subject of the dockyards. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about this in the wind-up. No doubt it would be more appropriate for us to go into dockyard matters in greater detail when we have, as I hope that we shall, an individual Navy day debate.
  It is a pleasure to be speaking in this debate, particularly as I have had the advantage of hearing the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). She made, as one would expect, an elegant speech, which was particularly appropriate for a Member for her constituency, because her predecessor, to whom she referred in elegant terms, was a regular speaker on defence matters. I am chairman of the Conservative party defence committee and her predecessor was a constant attender of, and contributor to, that committee. It would be great fun to have my hon. Friend also as a regular attender to that committee in future. The House will congratulate her on her speech, which was full of sound sense, and appropriate for one following in the footsteps of such a distinguished Member of Parliament. We hope to hear from my hon. Friend on many occasions, giving us the benefit of her wide experience in many spheres.
  The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) made an interesting speech, and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister dealing with it in due course. However, one of the main points that I find puzzling in the attitude of the Opposition is their approach to the nuclear issue, on which the right hon. Gentleman touched. Why was it that, when in government, they thought it appropriate to update our Polaris weaponry? Polaris submarines are getting old now and it is not credible, as some SDP Members suggested, to go on running the Polaris force ad nauseam.
  Even 10 years ago, when I was Navy Minister, they were sound, but there were difficulties in their maintenance. When a boat gets above 20 years old, as

  193
  Polaris is now, a great deal of money has to be spent, and some of that money was spent by the Labour Government. Not only was our Polaris force maintained by them, but it was updated. One of these days, I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will deal with the reasons behind the Labour Government doing that. They had the opportunity to phase out the force, but they did not do it, and went so far as to update the nuclear force. They must have done so for reasons that they thought sound, so why are the same reasons not applicable today?
  Mr. Edward Leigh: It may be re-selection trouble.
  Sir Antony Buck: That intervention may be a little cynical, but there is some element of truth in it. I hope that in the Opposition wind-up this problem will be tackled.
  This is the second day of the defence debate, and I was able to be in for much of the debate yesterday, although I had long-standing engagements and was not here throughout. We had an extraordinarily good day's debate yesterday, with some splendid speeches, particularly from the Conservative Benches. I know that I am prejudiced. There were, however, contributions of nearly equal merit from the Opposition Benches, although not from the very Back Benches. I have yet to hear the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) make a speech that is in accordance with the harmony that there so often is across the Floor of the House on defence matters. His defence policy is epitomised by the colour of his shirt and socks, which are red. His defence policy would be that which exists in certain Scandinavian countries—to send a telegram saying, "I surrender". Fortunately, that is not the official policy of his party, although it may be of some of its members.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain exactly what he meant by his last remark.
  Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Gentleman can read it in Hansard tomorrow. If he has any difficulty in understanding the remark, I shall be glad to interpret it for him. I think that he will find that what I said was clear. If he has any difficulty in understanding it, I shall examine the record myself and make whatever explanation he may think necessary.
  The debate started in the traditional way, with the Labour party putting forward its policies and going away from its past commitment to any reliance on nuclear weapons. In the next speech from the Opposition Front Bench, we should like to hear further about their avowed policy to see total withdrawal of all nuclear bases from this country. I find it difficult to see how they will negotiate this appropriately with our NATO allies, and with the Americans in particular. Do they think it a courageous attitude to say that our NATO bases will not be nuclear, while continuing to shield under the umbrella of the United States of America? That is not the most gallant of attitudes to adopt.
  A question asked during yesterday's admirable debate was whether it was appropriate for us to maintain our numerical commitment to 55,000 men in BAOR. Doubt was expressed about the commitment, but my hon. Friends indicated that they have come round to a belief in the commitment, and so have I. I thought that the figure of 55,000 was perhaps pitched too high, and that, so long as
  194
  we maintain a substantial commitment on the continent, it might be appropriate for us to orientate our defence effort more towards the maritime.
  Having been to the northern flank and to the central front, I now think it would be wrong not to maintain the 55,000 commitment, but we are bearing a considerable defence burden. We maintain 55,000 troops in BAOR; we have a paramount role in the naval sphere; and we also make a substantial effort in the air.
  The Government should put pressure on our NATO allies for a fairer sharing of the burdens. That is illustrated by table 4 in volume 1 of the White Paper, which shows the proportion of gross national product spent on defence by the various NATO countries. In Greece, for reasons which are special to that country, the figure is 7·1 per cent. For the United States of America it is 6·9 per cent. We are next with 5·4 per cent. Then there is Turkey with 4·9 per cent. and so on. In Germany, the figure is 3·4 per cent.
  Here are we maintaining, rightly, a very important maritime role; we are maintaining a nuclear deterrent as well through our submarines which, in the normal course of events, are deployed to NATO. Why should we pay so much more than our German or other allies?
  The same point is causing certain comment, to say the least, in the United States of America where the contrast with what Europe does is even more stark than is the contrast with what we do compared with the rest of Europe. The time has come for the Secretary of State for Defence, the Foreign Secretary and all senior members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, to put proper pressure on our NATO allies to see that the burdens of defence are spread more evenly. The United States of America is taking a similar view about the unequal burden that it has to bear. It is particularly important that the Americans are reassured that we are willing to play our proper part in defence. The decoupling of America from the Alliance would be disastrous for it.
  Some of us have just come back from a symposium originated by the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, on seapower, called Sea Link. It was held in Annapolis. There a certain restiveness was obvious because the Americans feel that we in Europe are not playing our proper part in the defence of Europe and the West. It does not apply to us so much as to our continental brethren. I hope that our Government, together with the Americans, will try to ensure that the other countries in NATO step up their defence effort with a view always to getting disarmament talks going again. A legitimate point has been made. We want an indication of what pressure we are putting on the Russians to come back to the negotiating table for another round of START and the MBFR talks. We must counter the belief in unilateralism. We will never get these mutual and balanced force reduction talks or get any progress with START if the tough top men in the Politburo see us unilaterally giving up our arms. There should now be an initiative on the part of the Government to try to get these talks going again.
  In the coming years I hope that we shall see a recasting of NATO to work towards the abolition of the geographical boundary. It does not make sense to have the Northern Tropic as the boundary of NATO. It is riot, however, practical politics to have an immediate alteration.
  Lord Carrington will be taking up the post of Secretary General of NATO any time now, and NATO's gain will be this country's loss. I regard him as being perhaps one

  195
  of the more serious fatalities of the Falkland Islands affair from the point of view of his "domestic" political career. He is much missed in home politics. As I have said, our loss is NATO's gain, and he will do a great job there. He has a difficult man to follow in the great Dr. Luns.
  Perhaps it is not inappropriate to pay tribute to the work that Dr. Luns has done, because he has been a great friend of this country. He was at the symposium in America to which I referred. There is no doubt as to his enormous affection for this country, nor about the value he has been to the Alliance and this country, especially in settling disputes, particularly those involving Iceland. We look forward to an interesting time in NATO. I am sure the whole House would wish to join in sending the best of good wishes to Lord Carrington in taking up his job and in thanking also Dr. Luns for what he has done over the years.
  Going from the broad horizon to a more domestic note, the greatest burden that our armed forces have to bear on an ongoing basis, to use the dreadful jargon, is the commitment in Northern Ireland. It may be appropriate for us to hear further on that from the Front Bench in due course. I do not think any armed forces but ours could sustain such a burden. They are living in difficult conditions all the time, being stoned sometimes and shot and killed, too. They have sustained that burden over many years. I hope that a tribute will go out to them from both sides of the House for the work that they are doing in Northern Ireland.
  The Minister should perhaps say something about the new pattern of deployment in Northern Ireland. I think we have got it right with fewer battalions doing rotating tours for about four months, which hardly gives them time to collect intelligence. There is a larger number of resident battalions now. It is appropriate in any defence debate that a fulsome tribute should be paid to the work that our troops are doing in Northern Ireland.
  Our forces are held in the highest esteem throughout the world. This was enhanced by their superb performance in the Falklands. The way in which they bear great burdens in Northern Ireland is also admired very much by everyone in the United Kingdom.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). She made a speech of charm, fluency and humour. If it is not too chauvinistic a remark to make, I might point out that she has a great advantage over her colleagues from the point of view of an hon. Member who must perforce, because of the shape of the Chamber, spend all his time in it looking over at the other side of the House. I say that with great respect to the hon. and gallant, or legal or something, Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck).
  I also observe that the hon. Lady is something of a philosopher. She attempted to give us her concept of Conservatism, a challenging thing in itself. I think the expression she used was, "conserve and improve". I recommend to her my personal patented definition, which
  196
  is that Conservatism is a consensus of prejudices moderated by remorse. Experience will show that I am rather more accurate than she was.
  There has been much reference already, both here and in the debate in another place, to the failure of the defence White Paper to spend much time considering what one might call the other side of defence—the need to look continually for ways to achieve arms control and the need to evaluate the appropriateness or otherwise of proposals such as a freeze and nuclear-free zones. The Government have not paid much attention to the general approach to disarmament or the kind of strategy that they bring to the talks in Stockholm and Vienna. Indeed, although we know in outline the sort of objective that the Government wish to see reached at the Geneva conference, that, too, is only fairly superficially dealt with in the White Paper.
  The second main criticism that people have raised across the board, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that Britain is over-committed in her defence obligations. Certain consequences obviously follow from that. The third defect is the absence of any appreciation of the need for a more effective and collective European influence within NATO and how that can best be achieved. I do not think that the anodyne paragraphs on pages 4 and 5 of the defence Estimates, which are outlined in blue for some reason, are any substitute for that.
  Time is short, so I shall comment briefly on only two matters, over-commitment and the effective European influence within NATO. The House knows from our amendment on the Order Paper that the alliance takes the view that the essential priority must be to raise the nuclear threshold and to concentrate much more on developing our conventional forces within Europe.
  The Minister suggested that scrapping Trident would make only a limited contribution. I question this. So do others. For example, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who was involved in the initial decision to order Trident, has clearly changed his mind. The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record in the House and speaks out clearly for what he believes in. He is very knowledgeable about these matters. He wrote earlier this month in Jane's Defence Weekly that he had come to the conclusion that neither the United Kingdom nor the Royal Navy could afford Trident. That argument is very strong. It is not just an alliance argument. The cost escalation is evident. The original estimate of £5 billion has already doubled. I know that some of that increase is due to currency fluctuations, but that does not alter the fact. Then again, there has been some change in the original estimate of how much work would be done within the United Kingdom, with a reduction from about 70 per cent. to about 50 per cent. Not many offset orders have come in. There has been Rapier, but not too much has been coming back. All those factors should be taken into account when considering the Trident programme.
  There is the additional burden of the Falklands defence, which is a new factor within the British budget. The defence will cost £1·2 billion over the next two years, and that inevitably further distorts the picture.
  We would argue that now is the time for a political initiative on the Falklands. Leaving that aside for the moment, there are two points of substance: first, that the cost of Trident is so excessive that it is a distorting factor and, secondly, that the Falklands is a distorting factor. The Government are not facing the fact that, although they are apparently overtly committed to building up our

  197
  conventional defences, many people argue that those two considerable factors will make it impossible for the Government to do as much as they should.
  The Minister's description of alliance defence policy was peculiarly inaccurate. He described us as half-hearted unilateralists. Certainly our view is that to proceed with Trident is incompatible with training and equipping adequate conventional forces, but if the United Kingdom believes in NATO we should surely be concerned with strengthening the Alliance where it is weakest — in conventional defence—rather than wasting our precious and limited resources on purchasing a prestige weapon.
  At the same time, we are adding yet more to the existing surfeit of nuclear weapons. In that sense, the cancellation of Trident could result in the strengthening of NATO and would make the defence of the United Kingdom stronger rather than weaker.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to spend money on a system that is recognised by defence experts as ineffective is the biggest waste of money of all? By that I mean Polaris, which all the experts say has become progressively more ineffective over the years.
  Mr. Johnston: Yes. I would not replace Polaris, if it were up to me. We have consistently taken that view, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.
  On Europe, I shall quote Dr. Henry Kissinger's penetrating remarks. He wrote recently:
  "When one country dominates the alliance on all major issues — when that one country chooses weapons and decides deployments, conducts the arms control negotiations, sets the tone for East-West diplomacy and creates the framework for relations with Third World — little incentive remains for a serious joint effort to redefine the requirements of security or to co-ordinate foreign policy."
  The predominance of the United States within the Alliance has concerned many people who are very far from being anti-American. There is no doubt that under President Reagan resistance to America has become much more outspoken in Europe. It has been largely a question of the thrust of the President's military policies, and what has been perceived, fairly or unfairly, as a half-hearted approach to disarmament.
  When one remembers that the American view of the Alliance as seen by John F. Kennedy was of an Alliance with twin pillars, one sees that we are in a very different position now. Consequently, Europe must learn to speak and act together on disarmament and security, difficult though that is. We find it difficult enough to get on with the European Economic Community, far less on what is in the end a much more sensitive touchstone—the whole matter of defence. Nevertheless, unless we get this sorted out, we shall not be able to have a constructive influence on the United States.
  The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North touched on that point. He did not exactly put it like this, but I am sure that he meant that we could hardly expect — I am putting it more felicitously than the hon. Gentleman—to be able to exercise any sort of benign influence upon the United States if the United States in turn is of the view that we are not making an adequate contribution to our defence and depend too heavily upon it.
  If one argues that Europe should play a more active role in her own defence, the question is how that should be done. Clearly it would not be in just one area, as the
  198
  European Community, the NATO Council of Foreign Ministers, and even the Western European Union all play some part.
  The Government must be aware that the prize is not just the capacity to exert influence over the United States, although that is a considerable prize, but it is also the opportunity for European industry to supply a new generation of standardised weapons, and the whole economic spur existing within that. If the United Kingdom is to play an effective part in such an approach, that would mean a commitment to working with our European neighbours on foreign policy, procurement and standardisation of equipment, as well as on integrated defence policy and the promotion of European unity.
  That brings me back to Trident. We would have to recognise that the possession of a so-called independent deterrent, to be expensively acquired from the United States, which will not be committed to NATO, does not contribute significantly to the Western deterrent, but impedes both European unity and disarmament negotiations. The independent deterrent is, in fact, a blatant piece of unilateralism. It is a unilateral act in itself. The Liberal-SDP alliance believes that the view that we have put forward in our amendment represents a balanced and constructive way forward for Britain within the Western Alliance.
  7.20 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: There is a silver lining to every cloud. I regret not being in the Ministry of Defence, but that enables me to welcome freely and wholeheartedly the Secretary of State's White Paper. It is genuinely innovative and a positive contribution to strengthening the effectiveness of our armed forces, particularly chapter two on the management of defence. This is the first time that it has been dealt with, and it is long overdue.
  In the White Paper, my right hon. Friend has highlighted how he has moved 5,000 men from the tail of the fighting teeth of the armed services in Europe. He has improved the capability of our naval forces by about 20 per cent. for emergencies, and any other national or NATO commitment that we might face, simply by keeping eight ships which were due to be mothballed and two frigates which otherwise would have been scrapped.
  I also welcome, very much from a constituency point of view, the creation of an extra Challenger tank regiment. That is first-rate news for the nation's defence, and particularly for jobs in Leeds and the safeguarding of jobs at the royal ordnance factory. I hope that Ministers will persevere in the tremendous efforts that they have already made to get foreign orders for what is the best tank in the world, although it is costly. I trust that foreign orders will come as a result of ministerial efforts and that jobs will be safeguarded in the city of Leeds.
  Yesterday some of my right hon. and hon. Friends seemed to join in the exercise of debunking my right hon. Friend's reorganisation of the Department. It is long overdue, and he must press ahead with it. Many of the criticisms, even from noble Lords who used to be Chiefs of Defence Staff, seem to be based on not having read the document "MINIS and the Development of the Organisation for Defence".
  Before people start attacking the proposals, they should know what they are about. The scale of the increase in defence spending that we have undertaken— from the

  199
  time we came to power to 1986 it will be 23 per cent. in real terms—cannot be justified unless we ensure that we are getting the best value for money. Those increased resources should not go into more bureaucracy or more top brass for the Ministry. They should go, not into the system, but into the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces.
  In the MOD system there is duplication. Bands are trained separately in each service, as are the catering staff. There are separate dental hospitals and false teeth factories. There is overmanning at the centre, with too many high-ranking officers doing essentially clerical jobs. There is not only duplication, but a blurred line of accountability. There is a pressing need for co-ordination of advice on strategy and of military operational priorities. Each of those things should not be done separately under each of the service chiefs as well as at the supervisory level of the CDS. In the end, three or four proposals go to the Secretary of State so that he can make a choice. I cannot imagine a system that is less productive and less efficient at getting the right priorities at the end of the day. Therefore, all power should go to the elbow of the Secretary of State if he perseveres with that reorganisation. It is what the public want.
  This matter is dealt with in "MINIS and the Development of the Organisation for Defence", but the criticism of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and others is that in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984" we have not gone into the issue of disarmament and where the arms race is going. We should applaud the fact that, for the first time, the Secretary of State is establishing an arms control unit within the Ministry of Defence. In other words, there is a separate source of advice on arms control and disarmament measures from that in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Whitehall.
  Whatever that Department's view of the world —some people have strong feelings about that—it can only be beneficial that the best advice is given to the Secretary of State for Defence, who is at the forefront of the nuclear battle — not the Foreign Secretary — who faces demonstrations and who has to argue the case for and against the nuclear deterrent. Given the state of nervousness of the public and people in Europe, it is crucial that the Secretary of State for Defence has the best possible advice to convince the public that, in arguing for nuclear defence, the Ministry and the Government are totally committed to ensuring that the arms escalation process is slowed and that eventually all sorts of nuclear weapons are removed or their numbers reduced.
  One of the problems with the traditional method of arms control is that stockpiles of hardware and innovations may be controlled by the numbers game which we have tended to play, but that in turn encourages the development of software innovations. For instance, we have seen the Americans intercepting warheads in space. In a sense that is a counter-productive measure and is increasing instability in the relationships between the great powers. We must consider that matter closely.
  What is needed is not just the numbers game, but broad diplomacy and an attempt to build up the element of trust between the two superpowers, where there is less trust than ever, and to seek agreement on a wide political framework, not just on warheads or launchers. No one
  200
  wants to see the Americans out of Europe. No one wants Europe to be independent, in policy, of the United States. However, that is not to say that we in Europe should be subservient to American policy and interests. There is a pressing case for people, not just in Europe, but in this country, to act. Our Prime Minister should take an initiative with the Soviet Union. No one is better placed than my right hon. Friend, because the Soviets seem disinclined to talk to the Americans. The process of negotiation should begin, rather than each side maintaining this ratchet of rhetorical abuse.
  The Trident issue dominated the debate yesterday. It is fashionable for leading articles in the The Guardian, The Times, even the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, and even for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to go into the business of knocking Trident. It all comes down to the fact that it is easy, given the nature of long-term defence procurement, to build up a "worst case scenario" when one can hypothecate beyond the year 1986. One can say that we might be level-funding defence, or, if the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is correct about false inflation factors, that there might be less expenditure on defence, but that is a long way off. Coincidentally with that reduction or stabilising of expenditure, there might be extra expenditure on more submarines, new aircraft replacements, more ships and so on. Those might be the peak years for the impact of Trident on equipment expenditure.
  It is argued that, therefore, something has to give, but two points are overlooked. One is that the basic problem of Trident has been not just the exchange rate, but inflation. Why do we concentrate on the inflation factor for Trident and forget about it for other equipment? There are the same pressures on all defence equipment, and budgets outgrow the estimates.
  Opposition spokesmen say that in the key years at the end of the decade Trident will be a crippling burden on the equipment budget. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said that the Trident programme would distort the defence budget. Will it do that? At its peak — on average it will amount to 6 per cent. of the equipment budget—at the end of the decade it will account for 10 per cent. of the budget. What is distorting about that? We are just past the peak of Tornado's impact on the equipment budget. Which of my right hon. and hon. Friends or which Labour Members have been conscious of the distorting effects of the Tornado programme on defence equipment expenditure? However, Tornado is demanding 16 per cent. of the defence equipment budget while Trident, at its peak, will account for only 10 per cent.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara rose——
  Dr. Hampson: I would rather not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I said I would make a short speech.
  What is marginal expenditure and what is not? There is inter-service rivalry and some want more service men on the front line, while others want more ships, more submarines, improved aircraft capability and new missiles. Everyone wants more and better of everything that he can get. All service chiefs have in their forward programmes every conceivable weapon system on which they can get their hands if money is provided for them. We

  201
  cannot continue to expand the budget, which has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms from 1979 to 1986. Some programmes might have to give.
  Why do we assume that Trident is on the margin? Why is it thought that it is the margin of expenditure that we should sacrifice? Trident is underpinning our entire defence strategy. Government after Government since the second world war have continued to ask, "Why should we assume in Europe, including the United Kingdom, that every American Administration will immediately commit themselves to risking American citizens and American lives in a counter attack to any conventional attack by the Soviet Union anywhere in Europe?" Why should they do that? It seems that there is an extra guarantee in our area of defence and that there will be uncertainty in the minds of Kremlin planners as long as the centre of decision taking at a nuclear level in Europe is separate from that in Washington.
  It seems that defence planners in the Kremlin hypothecate all strategy and planning on the premise that the European powers will move quickly into a nuclear position. All their positioning and planning is based on that premise. Why should we allow the Soviet planners to have the easy option by removing the alternative which we currently have of a nuclear deterrent and permitting them to plan on the assumption that they will have a superiority of conventional weapons?
  For all those reasons, it seems that we still require some form of nuclear defence. We have been reminded that Lord Mountbatten said that wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Of course they cannot. The whole point of having nuclear weapons is to stop wars starting. If we do not have that ultimate deterrent, we have the risk of a conventional operation of some sort starting. It is the process of starting which leads the escalator into a nuclear response.
  How would it look from the Soviet side if we cancelled Trident and had no independent deterrent? The Soviet Union would then see our new conventional response. If we spent the Trident money on conventional weapons, how would that appear to the Soviets? They would see for that amount of money—it would not be a huge amount—a few more tanks, some more highly sophisticated aircraft, a few more submarines and a few more ships. Do Labour Members seriously suggest that that would appear to be a much more credible deterrent to Soviet military strategists than the Trident programme? I cannot believe that it would. As I have said, what matters most to Soviet planning is the existence of a nuclear strike. If we are to preserve the peace, I cannot as yet see any credible alternative to a nuclear independent deterrent, and that means going for Trident.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I shall conform to Mr. Speaker's request for short or shortish speeches. The result of taking scissors to my rather longer speech is that it may seem to lack any uniformity of theme. However, those who listen carefully will find that there is uniformity on the Government's ineptitude in defence decision making.
  It appears to be the vogue this afternoon to give definitions of Conservatism. It was Abraham Lincoln who said that a Conservative is someone who sits and thinks and mainly sits. Having heard the remarkable attitude of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir
  202
  A. Buck), it seems that a person's attitude to defence can be discerned from an analysis of his socks. That rather confirms Lincoln's analysis. I can see the most appalling pair of yellow socks on the Conservative Benches, which are being worn by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Litigation will obviously be a matter of course over the next few days.
  Mr. Leigh: The colour of my socks does not sum up my political thinking.
  Mr. George: My socks are blue.
  The White Paper stresses competition, which is a theme that ran through the evidence of the Secretary of State to the Select Committee on Defence. It is a theme which runs through what he has been saying over the past few years. It is stated in the White Paper that competition is vital for achieving the best value for money, the most efficient use of industrial resources and the stimulation of innovation and new ideas. That is why I was surprised and delighted when I heard of the Government's decision to purchase Challengers from the royal ordnance factory at Leeds. Does the spirit of competition apply to that purpose? Thankfully, it does not.
  We are all aware that the tanks that have been ordered are those which the shah did not require. Is the decision consistent with the policy which the Secretary of State has been shouting from the rooftops? Is this yet another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, or is the Secretary of State fattening up the royal ordnance factory at Leeds as a prelude to a profitable sale to the highest bidder in the months ahead?
  I have said many times that I believe in the public sector production of armaments, with that sector working alongside the private sector. It is regrettable that the Government have decided almost to obliterate the public production of armaments. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the privatisation of ordnance factories. That is one part of the long journey in which we shall take part, other parts of which will be the privatisation of the dockyards and the shipbuilders. It is unacceptable that the Government intend to create a monopoly in the production of weapons of war within the private sector when the public sector has been involved in that production for many centuries. It has been producing armaments efficiently and cheaply and I believe that the Government are taking ideology and dogma to excessive limits in their decision to privatise further.
  When I consider the proposed privatisation of British Shipbuilders, I wonder what is going on with the Government. It seems that once again they have got their Nimrods in a twist. The twin pillars of Conservatism—privatisation and competition—appear to be in conflict. There is a clash of principles. There are those in the Government who would like to see British Shipbuilders flogged off and the creation of a monopoly within the production of warships. That would be the most profitable solution for the Government. Secondly, there are those who believe in selling off British Shipbuilders and creating competition. There are rival schools of thought within the Government and it will be interesting to see which will ultimately emerge the victor.
  The defence White Paper contained a good deal about the Government's decision on the standby or mothball squadron. The way in which it has been presented gives the impression that the Government made a reasonably

  203
  rational decision and now, having had further thoughts on the subject, are abandoning the initial decision. What is the truth of the decision to reverse? When Sir John Non was in charge of the Ministry of Defence — his occupancy of that dangerous position was rather temporary—the rationale in his infamous defence review was that some of the ships currently in service would be put into the standby squadron from which they could be brought back into service within 30 days and crewed by shore-based sailors.
  There was rationality in that process. That was the decision of the left hand, but the right hand was doing something different. It was reducing the number of shore-based sailors. Consequently, if the ships had been mothballed and manned by shore-based sailors, there would not have been the personnel ashore to man them within the time constraints which the Government would have imposed. Therefore, because the Government failed to find the shore-based personnel, they were compelled to keep the ships in active service.
  I am delighted that the ships are not being mothballed, but I hope that people will realise that the Government's decision was not based on rational principles but, like many of the Government's decisions — despite the Secretary of State's magnificent organisational wall charts, which make his room look like an extended version of Cinemascope—was made for the wrong reasons. If reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence is necessary, it is at the political level and not the military or bureaucratic levels. The Minister smiles. He has the elixir of life in the Ministry of Defence, and has survived all the vicissitudes of that office. He is the Mikoyan of the Politburo, who has entered the Bermuda triangle of the Ministry of Defence and has flown on with success.
  That brings me to air defence. When the Government were in opposition in the late 1970s they exacted much mileage about the alleged weaknesses of our air defence. When they came to office, they brought many quick fixes. We remember when the Lightnings were to be taken out of mothballs, and the arming of the Hawks with Sidewinders. That has been a painfully slow process. The Hawk is a great plane within the scope of its design. It may be a great morale booster, and it may inflate the figures for planes available for air defence, but we must put its role in a broad and realistic perspective because it has severe limitations. The greatest of those is that it lacks radar.
  If the planes headed off in the general direction of the adversary, and were set against far more sophisticated planes, their inadequacies would be sadly revealed, with adverse consequences for the pilots. We should not place too much emphasis on the addition of Hawks to our air defence. They are useful for point defence, but the nature of modern war with fighter aircraft is that by the time the adversary is near the airfield its load will have been delivered, with lethal consequences.
  Much has been said about Trident. However, the Government will face problems, because they cannot have both Trident and adequate conventional defences. The Secretary of State seems to believe that, by central reorganisation and by improving procurement, extra cash can be squeezed from the system and we can have an adequate conventional defence to match our enhanced
  204
  nuclear capability. History will show that to be grossly over-optimistic. Only a limited amount can be achieved through greater efficiency.
  Many aspects of conventional defence are being sacrificed, despite what the Government say, because resources are going elsewhere. Our plans for identification friend and foe equipment are inadequate. We spend enormous sums on the purchase of sophisticated aircraft — between £14 million and £15 million apiece — and £2·5 million on the training of a Tornado pilot. We must ask ourselves whether we are getting the balance right. I have thought about this carefully, and believe that our lack of adequate IFF equipment is serious.
  In a recent RAF exercise, many paper casualties, which could have been real casualties, were shot down. The number of planes shot down on our side was unacceptably high, and a large number of them were shot down by our own side. That brings a new dimension to the expression "shooting oneself in the foot" and to the concept of the fog of war. During that exercise there was a real pea-soup fog. Until we have adequate IFF equipment, we need to fear our own air force as much as that of our adversary. The Government will not wish to see the Few even fewer. Much work must be done to research, identify, purchase and place on our planes adequate equipment to improve efficiency and provide greater security for our pilots.
  In conclusion, the White Paper contains little about arms control—possibly because little progress is being made in that direction. I hope that that will be reversed. We must do all we can to get the Soviet Union to return to the negotiating table, but not at any price. There must be negotiations. During the next few years much depends on the establishment of a better international atmosphere, with both sides recognising the resolution of the other to defend its interests. They must see the futility of military action against the other, and seek to preserve parity of arms. They must seek to find a compromise, and initiatives must be reciprocated. Only then shall we see greater security at a diminished cost. Only when our resources can be devoted to our respective domestic economies and to assist in resolving the critical problems of the North-South dimension shall we achieve some of our major objectives.
  There are many problems, and many ways of proceeding towards improved East-West relations. Whatever route is chosen, it will be long and laborious. Confrontation is not necessary. We can strive for greater security. We must recognise that improved relations are a precondition for obtaining that security.
  7.48 pm
  Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): As we have been asked to keep our speeches short, I shall confine myself to one subject—the Merchant Navy. The subject has already been powerfully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, robustly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) whose knowledge of anything to do with the sea is unsurpassed in the House. I do not intend to repeat what they have said.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends' complaint was not that the Merchant Navy had been found wanting. Far from it. When most recently called upon in the Falklands campaign, it went to war without question. The ships were made available immediately. Those involved at the beginning asked little or nothing about Government

  205
  powers, contractural conditions, and so on. The ships were needed, they went. The crews were needed, they volunteered. There were more merchant ships than Royal Navy ships in the operation. Co-operation between the two Navies was effective and apparently effortless. That, of course, was the result of well-established standing procedures.
  Those procedures continue, no doubt improved by the Falklands experience. The numbers and types of ships required for direct support of military operations in the NATO area have been assessed by the Ministry of Defence, and there has been consultation between the Department of Trade and Industry and the General Council of British Shipping. The ships are not earmarked by name and the figures are classified. As is well known, the vessels required in support of military operations in the NATO area for transportation of men and equipment have been planned for some time. For this operation, the ships are earmarked by name and the plan is subject to regular review between NATO Governments and their ship owners.
  So far, so good. But as more and more alarming figures showing the decline of the merchant fleet are published by the GCBS one is bound to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the availability of British flag or British-controlled tonnage is regularly checked against requirements and the specifications of such vessels vis-a-vis their military use regularly reviewed. One must also ask what assumptions have been made about availability, bearing in mind the positioning of ships for their commercial operations and the speed with which they could become available for military purposes.
  There are signs that the supply of certain types of tonnage required for these various purposes is becoming very tight in terms of United Kingdom registered ships. Indeed, having regard to ships' positions and taking little account of attrition, it would already be difficult to meet some of the requirements. The Government seem rather complacent about the difficulties that might be encountered in securing the use of ships registered in the dependencies and those under foreign flag, but evidently controlled from within the United Kingdom. There may also be vessels under dependency registry which are not controlled from the United Kingdom and which, at a time of emergency, might be pulled back under neutral or non-friendly ownership.
  One also wonders about manpower reserves and reserves of merchant seamen. In the past, on the outbreak of war, this country was always able to draw on a wealth of trained talent in the population among people who had been in the Merchant Navy at one time or another, but that reserve must now be dwindling as rapidly as the fleet itself is declining.
  Throughout our history, especially through the last two great wars and the Falklands campaign, we have become so accustomed to the co-operation between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy that we have taken it for granted. As it has been so recently effective, it may seem churlish to ask whether it can continue. The Secretary of State, perhaps somewhat taken off balance by the questions put to him in the Select Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, seemed to take refuge in the assumption that as he had heard nothing to the contrary all must be well.
  The doubts that we are expressing in this debate are widely reflected in the shipping industry. Here I declare
  206
  an interest as a director of the Furness Withy group. At a time when, for obvious commercial reasons, the British merchant fleet is diminishing at an alarming rate in the face of competition, mainly from the far east, ship owners are mystified as to why the Government should choose his moment to deal a body blow to the industry through the abolition of capital allowances. As general fiscal policy it is sound, but I very much doubt whether its effect on the shipping industry was seriously considered. I imagine that the industry was probably judged as just another interest group, along with the film industry, cable television and the rest.
  I concede that to qualify for exemption from the new tax regime an industry should have not only to make a strong case but to prove itself unique, and in the past the shipping industry has always succeeded in doing just that. Introducing the Budget of 1957, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not yet make a general restoration of investment allowances. He continued, however:
  "But there is one exception that I propose."
  He went on to describe the peculiar problems of the shipping industry and increased the investment allowance for capital expenditure on new ships. He then stated:
  "I must repeat that this is a unique step for a unique industry which is the life line of our country."—[Official Report, 9 April 1957; Vol. 568, c. 995–96.]
  The time has surely come when the Government cannot put off much longer answering the thorny question, "Is shipping still the lifeline of this country, and if so, should not there be an expressed policy for its future?" Ship owners cannot be blamed for having doubts about the Government's position. Quite apart from the unexpected fiscal blow, the Merchant Navy is not even mentioned in the defence Estimates—an omission that was severely and rightly criticised in the Select Committee report—and there is no Government assistance to maintain any part of the fleet for military or emergency requirements. Our fleet has thus to compete with foreign flag operations which benefit from various kinds of tax assistance, or from protectionism, such as those described by Mr. Menzies Wilson in his presidential address to the GCBS, when he gave examples such as the Jones Act which protects the entire United States coastline, a Norwegian law requiring our supply boats but not Norwegian ones to take a pilot and a French rule that 50 per cent. of oil shipped to France should be shipped in French tankers. There are many more examples.
  Personally, I should like the Select Committee on Defence to choose the Merchant Navy as a subject for special study. Some evidence might have to be taken in private for security reasons, but it would give much needed assurance to the public and to the industry that the role of the Merchant Navy is not taken for granted and that Members of Parliament are genuinely aware of its problems.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Michael Hancock: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I come hotfoot from Portsmouth with a message for both sides of the House, but I should first pay tribute to my predecessors, Ralph Bonner Pink and Frank Judd, my constituency having been formed by the amalgamation of substantial parts of Frank

  207
  Judd's constituency of Portsmouth, North and the previous constituency of Portsmouth, South represented by Ralph Bonner Pink.
  In Ralph Bonner Pink the city of Portsmouth and the House of Commons enjoyed the services of someone dedicated to public service. He carried out his duties with integrity and honesty and with great support from the city of Portsmouth. I knew him for 15 years. For much of that time we both served on Portsmouth city council. He is a great loss to the city and it is a tragedy that his death occurred such a short way into a term of office in this House.
  Frank Judd served the city well as a Member of Parliament for 13 years. In the early part of my political life I looked to him for support and guidance and I learned a great deal from him about the politics of people. He was a fine constituency Member. As a politician in this House, I hope that I shall emulate the impression that Frank Judd made on me as a young local councillor.
  The message that brings me to my feet was spelt out time and again by the three main candidates in the recent by-election in Portsmouth, South. The issue of defence was argued at public meetings, press conferences and on the doorsteps. It was done so by the Conservative party candidate, who had a difficult enough task, because in the past Portsmouth has been let down by the promises made in Tory party manifestos, particularly in the election material distributed on the Government's behalf in the city.
  There were promises about defence jobs, a commitment to naval spending and a commitment to the defence industries of Marconi, Plessey and Vosper. For one reason or another best known to the Government, things have fallen far short of what was initially promised. Mr. Rock, the unsuccessful Conservative candidate, in his first or second press conference, gave an assurance that not one job within the Portsmouth dockyard or naval base would be lost through compulsory redundancy from October onwards. He said that he gave that assurance with the permission of the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that the Minister will give a firm assurance from the Government Front Bench tonight to back up that statement on jobs and the threat to Portsmouth.
  When Mr. Rock's predecessor sought election in 1979, he promised the city that no job would be lost in Portsmouth dockyard and that Portsmouth would be—as it is seen to be by the people of the city—the defender of the realm and the bastion of naval power. He assured the city that Portsmouth would continue to be the country's premier naval base. Yet within two years of that election promise, Sir John Nott was savaging not only the dockyard and naval base, but the defence industry generally in the city.
  The people of Portsmouth need the assurance that I have requested of the Minister. They do not want it through newspapers or press conferences. It should be given here, where the responsibility lies.
  The Labour party's attitude to defence also came up. Time and again its candidate went on record as to where she stood. She was a member of CND, in favour of unilateral disarmament, even in favour of NATO, but not in favour of American bases in this country or of cruise.
  The real dilemma faced by the people of Portsmouth, South was the false promises of the Government candidate
  208
  on the one hand and the forked-tongue approach of the Labour candidate on the other. I am glad to say that those people saw the sense of the alliance's approach to defence. The defence policy advocated in our manifesto, both in this by-election and in the general election, was based on realism and a commitment to NATO. Not only did we say that we were in favour of NATO, but that we had a commitment to accept some of the responsibility that goes with belonging to NATO.
  That meant that we welcome, as Portsmouth did two weeks ago, the NATO fleet consisting of a sizeable element of the American sixth fleet. The aircraft carrier Eisenhower paid its third visit in two years to the city, and the people of Portsmouth welcomed those sailors as fellow members of NATO and defenders of the free world. The commitment of the citizens of Portsmouth was spelt out loud and clear to those visitors.
  Many of the people who voted for me saw through the shallowness of the Labour party's commitment, which is in favour of NATO but does not welcome American ships or bases in our country. The Labour party does not want the responsibility that goes with being a member of NATO. Instead, the people of Portsmouth whole-heartedly accepted where we stand. By accepting that responsibility, we also accept that those bases should be here. We accept that a nuclear deterrent is essential if we are to prove to aggressors that we have the potential to defend our people.
  Defence and jobs are of key importance to my constituents. They would not lightly have forgiven me had I accepted this office without taking this opportunity to spell out to the House the problems that they face. They want an assurance from the Government that their jobs are safe, not only within the naval base but in the other dockyard-related industries around the city. They want to see Vosper Thornycroft thrive and look forward to a frigate contract being given to that company. They also want to see Marconi and Plessey continue to prosper.
  I read the maiden speeches of my predecessors with some interest, particularly the speeches of those who were elected to the House in the 1960s. They described Portsmouth as a city with only one major industry—the dockyard. In the main, that is still true today, although the problem is now defence in its wider context. It is that from which the people enjoy their economic stability.
  My election is a clear sign that the people of Portsmouth have rejected the two alternatives with which we are faced in the House today. It would be nonsense for the alliance to support the Government because of their commitment to Trident, which will undersell our ability properly to advocate conventional forces to defend our country. It would be equally foolish for alliance Members to support the Labour amendment, which is the complete opposite of what we stood for in the recent by-election—a stance that was whole-heartedly supported by the SDP and Liberal Members who came to fight the campaign.
  I read with interest the Government's intention in the Estimates to do more for health, education and accommodation for the services, and I look no further than my own constituency to see how inadequate those provisions are for the people who depend so much on the Government for assistance. I again urge the Minister to look seriously at the Government's intentions on the welfare of service families and the well-being of the children of service men living in large garrison towns such as Portsmouth and Gosport.

  209
  When I rose to speak, I felt like Voltaire, who, when asked on his death-bed whether he would renounce the devil, said, "This is no time to make enemies." I suppose that a maiden speech is no time to make enemies, but the people of Portsmouth would not have been pleased with my election five days ago had I not taken the opportunity of telling the House of how they feel about the inadequacies of both the other parties on defence. I am living proof that a vote for the alliance in Portsmouth was a vote for sane defence policies that are based on realism and that are very acceptable to the electorate.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on his maiden speech. It was a short time ago that I was in a similar position, and he surmounted that not inconsiderable hurdle with great skill. However, I must tell him that a number of his constituents, particularly the chief petty officers in the Royal Navy, would have been appalled to see him speaking with both hands in his pockets. The hon. Gentleman jumped in where angels might fear to tread, unfettered as he is by the traditions of the House. I congratulate him on a forthright, interesting and forceful speech, which I have no doubt his constituents will much appreciate. I assure him that the remarks that he made about his predecessors were appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I am glad to be able to speak in the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) has made her distinguished maiden speech, on which I congratulate her.
  I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the management of defence, in its broadest terms, under control. Few hon. Members are better equipped to run that great Department, and all of us may be thankful for that. I still have considerable reservations on whether the procurement budget is completely under control, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have the matter well in hand.
  If we are the prime customer of United Kingdom industry, we should be able to command the finest and most competitive terms from those companies, which in my opinion in many cases take their business with the Ministry of Defence as a God-given right. In short, I believe that the problem is not the management of defence, but the management of strategy. I know that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have spent, and are spending, a good deal of time addressing this matter.
  One of the questions which exercise me most centres on whether the impact of new technology on the strategy and on military art is evolutionary or revolutionary. I believe that the impact of these new technologies is revolutionary, but the key point is that it is not so much the existence of the new technologies which is critical as the recognition of the awareness of the impact of the new technologies on defence planning, what it means for us, and, above all, the decisiveness that will be needed to exploit these advantages. We welcome the benefits which the new technologies can give us, but we must not in any event allow ourselves to be hindered by the historic latent conservatism of the Ministry of Defence. We simply must have the capacity to change concepts, equipments, and, above all, the balance and the tasking of our forces if this is seen to be necessary.
  210
  Within this context, NATO has reached the point where the strategic assumptions upon which it has been operating, the force structures and the institutionalised concepts that it has generated, and the joint policy that it has developed are likely to prove inadequate to cope with the problems of the next decade. Time has moved on, and priorities have changed dramatically and will change in the global and broad strategic scene. This is the real problem in defence planning in the country and in NATO. I acknowledge that changes cannot and must not be made quickly, but time is not on our side, and the sacred cows, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is an expert at dealing, must be trotted out for parade and inspection and, if necessary, slaughtered and dismembered.
  In respect of our own position, does the search for efficiency really lead to greater effectiveness? Our forces are highly efficient—that is not in any sense in question — and they are extremely effective, but are they effective in the right areas? Are they effectively and correctly tasked?
  The White Paper, as far as I can see, contains no real sense of definition of strategic values. Will my right hon. Friend take time to explain to the House what exactly is our defence strategy in its broadest terms? This cannot be covered by generalities like the deterrent. This is not enough. Where exactly are we going with British defence policy? What view is taken of the new and emerging technologies which will have a dramatic effect on the armed forces of the country? How will new technologies replace or complement existing conventional military technology, strategy and the evolution of the military art? What is the definitive view in the country of battlefield nuclear weapons in the European environment? In general, what is missing from the White Paper is a political strategic dimension, although I say again without any hesitation that, in terms of looking for a better way of spending a lot of money, the White Paper has a great deal to recommend it.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not fall into the trap that some of his right hon. Friends in other Departments did of cutting in all directions without having thought through the long-term and essentially vital strategic implications. My right hon. Friend has an unenviable task. He will have to upset the services by the fact that one of them will do better than the others. That in itself is not a bad thing. He will have to upset us in the House—he has broad shoulders—he will have to upset public opinion, and he will have to upset British industry. It is fortunate, indeed, that he is so excellently equipped to undertake without fear or favour these kinds of aggravations. It is not enough to say that with proper management there is no need to make the kind of hard choices that must be examined. The inherent dichotomy between forward defence and flexible response must be resolved, or sooner or later it will rise and strangle our strategy and foreign policy,
  Now is the time for a thorough review of NATO's structures and deployment, and within that context we cannot dodge the question of the force levels that we maintain in western Germany. Substantial pressures are building up on both sides of the Atlantic in a number of important areas, particularly with the news that the Americans could be seeking a reduction of 100,000 men on the ground in NATO.

  211
  Apart from that, the question of advancing towards no early first use as a NATO doctrine requires a host of strategic changes and decisions to be taken on the ground. In my opinion, that must bring into question one of the biggest sacred cows of all—the costly and financially destabilising Trident venture. The House should ask how we are to mesh our assets into any future European defence community, and we need a real assessment of whether the Trident programme will place a heavy reliance on nuclear overkill. As the main focus of our defence policy looks likely to continue, rightly in my opinion, to be on NATO, to which 90 per cent. of our defence effort is committed, the House should insist as a minimum requirement that a review is prepared, pulling together the entire 1967 concept, dissecting it and the progress that has or has not been made, and then dragging it a stage forward.
  The objections to undertaking a comprehensive review of NATO strategy will be entirely bureaucratic. This will centre on the inadvisability of raising once again difficult and sensitive issues which have caused the Alliance many unnecessary problems in the past. Clearly these are arguments which cannot and must not be sustained today when the political and military relationships between East and West and the Third world are undergoing rapid and extraordinary changes.
  It is, of course, excellent news that Lord Carrington, who has such considerable experience of foreign affairs and defence, will be able to shake off the caution, inertia and, I have to say, torpor which currently exist within the NATO organisation. In so far as the House is concerned, a thorough strategy review will not resolve the fundamental problems that we have, but, as to NATO, unless the defence planning is dealt with, the bases for the development of a force posture both adequate and affordable, and at the minimum level, will continue to elude us.
  Looking to the future, all I can see is the certainty of uncertainty and the absolute requirement for flexibility of our defence forces. This House must and should demand a fuller and more definitive plan for defence strategy and objectives.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I associate myself with the compliments paid to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). He was worried that his candour might make him enemies in the House. I assure him that if he addresses himself in future with the degree of preparation and brevity that he exhibited tonight, he will make few enemies.
  I also associate myself and my party with the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). I can do no more than echo her wish that her survival in the House will be long and productive.
  It is almost a year since I made my maiden speech during the debate on the defence Estimates. Since then, the House has seen fit to elect me to the Select Committee on Defence. Some hon. Members justified my selection by saying that it was proper that the Committee should include someone who lived with the problem facing our security forces operating in Northern Ireland. Therefore, at the risk of appearing to be too parochial, I feel obliged to concentrate my few remarks on the security forces that
  212
  operate in the most unconventional of conventional roles—acting in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the war against terrorism in that part of the country.
  Paragraphs 126 to 129 of the statement deal with Northern Ireland and refer specifically to the Ulster Defence Regiment. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) paid a generous tribute to those men and women when he spoke yesterday, and I know that his real concern for the welfare of the UDR will be appreciated.
  Perhaps it is appropriate to point out that since 19 July last 11 off-duty members of the UDR have been murdered, as have 10 members of the RUC—four while off duty—six members of the RUC reserve—two while off duty—and eight regular soldiers—two while off duty. One off-duty member of the Territorial Army has also been murdered. All those men have died at the hands of Republican terrorists. It brings the total sacrifice of the security forces in Northern Ireland since 1969 to 719. None of those figures takes into account former members of the police and of the Army, many of whom have been and others still are being murdered.
  The Secretary of State will understand, in the light of those figures, why I would have liked to see a full chapter devoted to the discussion of the role or our conventional forces. I am disappointed that there is no indication, after 14 years, that the Ministry of Defence has made any decision on the terms and conditions of service for full-time UDR soldiers.
  The UDR is shouldering an increasing part of the burden of support for the RUC, which has allowed a reduction in deployment of regular major units from 26 to eight. But many of the full-time soldiers would revert to part-time if there were an economic recovery in the country—not because they are not dedicated to their task, but because they have no proper career structure, a factor that also inhibits the recruiting of the more able young men who would make good officer material.
  As the right hon. Member for Spelthorne said, in addition to the strain of being at risk 24 hours every day, 365 days each year, those young men have the constant anxiety of wondering whether they will be permitted to re-engage at the end of each three-year term and whether, if the trouble ended—as they all hope it will—they will have a job. Indeed, any of those young men wanting to accept a more secure job now run the risk of being shunned by employers because they are a security risk.
  I believe that the Barnett report deals with a career structure for the UDR soldier, and I am told that is in the hands of the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State has looked at this problem and if and when the Ministry of Defence will establish a proper career structure for the full-time UDR soldier?
  Another problem is minor in proportion, but highly sensitive. I would not seek to hide, nor would the Army, the fact that a few soldiers have committed, or allegedly committed, serious crimes. Let me make it clear that, while I deplore any infringement of the law by those whose job it is to uphold it, I find it none the less heartening that those lapses are surprisingly few considering the situation which has existed for the past 15 years. What amazes me is that when an alleged offence occurs, we allow our soldiers to be placed in custody cheek-by-jowl with members of the IRA, INLA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces has told me that, where an offence allegedly occurs

  213
  that arises from a soldier carrying out his duty he could be accepted into Army custody; otherwise that could not be done.
  Like Lord Justice Gibson giving judgment and Lord Denning commenting on the recent dismissal of a murder charge against three members of the RUC, I fail to understand how, in the first place, the law is so inadequate as to permit members of the security forces to be charged when they are carrying out their duty.
  But even if they are believed to have acted outside the law and require to be charged, could one imagine any circumstances where, during world war 2, we would have incarcerated a serving soldier, irrespective of the alleged crime, in a German, Italian or Japanese prison camp, or, during the Cyprus campaign, with EOKA terrorists?
  Lieutenant-Colonel J. C. Wakerley, who served for two and a half years as senior legal adviser on the staff of the GOC at headquarters Northern Ireland, recently wrote in The Times that he
  "argued continually but unsuccessfully against the policy of the Director of Public Prosecution's Office in this type of case to prosecute members of the security forces before the same special no jury courts which tried the terrorists, even on evidence which was tenuous in the extreme.
  It is a well established principle under our system of law that a person should be brought to trial on a serious criminal charge only where there exists a reasonable chance that he will be convicted.
  In the absence of any other convincing reason, it seemed to us in Northern Ireland that soldiers were prosecuted either simply to test whether their constitutional duty had been performed properly or—even more disturbingly—in order to demonstrate to the vested interests that the DPP's Office could be relied upon to be even-handed as between the forces of law and order on the one hand and the enemies of the state on the other … Our proposal at that time to allow the military authorities to exercise jurisdiction over soldiers by convening a court martial to try any case where the evidence justified a prosecution was rejected out of hand by the civil legal establishment"—
  and, I believe, by the Northern Ireland Office—
  "although such procedure was routine where the army was engaged in similar anti-terrorist operations outside the United Kingdom."
  I ask the Minister to examine carefully whether the interests of our serving soldiers are being sacrificed for reasons of political expediency by the Director of Public Prosecutions under direct, or indirect, influence from the Northern Ireland Office. In practice, should our soldiers, though rightly subject to the law, be subjected while on remand to physical attacks from co-located terrorists or humiliated by being locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, as they are at present, because they dare not venture out? Should the Ministry of Defence accept its obligation to our soldiers at least to seek military custody in remand cases so that our soldiers do not have to endure over 12 months virtual isolation—something that is not inflicted on terrorist remand prisoners?
  I wish that I could deal more fully with other aspects of the conventional role of the security forces. I should have liked to deal with the MOD's facility to provide sufficient manpower to assess the increased competition which it hopes to engender in tendering. If I did, I think I would try the patience of hon. Members who wish to speak.
  I hope that the Minister will take on board some brief points. Do the Government recognise the role played by the Royal Navy in support of the civil power in Northern Ireland as it patrols our coastline and performs other
  214
  duties? If we succeed in raising the level of security on our land frontier, the significance of that role will become even greater.
  What plans are there to replace the outdated vessels on station in Northern Ireland, especially the two Loyal class converted tenders? Is the Minister satisfied with the adequacy and safety of the two other vessels—the Bird class patrol boats?
  Will the Minister confirm that there is to be a genuine and sustained increase in frontier security to hinder the unabated flow of weapons and explosives and the continued genocide of my constituents? Four of the 11 off-duty part-time soldiers murdered this year were my constituents.
  Will the Minister tell us how many helicopters are on deployment in the Falklands and how many in Northern Ireland? I mentioned that point last year. If anything, the situation is deteriorating. Our soldiers' lives are being jeopardised through lack of helicopter hours.
  These matters may not appear to have the importance of other weighty topics raised today, but the welfare of all our soldiers will, I hope, be dealt with by the Minister in his reply. Nothing that we debate can have any significance without our highly professional forces, whom we too easily take for granted. Nothing in the Minister's reply will influence more strongly the way in which my party will vote today.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly today. I should like to comment on the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I support him in emphasising the importance of the individual service man, without whom our defence forces are worth nothing.
  I fully and whole-heartedly support the Government's plans to expand the Territorial Army. My enthusiasm for the Territorial Army stems from personal experience in two TA units in the years between 1959 and 1965, followed by further service with the cadet force.
  On opening a kitchen drawer the other evening I discovered a copy of The Times dated 5 March 1970, which referred to a debate such as this. After six years of Labour Government, we were debating the rundown of the volunteer forces. Indeed, condemnation was being expressed of the deliberate nature of the rundown of the reserves
  "to the level where they are barely adequate to bring BAOR up to wartime strength, the disbandment of the Territorial Army in its old form, and the abandonment of almost any form of home defence."
  According to that report, the TA was half the size that it had been in 1964, and civil defence and the auxiliary fire service had been put on a care and maintenance basis.
  Fourteen years later, it is good to see that, according to the Estimates, the Government have recognised the importance of the volunteer spirit. I whole-heartedly welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday when, in his opening remarks, he spoke of the increased emphasis on our reserve forces. I believe firmly in the role of the Territorial Army, the RAF auxiliaries and the Royal Navy and Royal Marine reserves, in addition to the Home Service Force and the cadets.
  I believe in that role not only because of the importance of those forces in defence plans—contingency and other

  215
  plans—but because of the opportunity that they provide for people to serve the community, and also because of the way in which such service increases understanding of defence issues, weapon systems and the need to prevent the outbreak of war — something which we are all determined to avoid, and are working to avoid through realistic policies and actions.
  In the second phase of the Government's expansion plans there are to be six new infantry battalions. I welcome that, although as an ex-infantry man I regret the fact that none of them is to be based in East Anglia. However, the leaders of the Territorial Army in Norwich and the surrounding area are pleased with the new plans and are welcoming them with enthusiasm.
  I pay tribute to those in my constituency and elsewhere who give up time as volunteers in the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces. I pay tribute to their families and their employers as well—to those who support them in their endeavour. We should do all that we can to encourage employers who support those who give up their time to serve the community in this way.
  I am informed that the recruiting for the Territorial Army in East Anglia has been good, although there has recently been a little downturn, perhaps because of the improved employment situation. Recruiting for the cadets is also going well—in particular, the recruiting of girls into the cadet forces, which is a welcome innovation.
  The reserves cost very little in terms of the total defence budget. The return of that investment in terms of good will is excellent. However, today Territorial Army commanders are coping with an annual turnover of about one third of their manpower. That wastage must be detrimental to training. I believe that it is a mistake to try to obtain our volunteers on the cheap. Clearly pay and bounty must be a factor in recruiting volunteers and retaining them, at least in the early stages of their Territorial Army career. I believe that a more generous approach can and must be applied, and will produce benefits. I therefore support what my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said yesterday. He expressed a wish for even stronger Government support for our voluntary services.
  The Government have stated recently that the reserves deserve the full support of the whole community. They should have even greater support and commitment than is outlined in the Estimates. I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the response to which he referred will be forthcoming. That will be good for the defence of Britain and good for the people involved.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I ask the Minister to take heed of the speech of the hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) on the issue of British shipping. Those of us who have anything to do with the National Union of Seamen and the General Council of British Shipping know that what the hon. Gentleman said about allowances is only too true. I shall cut my comments short and simply endorse what the Minister's political friend said on behalf of a great number of us.
  Because the Navy Estimates, like, I gather, the Army Estimates and the Air Force Estimates, will have to wait until the autumn, perhaps I could ask a question in regard to annex C on page 46 of the White Paper. When did the submarine Conqueror commence its present refit and when
  216
  is that refit likely to be completed? Two years is a long time for a refit. I know that I cannot ask about the cost, but I think that I am entitled to ask for an explanation of why it is taking quite so long.
  I should also like to raise a question concerning the use of the SAS satellite channel. I believe that a book that has recently been published, entitled "Sources close to the Prime Minister", deals with an issue that is important for all of us. On page 172 the authors, Cockerell and Hennesey and Walker, have written:
  "The reporter who identified most closely with the Prime Minister's view of his duty was Mr. Max Hastings. He faced almost no difficulties in getting his despatches through, while others — who took a more critical line — faced immense obstacles. A number of despatches to the Observer, the Sunday Times, the Guardian and the Press Association never reached their destinations at all. In contrast, Mr. Hastings was even allowed to use the SAS satellite channel to dictate a report direct —a unique privilege."
  Is it true that that unique privilege was afforded to Mr. Max Hastings? If it is true, why was it afforded? If it is not true, ought not the Government to take steps to deny it?
  We have been asked to be succinct, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I might refer to my speech of Friday 8 June, when I kept no one else out by speaking for one hour and 15 minutes. I shall refer to that speech, so that others can speak today. At column 599, yet again, I asked for a governmental comment on the book by Bruce Arnold, which is published by the reputable firm of Hamish Hamilton, which has libel lawyers. It was said in that biography of the Prime Minister, entitled "Mrs. Thatcher: A study in Power", that
  "Margaret Thatcher told a lie. Just one."
  I believe that the Prime Minister is under an obligation to do something about that as it is a biography of her. I shall leave my argument at that as the case was outlined in my speech.
  At column 600 in the same speech, I asked for a Government comment, which was not given, on the allegations in "Sources close to the Prime Minister" in regard to the manipulation by the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments of the Franks committee report. It is all there in column 600. I simply repeat the question.
  In column 612, I asked a third question, which I shall now repeat: why have I not received answers to certain questions surrounding the sinking of the General Belgrano from the Secretary of State for Defence? The argument is set out in column 612. It is easy to give such answers as they can be got simply by looking at the log book of the Conqueror.
  There is another important issue that many people who do not share my views on the sinking of the Belgrano agree with. It concerns changes in the rules of engagement. It was held by Admiral Woodward that he requested just one change in the rules of engagement. As I understand it, that is what Ministers have been saying for more than two years. However, we have all heard—it has been printed in the papers, so it is public knowledge — that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), pressed by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, talked in terms of routine changes in the rules of engagement — "a reasonable routine practice," said the right hon. Gentleman. He is quoted in The Scotsman of 12 June as saying:

  217
  "This was one of the many changes in the rules of engagement made during the course of the war."
  He said that such changes were
  "made as a matter of routine."
  Professor Erickson and many other commentators have raised many eyebrows on this issue. It raises for the National Union of Seamen the safety of our ships. If Britain merely changes the rules of engagement on a whim, that has all sorts of consequences. Who is right? Are the Ministers who have spoken in terms of one or very few changes in the rules of engagement? Is Admiral Woodward or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East right? Someone is right and someone is wrong.
  I wish to raise in a little more detail the matter on which I interrupted the Minister in his opening speech. It concerns the cost of the airport at Mount Pleasant. People now call it the Margaret Thatcher international airport in the south Atlantic. Are Ministers firm about the airport costing only £215 million? I understand from various sources that there are great stopgap problems in the provision of materials, that there are delays to the structure of the concrete that is needed for the foundations, and that that is raising all sorts of hitherto scarcely suspected problems that were predicted by some experts but were swept aside by the opinions of others.
  I am told that the two quarries in the Falklands—one for quartzite and one for tillite—have proved deeply unsatisfactory. I am told that there are ribs of sandstone and clay particles in the sand that makes it technically extremely difficult to produce the quality of concrete that is required.
  I am also told that the Government have therefore been faced with using ships to take aggregate on the 13,000 km journey, at a cost of about £1·5 million a time, to the south Atlantic.
  They are taking rock and other heavy materials from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere because nobody in south America will provide such materials and it is politically unacceptable to get it from South Africa.
  Are the Government sure that the £215 million will be kept to? How many journeys do they envisage for the carriage of heavy material? Is it true that at least 300,000 cu. ft. of material for concrete will have to be taken from quarries near Oxford and Bristol through Avonmouth to the Falklands? Laings has gone on record as saying:
  "Many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of rock are needed for the contract, including material for the sub-base, aggregates for the dry lean mix concrete, and for the pavement quality and apron area concrete."
  It has also been made clear that the tillite and quartzite is far more difficult to mine than the Amay Roadstone company had hitherto expected.
  It has also been said that both the wintry conditions and the substantial quantities of clay that have been found, together with the quartzite containing bands of sandstone, have made it unreal to suppose that the Falklands can locally provide the materials that were originally taken for granted.
  I am told that when it is made into concrete, the rock found locally on the Falklands becomes flaky and is, therefore, unsuitable for high grade concrete. I am also told that 0·5 million tonnes of sand is needed, as Falldands sand is unsuitable because it contains clay particles.
  Is that denied by Ministers? I suspect that it may not be. To be fair, I asked similar questions of the then Labour Government some 15 years ago in relation to the proposed staging post at Aldabra atoll in the Indian ocean, on which
  218
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others were keen at the time. Bob Mellish told me two years later that the doubts that I had raised were amply endorsed in his Ministry of Public Building and Works, and the project did not go ahead.
  All that I had said at the time about the nature of the material under the hard skin of coral atoll being unsuitable for making runways proved to be correct. If I was right about Aldabra 15 years ago, my track record cannot be that bad. I suspect that I am right on this occasion in relation to the building of the airport on the Falklands.
  Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend is frequently right.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend makes a flattering intervention, for which I thank him.
  I suspect that I am right, and, if I am technically right, there will be an enormous effect on cost in view of the fact that the Government are sticking to their estimate of £215 million for the airport.
  I am also told that the six cement testers who are on the Falklands say that the quality of the material that they now have is too smooth and may break up completely given the Falklands winters and the pressure from TriStars and other heavy aircraft landing. Further, I am informed that the two large crushing plants are running into all sorts of difficulties and that the quality of the rock has proved much poorer than expected by the companies concerned in their original inquiries.
  Why has Mr. John Parr-Burman, the airport project director, had to fly to the Falklands in a great hurry? Is it to evaluate a crisis? Some explaining must be done because, in answer to seven parliamentary questions—the details of which I will spare the House—I was told:
  "The 6,600 tonnes of graded aggregate is being transported from Bristol in the Orepesa and Beacon Grange as part of the contractor's normal shipping programme. Both vessels are British owned, managed and crewed and British registered. The aggregates, to the normal standards required for structural concrete, will be used at the Mount Pleasant airfield and were obtained from the Bristol and Oxford areas. It is not the practice to reveal costs for individual components of the work".—[Official Report, 8 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 428.]
  It may not be the practice to reveal costs for individual components, but I am entitled to ask these questions because, with the estimate of £215 million being adhered to, if half of what I have said in the last few minutes is accurate, the costs will soar. After all, we are talking about lugging extremely heavy aggregates, sand and other material from the northern to the southern hemisphere.
  This state of affairs was not allowed for in the original plan. When it was decided that we needed what we might as well call the Margaret Thatcher international airport in the southern hemisphere, there was no suggestion that the carrying of such bulk would be necessary. I suspect that the silence of Ministers indicates—I will not say "as usual"—that, as often before when I have raised technical points about costs, I may be right again.
  I do not know whether Ministers have been reading the Sunday Telegraph in recent weeks. When Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne, with whom I have debated this subject on several occasions—on separate sides, I hasten to add—writes an article headed
  "Argentina—why we should make peace",
  it is clear that if the Government will not listen to Opposition Members, at least they might begin to listen to

  219
  the Sunday Telegraph when they are told that they must do something in the south Atlantic. For reasons of time, I shall leave it at that.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: It was appropriate that the first day of the debate on the defence White Paper should have taken place on 18 June, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Having sat through many long passages of rhetoric and having been much instructed yesterday, when I arrived home I looked at an admirable history of the battle by a namesake of mine to see what had happened on 19 June. I read that by late afternoon on that day,
  "not a single healthy soldier was left on the field. There were one or two sightseers, and a few dead Guardsmen lay among the cabbages and turnips."
  I concluded that there could be no parallels between the situation at Waterloo and the situation in this Chamber. Certainly the Secretary of State would never regard his Back Benchers as an infamous army. Yet I read that
  "from time to time a figure would half raise itself, and then, with a despairing groan, fall back again."
  Having been called to speak in the debate, I will proceed to more general matters.
  The White Paper sets out impressive achievements. The emphasis in it on management bears very much the hallmark of my right hon. Friend and the Government are to be warmly congratulated on the political steadfastness with which they have proceeded to install intermediate nuclear weapons since this House debated the last defence White Paper. There can be no doubt of the will of the Government to provide adequately for the defence of the realm.
  Yet the White Paper slides around or ignores some critical strategic questions of which I know the Government are fully conscious, and I share the regrets of some of my hon. Friends that the White Paper does not address itself to some of these issues. While Labour Members refer to "real and fundamental issues" which have been neglected, it is not the unilateralism to which they resort at the end of their amendment that I have in mind.
  The White Paper is a lucid and reasonable account of NATO orthodoxy. It is a rationalisation of the status quo. But that status quo is not sustainable. We shall not be able to persist with the distribution of responsibilities between America and Europe in the defence of Europe to which we have been accustomed. The Americans will insist that the Europeans take a much fuller share of the burden of their own defence. Who is to say that that is not fair? Moreover, it will be necessary, because present dispositions are inadequate to meet the needs.
  In America, increasing numbers of responsible politicians are no longer prepared to tolerate the disparity in expenditure on defence between their own country and the European countries. The White Paper gives the figures for per capita expenditure on defence. The figure for America is $962. The contrast with Europe is striking. Happily, the United Kingdom is at the top of the European league, spending $435 per head on defence, but then we range down through France with $396, to Germany—which is obviously, for historical reasons, a special case —at $364, the Netherlands $294 and Italy at $181.
  220
  American politicans ask why they should continue to be prepared to ask of their people that their whole economy should be laid under stress—and we might add, why the world economy should be laid under stress—so that they can spend disproportionate sums on defence while, very arguably, the Europeans are not pulling their weight. More specifically, questions are asked by senior and respected people, such as by Senator Nunn of the Committee on Armed Services. A month ago, he asked why, if the Europeans would not provide more than a week's worth of ammunition reserves, American troops should be asked to prepare for a contingency in which they might fight alongside them. Again, why will Europe not provide adequate bases for the aircraft that the Americans will contribute to the Alliance?
  The Administration have no truck that I am aware of with those American politicians who contemplate a withdrawal of American troops from Europe. Indeed, the President excoriated them in a recent speech as "new isolationists", and drew attention to the disastrous consequences that had flowed from American isolationism in the late 1930s. But those isolationists exist. It is, perhaps, a burgeoning line of thought in America which will not go away, and we must be aware of it and respond to it.
  Again, Americans resent what they take to be a supercilious and morally shifty attitude towards them on the part of many Europeans in failing to provide responsibly their contribution to their own defence. They resent the fact that too many Europeans rationalise their unwillingness to play their full part by characterising the Americans as naive and belligerent, and that Europeans place themselves in a rather priggish and morally cosy fashion between the two superpowers and suggest that one is as bad as the other. The Leader of the Opposition is a notable exponent of that approach.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) referred to the very important article by Dr. Kissinger in Time magazine of 5 March. Dr. Kissinger spoke of Europe disarming itself psychologically, and suggested that a generation of politicians in Europe who had chosen, in a time of relative prosperity, to depend upon the Americans for the greater part of their defence displayed all the attitudes born of guilt—particularly a tendency to sneer and to flaunt their independence. He went on to argue that it would be necessary for the Europeans gradually to take full responsibility for certain key elements in their defence, particularly conventional ground defence. He suggested that the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe should be a European, and that Europeans should take the leading part in arms control negotiations relating to weapons stationed on European soil. In those ways he felt that Europeans might be impelled to confront the real issues that they are too prone to fudge.
  Those are very important challenges that should be debated in the House. I hope that my right hon. Friends will increasingly respond to them in a public manner. I am, of course, glad and proud that Britain's contribution to European defence is right at the top of the league, that we have played a leading part in rallying European efforts, and that since 1979—under a Conservative Government —defence expenditure has increased in real terms by 20 per cent. I am also glad that we are willing to play our part in the reactivation of Western European Union as a forum

  221
  for the political consideration of the issues that underlie defence policy. The meeting of WEU in October will have an agenda of major importance.
  One item on it should be an analysis of the doctrine of flexible response. The White Paper rehearses that doctrine, but naturally enough it does not criticise it or discuss its inadequacies. But given that we do not have, in NATO, the conventional strength to match or even effectively to deter a conventional attack, it is becoming increasingly apparent to thoughtful people that we shall face a choice of early surrender or early resort to nuclear weapons. In a situation of strategic nuclear parity, that implies mutual assured destruction.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State suggested that this element of uncertainty would continue to operate as an effective deterrent. That would be so if we were dealing with rational people. However, Hitler was not rational at any time, least of all when he invaded Russia in 1942. It is essential, if we are to apply the philosophy of flexible response, that we should be able to deter at every level. We have faced this at the intermediate force level, and we shall have to face it at the conventional level. Developments in emerging technology raise important opportunities and challenges in this respect. We may otherwise face an extremely dangerous moment with public opinion when people wake up to the degree to which our present dispositions imply an early resort to battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe. If they come to be aware of this, we shall face serious political pressures towards neutralism.
  The second fundamental shortcoming in NATO orthodoxy and in the exposition of it in the White Paper is that it underestimates the global interests and global dependencies of NATO members and the global threat to their security. The geopolitical scene has altered out of all recognition since 1949, but NATO reflexes have not done so. In 1949, not only were there imperial structures to secure Europe's interests in the world, but there was the unchallenged maritime supremacy of the West. As the White Paper points out, since 1970 the Soviets have constructed 100 nuclear submarines and also a maritime surface fleet capable of world-wide operation. Through their proxies, they are able to bring to bear conventional strength at many points in the world where they were not able to do that 25 years ago. They conduct a continuous campaign of propaganda, disinformation and subversion.
  Most critically, the Soviets are pursuing a resource war, as General Haig termed it. They have gone a long way towards encircling the Gulf. Although there have been recent setbacks, they have gone a long way towards building a systematic network of powers sympathetic to them in the southern third of Africa, the source of critical raw materials that are vital not only for our military strength but for our wider economic strength. Europe is far more dependent on sources of raw materials from that area than America is. No doubt his successors in the Kremlin recall Lenin's maxim, "Sever the raw materials flow from the colonies, and you cut the spinal cord of the empire".
  The White Paper does not sufficiently acknowledge what would be the reality—that a war, even if it began in Europe, would not be confined to Europe, or to the north Atlantic. There would be strikes at the American rear from the Pacific, there would be a Soviet thrust down into the Gulf, there would be a major attempt at interdiction of our lifelines around the Cape, and at the very least major harassment in the Caribbean.
  222
  Freedom of navigation through the Panama canal and the stability of Mexico on America's border are criticial interests for American security. If they are criticial to American security, they are critical to us as well, and the more that American attention and resources have to be diverted to the Caribbean and central America, the less they are available for the direct protection of Europe.
  NATO strategy is of forward deployments in Europe with a capacity for rapid and substantial reinforcement, but in the event of reinforcement in Europe being needed from across the Atlantic, some 75 per cent. of men and materiel would pass through the strait of Florida. Since 1979, the Soviet Union has made its major push in central America and the Caribbean, in powerful support for the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, in the support that we saw for the Bishop regime in Grenada, and in the construction of important airfields in those two places. Those processes were matched between 1981 and 1983 by a tripling of the previous average annual level of arms support to Cuba.
  These developments are an obvious and serious threat to the security of this country and of Europe. However, the response of too many political leaders in Europe at the moment of the American intervention in Grenada was equivocal, nerveless and censorious, if not downright condemnatory.
  I regret that the White Paper discusses insufficiently these global matters. The jargon phrase "out of area" in today's circumstances betrays a somewhat blinkered and dated view. Admittedly the White Paper says that we cannot ignore threats to security from "out of area", but then there is a certain bathos in the description of out-of-area deployments in paragraph 450:
  "naval deployments last year included the continuation of a patrol of two frigates plus a float support in the Indian ocean, available to come to the assistance of merchant shipping should free passage in and out of the Gulf be threatened.… We have also continued to maintain a guardship in the Caribbean."
  Again, in the discussion of 5 Airborne Brigade, it says:
  "Any additional capabilities required for 'out of area' deployments will be provided by the detachments from other formations assigned to NATO."
  I have asked for substantial additional commitments in the conventional sphere and in our global out-of-area capacity. I do not think that what we have seen represents a sufficiently substantial response. Of course, substantial responses mean money on a large scale. As things are., we see that American defence expenditure forces up interest rates and produces instability which could, in a vicious circle, lead to the requirement for yet further defence commitments in different parts of the world.
  Our own Government have taken a decision not to renew the commitment to increase our defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms beyond 1985–86. As the White Paper says:
  "we can no longer afford to make military activity on a global scale a main priority of our defence effort".
  I am conscious that hon. Members with vastly greater experience than I have on the subject wrestle with the problem of resources and of having to make hard choices in an apparently severely constrained budgetary situation. Yet there are oddities. The peoples of western Europe rightly have priorities very different from those of the peoples of eastern Europe. They are not prepared to spend 16 per cent. of GNP, as the Russians do on their so-called defence. Yet western Europeans are willing to pay what

  223
  is necessary for their defence. In Europe we have one and a half times the population of the Soviet Union and twice the GNP.
  Why, therefore, do we struggle and fail to provide defence resources adequate to our needs? It is partly because we do not tell the story with sufficient clarity and skill. Certainly at the end of 1982 the NATO information budget was at the nugatory figure of some $2 million. I do not have an up-to-date figure, but it is pathetically inadequate as a budget to inform people of the nature of the Soviet build-up, which is reminiscent of the building of the Nazi war machine.
  General Rogers says to anyone who will listen that an extra 1 per cent. expenditure on conventional strength would make the difference needed significantly to lift the nuclear threshold. Some countries are willing to spend what is necessary and some apparently are not. America is prepared to spend 6·9 per cent. of its GDP on defence. Creditably, Britain is prepared to spend 5·4 per cent. Other western European countries show a range of only 4·2 per cent. in the case of France, down to 2 per cent. in Spain. If there was the will, the additional 1 per cent. on conventional spending necessary in the analysis by General Rogers could be mustered.
  There will be hard implications for public expenditure if we accept this. I hope that members of the Government will be very careful about dangling prospects of tax reductions before the British people. I make a distinction between the tax reductions that are necessary to revitalise the economy to build the economic strength to be able to afford the defence effort we need and any further tax reductions that may be seen as a reward for virtuous stoicism. It will be necessary to sustain expenditure and this will not be easy politically.
  Perhaps the best feature of the White Paper is its recognition that we can go very much further in achieving value for money. The Secretary of State talked yesterday of a 30 per cent. benefit being achieved in costings as a result of competition, and he is pursuing that policy. We must also consider—this will be even more difficult politically—how much money we are wasting through the fragmentation of NATO procurement. So long as each individual member of NATO insists on maintaining at least a semi-independent defence industrial capacity, we shall continue to have prodigious waste from duplication in research and development and from short production runs. The politics of changing all that will be very difficult, but it is necessary to do so. Important economies can be achieved through standardisation of NATO equipment.
  I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on good management and improved value for money. I welcome the lead that he is taking in the Independent European Programme Group, but we must rise high above our industrial nationalisms. Together with the Americans, we must end the possessiveness and secrecy about new technology, which is wasteful and which tends to generate mistrust. We really ought to be able to match the resources of the Warsaw pact nations and even to leap-frog them.
  I hope that the "star wars" development will turn out to be an instance of technological leap-frogging that will be of great benefit, but it would be premature to suppose that the implications of the new technology are that we can do without Trident.
  224
  There must be a much more thorough-going sharing and a much better considered division of labour within the NATO Alliance. We must also welcome the Japanese into a much more extensive global alliance.
  I think that it was General de Gaulle who said, "Treaties are like roses—they fade, they fade." It was certainly he who, as early as 1958, suggested that NATO should consider broadening the area that was traditionally marked out as its bounds.
  The difficulties that we are experiencing—the crisis of public expenditure in the NATO countries, the inadequacy of existing deployments, the intransigence of the Russians, the gap in our understanding between Europe and America, the instabilities in the Gulf and in Central America—should impel the NATO leaders to rethink their common security interests and how they can organise to meet them.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I have but three minutes in which to make a point which everyone knows I have made before. It has particular importance in view of my hon. Friend the Minister of State's procurement visit tomorrow to Paris and, indeed, the meeting of the Defence Ministers in July to discuss the European fighter aircraft. This is a continuing saga and was going on before my election to the House. I make no apology for repeating my concern about the matter today.
  There have been recent stories in Aviation Week, which is very rarely wrong on the matter, about the desire of France to take a large share of the proposed programme. If we are to believe reports, France is talking about taking 46 per cent., as opposed to our 22 per cent., with West Germany taking 16 per cent. and Italy taking 10 per cent. of the programme. That would be unacceptable. We want a genuine partnership on the European fighter aircraft. We need that for a variety of reasons, which I do not have time to develop.
  There are problems about budgetary issues, over the aircraft's precise military role and whether we should have an air superiority fighter or a ground attack fighter, which the French would like. There are problems on weight and performance factors and problems over which engine we should have. We must resolve these difficulties as quickly as possible. The early 1990s is the required in-service date. At present, Tornado aircraft are not being sold and, as the last Tornado is already off the drawing board, there is a great need for this new aeroplane to fill the gap.
  I am almost fed up with arguing for the project. I am not being critical of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, because I know the depth of his commitment to the aeroplane, whatever its initials may be, but this must be a collaborative project and one which goes ahead in the very near future. My constituents deserve to have their skills recognised and enhanced.
  Herr Fichtmueller, the head of Messerschmidt Boelkow Bloehm, said recently:
  "There is a certain momentum to this programme which must be used."
  It must be used now. Herr Steinburger, the vice-president of Turbo Union, which makes the engines for Tornadoes, said:
  "If we cannot afford this aeroplane, when will we ever be able to afford a major development programme of our own?"
  I want this aeroplane to go ahead. I have argued for it in the years that I have been in the House. I hope that my

  225
  hon. Friend the Minister of State will continue to fight his corner for it, because it is vital for this country's national interest and the interests of my constituents that we get it.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on his speech. I suggest that if his hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) followed the hon. Gentleman's example, he might catch your eye more frequently, Mr. Speaker, and more of his hon. Friends might have got into the debate, which was the reason why the Minister and I agreed to make shorter speeches.
  Yesterday we had what I felt was a rather dispirited speech from the Secretary of State. It reads reasonably, but I felt that his usual fire was gone. Even when he was attacking the Opposition, his heart was not in it. The reason is not hard to find. It is that the Government's defence policy has lost its way and is in tatters. The Secretary of State has abandoned the guidelines of Sir John Nott. One of the newspapers said that he has tiptoed away from them. If that is so, he has tiptoed away like a pantomime villain, with his finger on his lips. The audience — the whole country — knows that he is to blame for the lack of coherent defence policy.
  One by one, the Secretary of State has reaccepted and extended the commitments with which Sir John Nott sought to dispense, but he has not had the resources—the money, ships, assets or men — properly to carry them out. Like the pantomime villain, he tiptoes away, hoping to find a refuge until the next reshuffle. He hopes that he will be away before his inconsistencies are discovered.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who opened the debate yesterday, suggested that the Secretary of State would go to Stormont. We would love to know who would replace him at a reshuffle. One thing is certain. Whoever comes will be faced with half-thought-out policies, a staff that is demoralised and in disarray and massive departmental overspending. The right hon. Gentleman will leave his legacy of the Department of the Environment at the Ministry of Defence. His successor will have to clear up the mess.
  This is the policy that comes forth from the Estimates that we are discussing. It has more to do with the economics of the grocer's shop than with the defence needs of the nation. The Secretary of State has failed to give the House or the nation a sense of purpose. He has denied us an explanation of the philosophy the changing strategic and political assumptions upon which the policy is to be judged. Only if the right hon. Gentleman gave it could we properly assess his priorities and the correctness of his allocation of resources. His policy lacks the vision to enthuse the services or inspire and carry the confidence of the young of the nation, many of whom, against a background of no job opportunity, find the justifications for defence expenditure, particularly nuclear defence expenditure, unacceptable and sickening.
  As the Select Committee on Defence said:
  "We strongly recommend that future White Papers include a review of long-term political and strategic prospects, both within the NATO area and beyond. It is not enough for governments to regard British defence capability as a general resource."
  That is the attitude that the Secretary of State has taken. He treates our defence capability as a general resource with no thought and no ideas.
  226
  On every issue with which the excellent report of the Select Committee deals, the Committee tears to shreds the Minister's policies. It has yomped all over the Secretary of State's ideas, with devastating effect. That is no more apparent than in the MINIS mark 2 ideas. The confusion has come from the Department of the Environment to the Ministry of Defence.
  The White Paper calls for MINIS to achieve cuts in overheads and improved accountability, and to encourage delegation and a more efficient use of resources. As aims, those are perfectly acceptable. However, that is not the reality. In the debate in the other place, Lord Cameron of Balhousie, former Chief of the Air Staff and Chief of the Defence Staff, said:
  "This general movement to a stronger central organisation for defence is nothing new."
  He added later:
  "The next step, which is removing all the policy-making elements from the service departments and denigrating the Chiefs of Staff, is going too far. The plan is that individual service chiefs will lose their policy staff elements and be made responsible only for the morale and administration of their services—responsibility without power. The chiefs become no more than glorified inspector generals of their various services."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 1984; Vol. 452, c. 1158–59.]
  A strange person for me to call as an ally, but Lord Cameron of Balhousie does so, is Casper Weinberger. When before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, he said:
  "There must be participation in policy making by those who will be responsible for executing it".
  The ideas which have come forward so far from the Secretary of State suggest that the sharing of power and responsibility will be lost by the service chiefs who will be responsible for carrying out the Government's policy. It is no wonder that the Select Committee on Defence stated:
  "we must enter one further caveat."
  It quotes the Secretary of State as saying:
  "The restructuring, if it proceeds upon the lines indicated, will have a profound effect on the resource allocation potentially, but I cannot say what the effect will be".
  Earlier the Select Committee stated:
  "Nevertheless, organisation, whatever its advantages, will not be a panacea. It should not be seen as more than a means to an end. Moreover, the Secretary of State himself recognised that his proposals would be valueless unless carried through by his successors."
  They would be valueless because their effectiveness is something that the Secretary of State cannot describe. This is part of the legacy that will fall to the right hon. Gentleman's successor, whoever he may be. He is destined never to be a lord Mayor and always to be a man with the bucket and spade.
  It is on Trident that the vulnerability of the Estimates is perhaps most obvious. The Minister of State said that the Government are firmly committed to the nuclear deterrent. How firm is firmly committed? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that we are firmly committed? Does he have no doubts whatsoever?
  Yesterday we spoke at length about Trident. I do not want to go into great detail about the cost save to say that £9·4 billion is a great deal to spend on a weapon which last week became obsolete. When the United States rocket from a Pacific atoll destroyed Minuteman, which was launched in California—the destruction took place in outer space—Trident's defence relevance had come to an end. The 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty is as good as dead. It has been killed by the United States of America. The Secretary of State knows it and the Select Committee knows it.

  227
  Following the Secretary of State's evidence to the Select Committee, the Committee reported as follows:
  "The Secretary of State did not quarrel with the observation that 'we are about to invest very substantial resources in a new generation ballistic missile system. In the event that both super-powers were to proceed down this road of defensive space-based systems, this not only could be de-stabilising as between the super powers but, if effective, it could negate what we have in mind to do"'
  It could negate Trident. The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) deduced from that that, if ABM systems go ahead, Trident is lost. In effect, the Secretary of State is saying to President Reagan, "Please do not go ahead with 'star wars' so that I can have my Trident". It is far too late to take that approach.
  As soon as the United States started its ABM research and the rocket which took off after the Minuteman was successful, the 1972 treaty was dead. The USSR is bound to follow and its reasearch will yield development, as surely as night follows day. Trident will then be obsolete. The House is worried how far down the expensive road of Trident building and development we shall go before the Government cancel it, as cancel it they must. That is probably another dirty job which the Secretary of State will leave to his successor.
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Gentleman appears to know more about the intentions of the United States Government than any other hon. Member. He argues that they will go ahead with these propositions. He has not taken into account what we know about Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives. Does he know more about the United States Government's intentions than we do, and if so will he please tell us?
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The United States has embarked on a research programme and has demonstrated its ability to take out a ballistic missile in outer space. It is therefore placing the entire Russian ballistic missile system in jeopardy. The USSR will embark on the same research, from which development will come. That is the history of the development of these terrible weapon systems. That is why I am entitled to say that the United States Government have killed the 1972 treaty. That is the logic of the case and the argument.
  The procurement policies and attitude of the Secretary of State cause further confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) spoke about the Secretary of State's activities regarding dockyards. Perhaps the Secretary of State will reply to that later. The Secretary of State rightly wishes to get the best value for money, and the best weapons and services for the Armed Forces. We do not quarrel with that principle. But we wonder whether the means by which he seeks to achieve his policy is effective or whether it suffers from so many contradictions that it is bound to fail immediately.
  The Secretary of State laid down his four principles, with which I shall not delay the House. As the Select Committee said so laconically, "It is not surprising that many people in industry regard this particular policy as controversial." We must consider why that is so. First, the Secretary of State is looking for competition in an area of high technology, where expenditure soars rapidly and the degree of competition is limited and likely to decline rather than to grow. There is already the possibility of the merger
  228
  between British Aerospace and GEC. That merger will mean that 20 per cent. of MOD expenditure will go to one firm. That is £1·6 billion from £8 billion. That does not leave much room for competition.
  It can be argued that such a merger, which will create a defence giant, will be good for the country in competition with Europeans and, especially, United States rivals. That argument may be acceptable because one may feel that such a firm will get a toe-hold in the American market. Unfortunately, the American market, with a few minor exceptions, is the most closed and protected defence market in the world. Not only is the possibility of getting substantial contracts there unlikely, but, as is feared in British defence industry, small firms, such as Ferranti and Plessey, and other middle-sized specialist firms will be susceptible to being taken over and pushed out because they will not have the means, ability or power to compete with a giant such as GEC-BAe. The Ministry of Defence must pay careful attention to that aspect because if small specialist firms are taken over by large firms competition will be reduced and the specialisation—the very raison d'être that kept them there—is likely to be lost to the nation for good.
  In examining the proposals coming forward we must consider whether companies will seriously bid for work for which they have not done the research and development. Tooling up on other people's ideas is a very expensive activity. We must also ask whether the development work will be taken on by companies if they are not guaranteed the production after carrying out the research and development.
  The Select Committee set out certain ground rules which should be followed by the Ministry of Defence in trying to sort out the strange tangle of contradictory ideas produced by the Secretary of State. The Committee's most important comment was that the economies of scale that might flow from research and development and long production runs were likely to be lost as a result of the Secretary of State's new policy. That would be disastrous for the defence industries and for the nation because it will increase rather than decrease the cost, which the Government and the country can ill afford. The policy will require extra staff to monitor and evaluate contracts and extra assessment will cause delays. Moreover, the lack of any reasonable assurance of future contracts will make firms reluctant to spend the necessary time on research and development or on development, a point noted by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in his maiden speech when he spoke of the important defence industries in his area.
  We have been privileged to hear a number of distinguished maiden speeches today. We have seen the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) around the House and enjoyed her company for some time, but we enjoyed her speech even more. It was careful, well constructed and thoughtful, although if she stands by some of her conclusions she will be spending a long time on the Back Benches—and none the worse for that. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South made a more robust speech having come straight from the hustings. Having come to the House in similar circumstances, I remind both hon. Members that all the best people first come to the House as a result of by-elections. We suffer the effects of close media attention to the way in which we clean our teeth or even, in my case, whether I changed a nappy properly. Certainly the media give us no rest. Fortunately, however,

  229
  neither hon. Member will have woken up as I did to read in what was my normal bible, the then Manchester Guardian, that there were nine reasons why Labour would lose North Hull and that I accounted for eight of them. Both hon. Members contributed well to the debate and made important speeches which deserve careful consideration by the Minister.
  Ministers must also reply to the important points made about the merchant fleet. At Sea Link 84, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and I asked the assembled dignitaries — admirals, NATO heads, civil servants, Ministers and academics—whether they could give a positive undertaking that there was sufficient reinforcement for the merchant fleet to fulfil our NATO obligations now. The question was greeted with a lowering of heads, a shuffling of feet and a general blushing because they could not give that commitment. That being so, it is incumbent on the Minister today not to shuffle the matter off with some bland statement about being sure that we can do it but to give positive examples of the way in which the Government are facing the threat to the reinforcement of Europe caused by the diminution of the Western-controlled merchant fleet.
  I wished to make many other points, but I will finish on this one. The Secretary of State is trying to have a £25 billion defence policy with £18 billion to spend. He or his predecessor will be forced to do what the Select Committee has hinted at. He will have to re-examine the whole basis of his policy. He will be forced to come to some of the awkward and disagreeable conclusions that John Nott had to come to. If he does not get more money, he will be unable to carry out his commitments.
  The right hon. Gentleman does not have the resources. As a result, his priorities will go all to pot as, like a perpetual bankrupt, he tries to balance one account or cheque against another. He will be unable to do so.
  That is why we believe that the policy outlined in our amendment is sensible. Trident is obsolete even before the keel is laid, and cruise has done more damage to NATO than the Warsaw pact has done during the whole existence of that foreign alliance. People in Europe and the United States are questioning the whole purpose of the Alliance. One of the reasons is lack of imagination and consideration and the Government's failure to seize the opportunities of the new technologies to get away from a policy that is based purely and simply on nuclear deterrence. That is a policy for wiping out future generations, not preserving them. That is why we are voting for our amendment and against the Estimates tonight.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I begin by welcoming the two maiden speeches that we heard today. In an able and lucid speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomely) gave us a practical guide to various forms of standardisation of which the Ministry would do well to take careful note. She spoke of the three principles of clarity, conviction and continuity. Her own speech was characterised by clarity and conviction. As to continuity, we hope that we shall hear much more from her in these debates in future.
  The other maiden speech came from the fresh-from-the-hustings hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). It has already been said that he brought the vigour of the hustings to his remarks. Many who heard him
  230
  would say that it was close to the line of being controversial for a maiden speech, but none the less it was welcomed for the vigour and clarity with which it was declaimed. We were glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman and to know that he will contribute to our debates, as we would expect anyone from Portsmouth to do.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance on future redundancies. I am glad to be able to tell him that there are no plans to issue any more redundancy notices to employees at the Portsmouth naval base. He will be aware of the companies that operate in the Portsmouth travel-to-work area. Many of them, particularly Marconi and Plessey, have been successful over the years, and I see no reason at all why that should change in the immediate future.
  Like the House, I was glad that we had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). He welcomed the new Challenger tank order as well as the reorganisation that has been set in train by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made various references to the Levene report and said that apparently I had been considering it for some days. I have not. He diagnosed the problems, but I must tell him that we are still looking at Mr. Levene's report, and no decisions have yet been taken.
  The hon. Gentleman and the House should consider why, with increasing frequency, there are reports on the royal dockyards. The hon. Gentleman referred to the report bearing the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). I think he will confirm that. despite all the will to win, and despite the contributions made in the Falklands, a great deal can still be achieved by increased efficiency and increased managerial awareness of modern techniques, and I think that some help is needed for the dockyards in that area. We will be informing the House of our ideas and plans in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) welcomed the Territorial Army's enlargement to 86,000 by the end of the decade, and I am glad to have his endorsement of our proposals.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave me, if I may say so, a customary list of detailed questions, which will be responded to, as all his questions are. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has been listening carefully to what he said about Mount Pleasant airport. That also will be the subject of replies that will reach him in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan), in a powerful speech, added his voice to those that were raised yesterday on behalf of the Merchant Navy, drawing attention to the vital need in strategic and defence terms for a strong Merchant Marine. As the report of the Select Committee will confirm, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I appeared before the Committee some weeks ago, my right hon. Friend said that a major study was in progress on the Merchant Navy, and this will be made available in due course. We do not in any way feel complacent about the situation in relation to the Merchant Navy. I am only sorry if the House has that impression, because it is not the case. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has the matter well in hand.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view of the Select Committee and of the General Council of British Shipping about the trend in the diminution of the British flag fleet?
  Mr. Pattie: The trends that have been spoken about are pretty clear in the sense that there has been a diminution over the years. The House will want to know the Government's view on the matter. As I was telling the House, my right hon. Friend is addressing this issue at present.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) paid a tribute to Dr. Luns, the retiring Secretary-General of NATO, with which I am delighted to associate the Government, and gave his good wishes to Lord Carrington, who takes over that post in the near future. I know that the House will echo my hon. and learned Friend's good wishes. My hon. and learned Friend also paid a handsome and well-deserved tribute to the role played by the British forces in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland.
  All the points raised by hon. Member for Fermagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will be closely studied. I should like him to feel that we have noted carefully what he said. I do not think that he would expect me to respond in a few moments, because, if I may say so with no discourtesy to the House, the points are too important to be replied to in a winding-up speech. We have to make certain that we study them carefully, and that will be done.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston), who spoke for the Liberal party, claimed that we were in some way impeding European unity by our possession of Trident. I notice that he never mentioned France and its possession of strategic nuclear weapons, but perhaps they come under some different categorisation, and we were not told what that was.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in his usual cogent manner when speaking on defence matters—he is one of the closest students of defence in the House—made one of the most important single points that we have heard during the two days' debate. He referred to the problem—and it is freely acknowledged —of IFF—identification friend or foe. It is the ability of aeroplanes to assess whether an incoming aeroplane is a friend or a foe. There are difficulties between the NATO Allies as to which system should be adopted. It is an extremely technical, but important, matter and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), in an interesting and thought-provoking speech, spoke about the importance of new technologies. He made the important point that the MOD is the customer and that we have the right—one might even say the duty—to insist that we obtain terms and contracts which we feel are right and appropriate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) told the House that he had reservations about various parts of the White Paper. I thought that he was a little churlish to criticise us for using phrases such as "out of area", because the orientation of the White Paper is NATO and, therefore, by definition to the NATO area. Such jargon phrases are used without wishing to imply that we do not think that defence outside the NATO area is of no significance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), in wishing me well tomorrow, may want to know
  232
  that it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is going—I go merely to carry his briefcase. I know that my right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's remarks and we feel that we have had our cards marked for the negotiations with the French.
  Many of the comments made during the two days' debate have centred on the perceived problems of expenditure levels at the end of the decade, especially in relation to Trident. Several hon. Members have offered alternatives—that is still one of the panaceas being grasped. I do not wish to detain the House by talking about average figures over the whole programme, but I must say—it has been mentioned on several occasions, but is worth repeating—that at its peak Trident is expected to reach 11 per cent. of the equipment programme. That, by definition, means £11 in £100, which leaves £89 for the remainder of the procurement programme.
  There is a tendency for people to take White Papers, to read a list of new programmes, to aggregate them and to imagine that they will all be paid for in the same year. Every one of the programmes has a particular spend profile, and if a programme has been approved by my right hon. Friend for the core programme that means that the spend profile fits in well with all the other programmes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford lucidly enunciated a list—the EH101, the type 22, the type 23 and the replacement for Fearless—and asked how we could possibly contain those. The answer is that we have planned to contain them.
  Mr. Keith Speed: My hon. Friend mentioned 11 per cent. and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that figure to the Select Committee. Will my hon. Friend accept something that was hinted at by the Secretary of State, which is that it will be 30 per cent. plus of the Royal Navy equipment budget? That is why I mentioned the Navy procurement projects.
  Mr. Pattie: If my hon. Friend consults the current naval authorities, with whom I hope he is in contact, he will find that the programmes to which I referred are approved, are scheduled and will occur.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South made an important point in connection with competition—more important than he realised—when he said that he had noticed that the Secretary of State had decided to order 62 more tanks for a fifth Challenger tank regiment. The hon. Gentleman asked what had happened to the competition policy. Was there competition in this case? No, there was not. Was it a case of the right hand and the left hand?
  The only way in which we could have ensured competition in the case of the fifth Challenger regiment would have been to set up another company, which could then have made a bid. That would have taken one and a half or two years, and in that time the company which manufactures the tank would have found itself in serious difficulties. We would therefore have found ourselves back in the same position, with only one company to deal with.
  My right hon. Friend's drive for competition is not a drive for competition at all costs and in all cases. There is to be an emphasis on competition. It is to be the imperative and the emphasis. We want competition, except in cases where it would be nonsensical and would involve a cost penalty. That is the only sensible attitude. If we force people to make competitive quotes when there

  233
  is no second source, or the source would take a long time to set up or the cost would be greater, that is not cost-effective, and we would expect in due course to receive the strictures of the Chairman of the Select Committee.
  It is in the area of competition that we expect to be able to make any headroom that is necessary in the procurement programme at the end of the decade and the start of the next decade, which is the time about which most people are anxious. This is not just a case of competitive quotations. By competition, we mean a different relationship between the Ministry and industry whereby we delete the gold-plating, we do not try to overstate the requirements, we are more cautious about what we are trying to achieve, we involve industry in a partnership and we advance on a more cautious basis.
  In that way we shall eliminate some of the more serious penalties and cost overruns, which have run into several hundreds of millions of pounds over the years as we have tried to find new technologies which would be relevant in 15 or 18 years' time. The more cautious we can be—the more incremental and evolutionary our approach—the better our chance will be of eliminating through closer control of procurement the cock-ups—to use the vulgar phrase—that have occurred in the past. In that way, we believe that we can make headroom.
  There is at present a review of the procurement executive in train, for which I am responsible. The authors of the review will report to my right hon. Friend in the very near future, in the hope that when he presents a further White Paper on the subject of the MOD reorganisation to the House before the summer recess—a treat in store—he will include in it some outline proposals for new ideas on the procurement executive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford drew attention to other areas in which we could save money. He followed the line of the leader writer of The Times, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) reminded us, dusts down his article three or four times a year. My hon. Friend identified the support facilities for our troops in Germany — wives, families, nappies, schools and so on. How about bringing them all back? He did not remind the House that those facilities would be required in the United Kingdom in any case.
  I believe that one of the best ways in which we can look after the front line is by looking after the people who serve in the front line. If the people at the front line are unhappy about their wives and families, they will not be content doing the job asked of them. My hon. Friend also asked about making our reinforcements more mobile and going for more troop reinforcements. That is never a good idea. NATO commanders always prefer to have in-place forces rather than forces that have to be reinforced. My hon. Friend also asked about the brittleness of our relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. That matter was decided in 1980.
  I ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment and to support the White Paper, which we believe is accurate and realistic.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 351.

  Division No. 374]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  234

  Barnett, Guy

  Lambie, David

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Leighton, Ronald

  Bell, Stuart

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Benn, Tony

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Blair, Anthony

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Boyes, Roland

  Loyden, Edward

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McCartney, Hugh

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

  McKelvey, William

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Buchan, Norman

  McNamara, Kevin

  Caborn, Richard

  McTaggart, Robert

  Campbell, Ian

  McWilliam, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Madden, Max

  Canavan, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Martin, Michael

  Clay, Robert

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Ms Ann

  Maxton, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, William

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Conlan, Bernard

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Crowther, Stan

  O'Brien, William

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cunningham, Dr John

  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'I)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Deakins, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Dewar, Donald

  Pike, Peter

  Dixon, Donald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dobson, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Radice, Giles

  Douglas, Dick

  Redmond, M.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Eadie, Alex

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Eastham, Ken

  Robertson, George

  Ellis, Raymond

  Rogers, Allan

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Ewing, Harry

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Rowlands, Ted

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ryman, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Flannery, Martin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Forrester, John

  Short, Mrs (W'hampt'n NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Skinner, Dennis

  George, Bruce

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

  Golding, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gould, Bryan

  Stott, Roger

  Gourlay, Harry

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Straw, Jack

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Tinn, James

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wareing, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Welsh, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  White, James

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  John, Brynmor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  235

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dover, Den

  Alexander, Richard

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Alton, David

  Durant, Tony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amess, David

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Ancram, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Farr, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Favell, Anthony

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  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)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Marcus

  Beith, A. J.

  Franks, Cecil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Benyon, William

  Gale, Roger

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Galley, Roy

  Best, Keith

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Body, Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gorst, John

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

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, Harry

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gregory, Conal

  Braine, Sir Bernard

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

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grist, Ian

  Brinton, Tim

  Ground, Patrick

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Grylls, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hancock, Michael

  Browne, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hannam, John

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Budgen, Nick

  Harvey, Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hayes, J.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heddle, John

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Henderson, Barry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hirst, Michael

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Howard, Michael

  Cope, John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Howells, Geraint

  Critchley, Julian

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  236

  Irving, Charles

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Jackson, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Johnston, Russell

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Parris, Matthew

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Knox, David

  Porter, Barry

  Lamont, Norman

  Powley, John

  Lang, Ian

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Latham, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Raffan, Keith

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Lester, Jim

  Renton, Tim

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lightbown, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lilley, Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lord, Michael

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Luce, Richard

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  MacGregor, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Rowe, Andrew

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, David John

  Ryder, Richard

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

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

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Madel, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Maginnis, Ken

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Major, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Malone, Gerald

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Maples, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Silvester, Fred

  Marlow, Antony

  Sims, Roger

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speed, Keith

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Spencer, Derek

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mellor, David

  Squire, Robin

  Merchant, Piers

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanley, John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stern, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Moore, John

  Sumberg, David

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Needham, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Neubert, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Normanton, Tom

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Norris, Steven

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  237

  Tracey, Richard

  Watts, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Whitfield, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Whitney, Raymond

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waddington, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Wood, Timothy

  Walden, George

  Woodcock, Michael

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wallace, James

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Waller, Gary

  Walters, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Carol Mather

  Warren, Kenneth

  Watson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Questopn put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 176.

  Division No. 375]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Alexander, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ancram, Michael

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Arnold, Tom

  Cockeram, Eric

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Coombs, Simon

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Cope, John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Anthony

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Crouch, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dicks, Terry

  Beggs, Roy

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dover, Den

  Benyon, William

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Dunn, Robert

  Best, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Body, Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Farr, John

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

  Favell, Anthony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brinton, Tim

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fox, Marcus

  Browne, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Gale, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Galley, Roy

  Budgen, Nick

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Burt, Alistair

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butcher, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Cash, William

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  238

  Greenway, Harry

  Major, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Malins, Humfrey

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

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Maples, John

  Grist, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Ground, Patrick

  Marlow, Antony

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hannam, John

  Mellor, David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Merchant, Piers

  Harvey, Robert

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hayes, J.

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Hayward, Robert

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heddle, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Henderson, Barry

  Moore, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hirst, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Neubert, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hordern, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Howard, Michael

  Norris, Steven

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

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parris, Matthew

  Irving, Charles

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Porter, Barry

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

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

  Key, Robert

  Powley, John

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Knowles, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Knox, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lamont, Norman

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lang, Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  Latham, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Renton, Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lester, Jim

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lightbown, David

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lilley, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lord, Michael

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Luce, Richard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  MacGregor, John

  Ryder, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Maclean, David John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

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

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Madel, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  239

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Silvester, Fred

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Roger

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Waddington, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Keith

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Spencer, Derek

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Squire, Robin

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stanley, John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Walters, Dennis

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Watson, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitfield, John

  Sumberg, David

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tapsell, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodcock, Michael

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Yeo, Tim

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clwyd, Ms Ann

  Alton, David

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cohen, Harry

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Crowther, Stan

  Barnett, Guy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Beith, A. J.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Benn, Tony

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

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

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

  Blair, Anthony

  Deakins, Eric

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Dixon, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Dormand, Jack

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Douglas, Dick

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

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Eadie, Alex

  Buchan, Norman

  Eastham, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Ellis, Raymond

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ewing, Harry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fatchett, Derek

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Cartwright, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Flannery, Martin

  Clarke, Thomas

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Clay, Robert

  Forrester, John

  240

  Foulkes, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  O'Brien, William

  George, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Golding, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Park, George

  Hancock, Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Patchett, Terry

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Pendry, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Penhaligon, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pike, Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Prescott, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Redmond, M.

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Robertson, George

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Rogers, Allan

  Johnston, Russell

  Rooker, J. W.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ryman, John

  Lambie, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leighton, Ronald

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Edward

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stott, Roger

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tinn, James

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wallace, James

  McWilliam, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Madden, Max

  Wareing, Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Welsh, Michael

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  White, James

  Martin, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Meacher, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Michie, William

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, contained in Cmnd. 9227.

  Defence

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Harbours, Docks, Piers and Ferries may be proceeded with until half-past Eleven o'clock, or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Harbour Development
10.27 pm
Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Harbour Development (Revocation) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 522), dated 8th April 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be revoked.
The motion concerns section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. The Government's order is to revoke section 9 of the 1964 Act, and is a further example of the Government's ideological obsession with competition and the total rejection of the public interests and investments that are involved in our major port industries.
The motion rejects past Tory policy on docks and harbours. The 1964 legislation was an implementation from the Rochdale inquiry into the nature of our major ports, which was started in 1962. It clearly exposed the tremendous under-investment and deplorable conditions in the port industries in the early 1960s. The inquiry recommended the development of a national ports plan, which would be necessary for the development of our ports, and which required the establishment of a National Ports Authority to see that those investment plans were implemented and our port facilities modernised.
The then Tory Administration fully accepted the recommendations of the Rochdale inquiry but were not prepared to introduce a National Ports Authority with the power to see that proper and adequate investment was put into our ports. Instead, the Government established the National Ports Council which was really an advisory body with no teeth—the Government later called such bodies quangos — but which could at least advise the Government on the various competing demands for investment that were made by the ports.
The problem of under investment and inadequate facilities in the ports in the 1950s and 1960s were exposed by Lord Rochdale. The problems of the 1980s and even the 1990s, as shown by the recent report of the National Ports Council, reflect the switch of United Kingdom traffic to a more European oriented traffic, and the problems of our major ports. For example, the 15 major ports that the Rochdale inquiry considered were then responsible for about 80 per cent. of the traffic. Today, the figure must be about 50 per cent. That highlights the great problem in our ports, of a tremendous overcapacity—of over 50 per cent.—not only in conventional port investment, but in the more modern container investment, as we are witnessing at present in the growth of some of the ports.
The other problem of the 1980s is the growth of the small wharfs, which the Jones-Aldington inquiry looked into. It was set up by a previous Tory Administration. It examined the difficulties of major ports competing with small wharfs. The third problem is that of a depressed price structure reflecting the excess capacity in our ports, the growing uncertainty of port future and—
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: I shall not give way. Past interventions by the hon. Gentleman have never been adequate.
Previous Tory Administrations, flushed with the idea of competition, and usually in the first 12 months of office,
242
have argued that the industry must stand on its own feet, and must not receive subsidies. As we have said at this Dispatch Box before to previous Secretaries of State, ports such as London, Liverpool, the Cyde and so on all required resources and subsidies, and all received them later, with some form of adjustment in view of their labour requirements. The Government's desire for ports to stand on their own feet led to one Secretary of State abolishing the National Ports Council. I was a member of the Committee dealing with that Transport Act 1981 and on 12 March 1981, it was said:
"The Secretary of State will, therefore, retain his Harbours Act powers in order to ensure that in the ports industry we will not have speculative investment taking place in port facilities where there are no customers and where there are no firm arrangements to ensure that traffic is there to give the genuine potential for commercial return on the investment."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 March 1981; c. 944.]
Hence the reason why the Government felt it necessary — they gave an assurance about it to the House — to retain section 9 of the Harbours Act so that they could still assess the quality and quantity of investment in our port developments.
The order will accentuate the present problems in our ports. The Secretary of State, again within a few months of entering office, excited at getting his hands on the lever of power, and obsessed with the idealogical desire to see compensation introduced everywhere, announced in a speech in April 1984, at a diner of the British Ports Association that I attended:
"Our predecessors saw the ports as part of the infrastructure needing to be centrally planned, protected from so called 'wasteful' competiton, regulated by Government, with investment vigorously controlled by the state … We see the ports industry as a normal industry like any other. Ports can and should compete among themselves. We have made them compete with each other as well as the continental ports".
Here again is the belief that competition is the way to deal with excess capacity in the ports. That is the reason for the order. The Secretary of State is getting rid of his obligation and power of intervention. At the moment any port investment of over £3 million is considered by him.
This naive belief in the absolutism of competition shows an ignorance of port activities and of the industry. I shall give some examples. Felixstowe is a major non-scheme port, with tremendous growth in investment in containers. One must understand the operation of the grid system of charges, so that the Felixstowe port operators charge the same to the Clyde whisky producers to send a box of whisky from Scotland to Felixstowe as anyone sending goods from any yard outside the gates of Felixstowe. It cross-subsidises its charges to maximise the flow of containerisation through Felixstowe. To believe that a port can compete against that is sheer nonsense. The flow of charges that is geared by the container consortiums is designed to maximise the flow of traffic and reduce the advantages of ports near to them.
Mr. Christopher Chope rose——
Mr. Prescott: No, I shall not give way, as I do not have time to do so. I have only 10 minutes in which to present the Opposition's case and many Back-Bench Members wish to participate in the debate.
Secondly, any port with £100 million worth of investment has been required to secure a return on that public investment. Such a port cannot hope to compete with a small wharf with an investment requirement of only

243
£500,000. In the area that I represent, small wharfs have taken 2 million or 3 million tonnes of traffic from the major ports because the ports find it impossible to compete on the present terms.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State says that our ports should compete with continental ports. I wish that he had read the Touche Ross report, which was produced some years ago, which drew attention to the costs that British ports carry for dredging, rates and the police. These costs are not carried by continental ports.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: And the dock labour scheme.
Mr. Prescott: I shall deal with the dock labour scheme in a moment. It seems that Conservative Members are obsessed with it. If the hon. Gentleman listens to my other argumets he may learn something.
The charges that are carried by British ports are not borne by their continental competitors. The Touche Ross report assessed the difference that it would make to the charges of the ports of Bristol, Southampton and London if the costs were lifted. I have a copy of the report and so I shall be able to educate the hon. Gentleman. The report suggested that the charges in Bristol would be reduced by 32 per cent., by 44 per cent. in London and by 50 per cent. in Southampton. It is nonsense to talk about competition against the background of the costs which our ports have to bear. The Government should give consideration to the complaints that are made by ports when they are asked to compete within the Government's comparative philosophy.
The present excess capacity can only be made worse by the removal of the order. The Government must take account of the 50 per cent. over-capacity—that is the minimum in conventional containers within our port systems — and the applications that have been made under the order since 1979. I am informed by parliamentary answers that since 1979 there have been 51 applications to the Secretary of State that have involved £360 million. About 70 per cent. of the applications were granted and about 30 per cent. were rejected. Presumably judgment was exercised by the Government. I accept that some applications were withdrawn.
In 1979, the average application involved £3 million. From 1980 to 1983, the average value of each application was about 10 million. The most recent application, which seems to have sparked off the desire to get rid of the order, is from Felixstowe for a new container development, which involves £70 million. That would be a considerable investment. The application reveals the importance of the Government retaining control. It shows that there should be a body such as a national ports council or a national ports authority to give advice to the Secretary of State.
There is excess capacity in our ports and the scale of investment that Felixstowe envisages would have an effect on many ports, including Felixstowe. That is a judgment that should be taken into account. Such investment will require infrastructure investment in road and rail. We have a roads policy that is designed to provide roads to ports, but we have roads to ports that are not taking traffic and ports that are getting traffic that are demanding investment in roads. That will be the position in Falmouth, as everyone knows the shortcomings in the road-rail connection. A problem will be created and there will be
244
a demand for the Government to invest in infrastructure development. I do not pass judgment on the Falmouth investment, because I do not know enough about it. However, I believe that the Government have a duty to assess the obligation to provide public investment to accompany private decisions. There need to be balanced judgments. Therefore, it is a scandal for the Government to choose this moment to abdicate major responsibilities.
If the new investment further undermines existing port development, which many dockers and authorities fear, including those in Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, the fear will grow that the Government desire to withdraw from controls and regulations and from the possibilities of maintaining the dock labour scheme. It is feared that they desire to do so in the name of competition.
The Secretary of State said in April that it was his intention to eliminate the distortion. Does he believe that United Kingdom port costs are too high compared with those of our continental competitors? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will tackle the shipping conferences that fix the lines of export goods from the United Kingdom, about which shippers constantly complain? No, he does nothing about that. Does it mean that he will tackle the cross-grid pricing, which affects some ports disadvantageously, such as Felixstowe? No, he will not do anything about that. Will he tackle the unfair extra cost that United Kingdom ports carry compared to their continental competitors? No, there is not a sound from him about that.
It means that the Secretary of State intends to take on the costs of the dock labour scheme. It is the game of tackling what he sees as entrenched Labour trade union interest in the dock system and scheme. He would do himself a favour if he considered the Jones-Aldington report, which was accepted by a Tory Administration. It shows the difficulties that exist in the industry, and provides solutions to deal with them.
The Secretary of State seems to be giving a nod to those employers who wish to end the dock labour scheme and return to the conditions of the 1960s which Lord Rochdale condemned. If he thinks that the battle with the miners is bloody, so it will be with the dockers about the dock labour scheme. I wonder if the Minister will tell the House what the Government's intentions are regarding the conditions in the industry and the dock labour scheme.
The revocation of the Order is an abdication of Government responsibility, but it will not free them from the consequences of their actions. The problems facing our ports are as great as they were in the 1960s although they may be different in character.
The Government cannot disregard their duty to balance public and private investment within limited resources. The Government must retain control of the important developments of the interlink between water-borne transport and land-borne transport. The ports are an essential part of our economy, and the Government will soon regret their decision to abdicate responsibility for their development.
10.43 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke at length about the iniquities of revoking the section. It is worthwhile to look at the wording of the order to see the 19th-century language on which it is based.
The Harbours Act 1964 states:

245
"the Minister … may by order prohibit … construction … of a harbour."
How in 1984 can a Minister have an interest in prohibiting the construction of a harbour? As Opposition Members continually remind us, we have a high level of unemployment. Would they wish the Minister to prohibit commercial development, if that increased employment?
The Control of Harbour Development Order 1964, which was revoked, states:
"no person engaged in … harbour operations, shall undertake … any project … except under an authorisation … by the Minister."
That may have seemed appropriate when the order was made, but that is the language not of a modern industrial society but of Stalinism and Mussolini-type Fascism, in which all commercial decisions can be authorised only by the Minister representing the State. Therefore, I wholly commend the Minister's decision to revoke the Order.
In large parts of the United Kingdom our port industry has become totally ossified. We have one of the finest distribution systems for goods and services of any industrialised country, yet world opinion generally is that its quality is easily stopped at the ports.
To take the example of the port that I am proud to represent in part, the port of Bristol is struggling to make a living, partly because of the weight of capital debt and partly because, wherever it attempts to bring in new initiatives and to take the most advantage of transport infrastructure, and the fact of its long tradition as a port, it has to fight against the twin weight of trade union and governmental feeling that they have a right to a finger in every decision in every port. Those twin attitudes are holding back the development of our ports, and it is the revocation of part of that attitude that the Opposition are criticising.
Mr. Robert Parry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, with regard to the previous applications that were made for the building of a container terminal at Falmouth, that the port of Bristol opposed the proposal?
Mr. Stern: It is not surprising. The hon. Gentleman bears out my point. Bristol opposed it because people are still tied to a 19th-century attitude.
If it is possible for a commercial organisation to develop at Falmouth, or anywhere else in the country, I am delighted that the Minister has said that he will not stop such a venture from going ahead, that commercial criteria will apply, and that the private market must now make its own independent judgment of any proposals that come forward. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind, if he receives any requests from the city or from the port for the consideration of development to increase the infrastructure, the fact that my constituents, who are already paying for past mismanagement by Government and by the unions of the port of Bristol, will not wish to pay twice in their taxes for the infrastructure of another port. I should like some reassurance from the Minister on this matter. Since the Minister is correctly adopting a stand-off attitude towards ports, I hope that he will make sure that those ports pay for themselves, not only in terms of private investment but also in terms of any necessary public investment.
I see a great future for the ports of this country. I see a new spirit developing in the port of Bristol with a greater realisation of the commercial realities that, in order to survive, it has to trade profitably and more cheaply than
246
its competitors. I see a realisation developing that competition is to be encouraged rather than to be feared, as in the past.
I hope that the House and the Minister will reject the outdated and dangerous arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, because there is no future for the ports if we try to drag them back into the 1960s.
10.50 pm
Mr. Robert Parry: I support the excellent case put so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). My hon. Friend has a good knowledge of harbours, docks, piers and ferries, having represented Hull for many years and having for many years sailed from the port of Liverpool.
My hon. Friend visited the port of Liverpool earlier this year. He accompanied me. my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and other Liverpool Members to a meeting with senior management of the port of Liverpool and trade union representatives. He is well aware of the national position and also of the current feeling in Liverpool.
I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. As the name of my constituency denotes—Liverpool, Riverside—I represent a dockside area. My grandfathers, two of my brothers and numerous cousins and uncles worked in the docks for many years. Many of my friends and constituents also work there. I speak for the dock workers of Liverpool, because I know their feelings as they fear for their jobs. I am one of the few hon. Members in the House actually born in the dockland area, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Garston. In the words of the old Liverpool folk song "In my Liverpool Home", we were
"born in Liverpool down by the dock."
I am wholly opposed to the order, because it could open the floodgates to operators for harbour developments which would affect existing ports. It is essential that the Minister retains control over developments exceeding £3 million. There is a general agreement that there is overcapacity in existing ports. If the company called the Falmouth Container Terminal is given the green light to go ahead with the development of a container terminal at Falmouth, that will seriously affect all the major ports, especially London and Liverpool. The dock industry needs another container terminal like it needs a hole in the head.
During the past couple of years I have tabled a number of questions on the Falmouth application. I led a deputation of hon. Members and dock workers to meet the then Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre). We told him in no uncertain terms that the Merseyside dock workers and those at other ports were opposed to the application and that industrial action would be taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has clearly expressed the strong feelings of those employed in the industry. The present container terminal at Seaforth is heavily under utilised. It is no exaggeration to say that if that terminal is seriously affected it could mean a death blow for the port of Liverpool.
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has reported a profit of just under £6 million for 1983, following a loss of more than £9 million in the previous year. It is also in profit in the current year. It is nonsensical that the Government, through their abdication of powers, could be

247
responsible for the closure of any port after the money they have spent on severance payments to reduce the labour force.
The number of people employed in the port industry has declined. When the Government were elected in 1979, 63,500 people were employed on the docks. The latest figure, for March 1983, was 44,500, and that figure has since been greatly reduced. A written reply on 4 June showed that in the second quarter of 1979, Birkenhead and Liverpool had 5,406 registered dock workers. By the fourth quarter of 1983 that figure had been reduced to 2,126. At Hull there were 1,856 in the second quarter of 1979, but by the fourth quarter of 1983 there were only 973—a reduction by half. For Southampton the figures are 1,732 and 1,130 respectively. In Bristol the figures are 1,248 and, in the fourth quarter of 1983, 603. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) should bear those figures in mind. On the Clyde the figures are 542 and 260.
Those figures show how many jobs have already been lost in the ports in England and Scotland. No doubt some of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies could give the figures for London.
The severance payments that have been made to registered dock workers under the Jones-Aldington arrangements are staggering. From May 1979 to 30 April 1984, a total of £183,284,000 was spent. It is the economics of the madhouse to give the go-ahead signal to any private developer to exacerbate an already critical situation in the ports. The Harbours Act 1964 controls developments of new ports costing £3 million or more, and it could be argued that, with the industry in its present state, all new port developments should be covered by that legislation.
Uncontrolled developments of cargo-handling facilities over the past 15 years, both on small wharves and on a large scale, have had a dramatic adverse effect on the traditional ports and have made the present and future position of many of them so uncertain as to discourage investment in new plant and the proper maintenance of docks, quays and warehousing. Existing United Kingdom port facilities are, on recorded trends of average increases since 1972, sufficient to accommodate any future increase in traffic through our ports.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has just said—effectively, for the second time—that there is a surplus capacity of ports in this country. If there is a surplus capacity, why is he frightened of people setting up new capacity? Is it because the new capacity might be more efficient, more effective or cheaper, or provide a better service for the customer? If that is the case, why is he against it? What is so different about the ports which makes the hon. Gentleman opposed to investment in ports, whereas in the motor industry, or various other industries, he would favour new factories, new plants and new facilities?
Mr. Parry: I have made it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the dock workers, my union and my constituents. My constituency has the unenviable record of having the highest level of male unemployment in the United Kingdom—nearly 40 per cent.—and the effect of any dramatic closure or massive job losses in the docks on the port of Liverpool, the city of Liverpool and my
248
constituents would be tremendous. No case can be made for developments of new container terminals such as at Falmouth.
The development of facilities at existing United Kingdom ports has only been possible at the expense of other British ports and at the expense of unemployment for dock workers, which has made necessary Government financial intervention in an attempt to rectify a situation which may still lead to the collapse of one or both of our major ports—London and Liverpool.
That is the view of the national secretary of the docks and waterways group of the Transport and General Workers Union, who is au fait with the fears of the dock workers throughout England, Scotland and Wales.
It is not only the dock workers and the TGWU who are opposed to the Falmouth development. The Cornwall branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England is also opposed to it. Cornwall Transport 2000, the Falmouth Civic Society, the Falmouth Container Action Group, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Port of Bristol Authority are also opposed to it. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is watching the situation closely as, although the port is now viable, the recovery is fragile and the loss of any container traffic to a new container terminal at Falmouth or anywhere else would make its future insecure.
Loss of trade would mean that specialised equipment at the Seaforth terminal would be even more under-utilised. It is equipment which successive Governments and the taxpayer have helped to finance. Less work will lead to further surplus labour, the cost of which to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company approached £2 million in 1983. If ship owners switch their business from Liverpool to Falmouth the prospects of the newly created freeport would be seriously affected and the number of cargo owners who take advantage of the freeport status at Liverpool would be restricted. The port would not be capable of providing the tupe of service that industry in the north-west demands—I am thinking of large industrial complexes such as BICC, ICI and Pilkington Brothers, all of which are based near Liverpool.
The past year has been a period of stabilisation and consolidation for the port of Liverpool, and the proposed development at Falmouth or anywhere else would put those achievements at considerable risk. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is not here, as the Seaforth terminal is based in his constituency. I should have thought that he would be here. The Minister's decision shows that he has decided to abdicate his responsibility for making a decision on the Falmouth application and any other similar developments. He is acting like Pontius Pilate. He is washing his hands of his responsibilities by supporting the Government's policy of a free-for-all economy.
I conclude by quoting a letter written by Mr. John Connolly, the national secretary of the TGWU's dock and waterways group, dated 14 May. He says:
"We are convinced that the implications for workers in the ports industry arising from this decision are of a nature serious enough to warrant taking industrial action on a national scale if the developments at Falmouth commence."
At a recent meeting of the docks and waterways group national committee, a decision to that effect was taken. That is no idle threat. A few years ago I met some national shop stewards and workers. I knew their feelings then. I have since met them again, and they are extremely angry.

249
We could have serious trouble in the docks. Nobody wants a national dock strike. The Government certainly do not, and I am sure that neither the TGWU nor the port authorities want one. The Minister should seriously consider the warnings that have been given.
11.2 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: I wish to ask the Minister questions rather than to argue about this proposal. I must confess that, although I would not argue for no controls, I have always found that one of the most convincing arguments for investment, whether in Cornwall, Scotland, Liverpool or East Anglia, is people being prepared to put their money behind a project. That is not the only criterion, but one cannot help being impressed when people put their own money in.
The Falmouth harbour development does not fall within my constituency, although it is within the Carrick council of which I probably represent the largest portion here. Many of my constituents look across the bay towards Falmouth, so the development will probably affect my constituency as much as any other.
On the whole, I welcome any hope that Falmouth has for development. Hon. Members have spoken of unemployment in their constituencies, including the rate in Liverpool, and I agree that they are tragic figures, but they are not far short of the unemployment rates among men in Falmouth, of up to 30 per cent. We do not want a competition in agony by quoting our unemployment rates. The solution to Britain's unemployment problems does not lie in one area arguing with another. Instead, let us look at each proposal as it arises and say whether it is good or bad.
As hon. Members will be aware, what we are discussing revolves around the Falmouth Container Terminal Act 1971, a copy of which I managed to obtain after some difficulty. That is a remarkable measure which gives enormous permissions to the company; and many people in my constituency would like to see that great God-given natural resource, Falmouth harbour, developed so that it can provide employment for the community it serves, as all logic suggests it should.
That being the case, it is clear that many people are concerned about exactly what is being proposed for Falmouth. This is the biggest single planning application that may have affected the good county of Cornwall. Certainly it is the biggest in living memory that has affected the district of Carrick.
Consider some of the permissions that are given. The references to works states in works No. 1 that it can, for 1,250 ft north-east, build a pier and, on the end of that, for 1,200 ft north north-east, build another one. Under works No. 2, the pier is to be 1,050 ft north north-east, with another 300 ft north-east and another 2,200 ft east south-east. Apparently the second works terminate 200 ft south of the first works. One gathers that that is the gate through which the boats enter.
This is a massive development which would spread one third of the way from Falmouth across to St. Mawes. It cannot be dismissed out of hand, and a number of questions must be answered. In normal circumstances, one would expect such questions to be asked and answered under what one has understood to be the normal planning application procedure. Clause 14 of the 1971 Act gives the Minister power to demand an hydrographic study of the estuary. I gather that that provision in the Act still stands.
250
Such a study would reveal whether the estuary would silt up quicker or slower or not change at all. It would also show whether the sewage which Falmouth and Penryn produce—that would be from the landward side of this large obstacle—would succeed in clearing itself.
One must also consider the wildlife in the harbour. This whole river basin is an extremely beautiful area which already provides a considerable leisure industry, and one would expect it to provide more. Some believe that the harbour would provide work, but in, say, 25 years' time we could find more leisure jobs having been destroyed as a result of this development. I do not know the answer to these issues, and when my constituents question me about them, I have to admit that not only do I not know the answers but that, as matters stand, there is no way in which my local authority can take the necessary steps to obtain the information.
The Minister should conduct a full hydrographic study of the entire river basin. I am told that such a study might cost £300,000, but, relative to the damage that could be caused if the development went wrong, that might be a very small sum indeed. County and district councillors are beginning to express concern about the matter.
The 1971 Act was passed before I became a Member of the House, although I must confess to a degree of guilt in that it was renewed in 1980 and I was not aware of its full significance at that time. I had always assumed that the powers under the 1964 Act gave the community a longstop, an appeal to the Minister, so that the questions to which I have referred could be posed, considered and answered, followed by those giving the answers being questioned by the people concerned. Without that facility, there will remain a lingering concern on the part of the local community, a concern which will remain until their fears are proved to be false.
I have outlined my basic attitude towards what the Minister has done. However, there is some fear that protection for that beautiful area may be reduced. On the whole, I wish things well. If there was a public inquiry, I hope that answers would be provided to my questions. There would seem to be an employment opportunity in an area—Cornwall—that has the lowest wages in Great Britain. No doubt a good number of members of the Transport and General Workers Union would be employed, as that union is dominant in the area and does a good job for its members.
Therefore, there are questions to be asked. I am not being at all aggressive when I seek an assurance from the Minister. I suspect that tonight will be our last chance to discuss this issue on the Floor of the House before someone is halfway across Falmouth bay driving piles and digging large works. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that on behalf of the community of Cornwall and those who want to work in the docks and preserve the chance of earning a living in other areas, he will at least insist on a full hydrographic survey being made of the entire bay. Anything less than that would be inadequate compared with the damage that may be done.
11.12 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: Let us at least agree from the outset that the proposal to abolish the provisions of section 9 of the 1964 Act are consistent with the Government's general market philosophy. There is to be a "bonfire of controls", whether or not those controls are appropriate. It has been asked why the Government

251
should stand in the way of entrepreneurs who are prepared to risk their money in harbour developments, and possibly to create employment, regardless of whether there is excess capacity in our harbours. It seems to be said that the market should rule, without any qualification.
One has to concede that, under the current system, if there was no objection from the Government, the promoters could claim that they had Government approval for particular projects. The arguments thus adduced have a certain surface appeal, but I believe that the abolition of the current control beyond £3 million removes even the residual Government power to delay development for considerations of wider national implication, as argued strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). I believe that the Government have the wrong approach, and to some extent my views coincide with those of the British Ports Association. It shares that reservation, although I accept that it is not in favour of the basic concept of resource planning, on which the 1964 Act was based.
Section 9 can be a useful long stop in preventing major harbour developments which are irresponsible from a national viewpoint and damaging to other ports, and which could be undertaken by powerful and wealthy interests on a speculative basis. As Conservative Members have argued, harbour authorities are commercial bodies, but they are not just that. They share some of the characteristics of public utilities. A major port development that is financed by the market may have, as a consequence, substantial infrastructural investment that falls on public authorities. Therefore, the public has an interest in such developments. The questions posed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) are relevant in that context.
I shall briefly cite some examples that I have come across in my parliamentary experience. They show that the public interest may be ignored if the order is accepted. I think, for example, of the Bristol Portbury development in the late 1960s. I concede, of course, that the National Ports Council agreed that development at the time, in the face of much opposition, but it had a substantial effect on the ports of the then British Transport Docks Board in the Bristol channel, and substantial regional employment and strategic planning implications. All those are proper matters for public consideration. Now the burden of carrying that lame white elephant in the Bristol channel falls on Bristol's ratepayers.
Secondly, I think of the ferry terminal project at the Pembroke dock. In the mid-1960s, a company at the ferry port of Swansea, which is in my constituency, B and I, which is an Irish Government-owned company, decided to relocate from Swansea to Pembroke dock, and this was financed by money from the European regional development fund. It left public facilities, financed by the public, redundant at the ferry port at Swansea, with no customers for the past seven years or so. Clearly, there was a public interest that was worth airing and considering in this major port development.
Thirdly, there is Falmouth, which does not affect my port of Swansea. Swansea is far more affected by the smaller wharf developments in the Neath estuary — of the sort described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—which do not have to carry the overheads that Swansea does, and which
252
can have a substantially adverse affect on employment in my constituency. It is obvious that the deep sea container ports are worried by the development at Falmouth. I make no point on the merits of this development, but there are clear implications, if the development goes ahead, for road and rail infrastructure developments in the west country. For example, one would anticipate section 8 railway grants and other public subsidies and investments, which would arise directly as a consequence of allowing this project to go ahead.
All these examples are decisions in which the public interest is involved. The move to the market—letting the entrepreneurs risk their money where they will—is an illusion in harbour development. Clearly, in every case, there are public expenditure and regional implications that should not be ducked, whether that public investment decision be by section 8 grant, by road developments or by ERDF grants. Therefore, it is wrong to remove the possibility of state intervention, particularly at this time of excess capacity in our ports industry and to avoid the opportunity for a wider debate on the implications for the public interest.
11.17 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I can understand the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) being against the revocation of this order. He has a profound interest in a particular port. As a Member who has asked for money for Bristol, I am embarrassed when I have to remember that we are not sent here purely as constituency Members, but also in the national interest.
I find it extraordinary—although I understand what the hon. Gentleman says—that the Labour party cannot understand what has happened to the ports. What has happened to them is that there are fewer ships because there are bigger ships, and those ships have a far faster turnround, there are fewer cargoes to deliver because of the recession, there are shorter journeys, and the economic realities have meant the trade has moved from the west coast to the east coast, from break bulk to container and therefore there is less requirement for the facilities that the ports offer. We have a large number of ports, but some of them are not capable of taking the larger ships. We have too many ports—not too few. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) complained about the Conference line. I was a little baffled by that, because the Conference line does not necessarily put up port charges. It has semi-cartel system for fixing rates and sharing cargoes, even when it is uneconomic to send cargoes to certain ports. He ignored pilotage, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with it. The vast number of pilots have put up the cost to port users. However, I understand that that does not come under this measure.
Another reason for the very high cost of ports is the dock labour scheme. There is no way anyone can ignore that. It is obvious that the jobs for life system of the dock labour scheme has put up the costs of ports well beyond the cost to our continental rivals. Consideration should be given to increasing severance payments so that the number of dockers can be reduced; and new entrants as dockers should not come under the old scheme.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about the grid system as though it was a horrific idea

253
invented at Felixstowe. I can tell him, because he obviously does not know, that it is in operation at most other major ports in this country.
Mr. Prescott: So how do we get competition?
Mr. Sayeed: If the hon. Member wants an answer to that, it is very simple: there is competition because Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, operates efficiently and scheme ports do not. Despite having a narrow constituency interest, possibly, in keeping the order, I support its revocation because it is in the national good and I hope that this little measure is just a forerunner of the continued deregulation of ports and their progress to economic viability.
11.21 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and also the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), both of whom made speeches attacking their own port and its future. Let us make no mistake about it. This order, which will revoke the power of the Minister to control port development, will attack every scheme port in the country, not only Liverpool, but Bristol and others, especially those on the west coast, which trade not with Europe but with the rest of the world, because that is where the balance of our trade is.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West asked why the Minister should have power to prohibit the construction of harbour. I would ask why a Minister should have power to prohibit the construction of a motorway or why he should have power to prohibit anything which is anti-social. Of course Ministers should have power to take decisions on balance in relation to the public interest on harbours and motorways. The motorway analogy is not false, because the consequence of this order will be that an unnecessary container terminal will be built at Falmouth, on the wrong side of Britain. Because of the revocation of the order the Minister will not be able to prevent construction from going ahead, even though his predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) gave assurances on that when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I took a delegation to see him.
The building of the Falmouth terminal will affect Bristol, as it will affect Liverpool and Felixstowe. A large part of the port of Liverpool, including the container terminal and the grain terminal, is in my constituency. We took a delegation of dock shop stewards and others to see the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hall Green who gave one undertaking. He did not say that they would never give the go ahead for the Falmouth development but he said that it would have to justify itself if it was to get the go ahead on the basis of attracting new trade; not trade from other ports such as Liverpool or Bristol, but trade from the continent of Europe, for instance. I challenge the Minister to say clearly whether he has been given the undertakings that are necessary for that undertaking by the hon. Member for Hall Green to be borne out. I do not believe there is any chance of the Falmouth terminal, when it is built, surviving without attracting trade from Bristol and Liverpool.
The Government talk about competition and free enterprise. What has free port status granted to Liverpool by the Government got to do with competition and free
254
enterprise when Falmouth and Felixstowe do not have that status? We beat Felixstowe, thanks, we are told, to the intervention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside. They will not have freeports. If Falmouth terminal is built, the Government will destroy at a stroke any value which is attributable to the freeports and which has come to Liverpool. They will destroy the experiment. Any trade which Liverpool's freeport would have attracted will go to Falmouth, if it is to be a non-scheme port, or to other non-scheme ports. We need to know from the Minister whether Falmouth is to be such a port.
I clearly remember meeting the hon. Member for Hall Green, the then Minister, who was subsequently sacked by the Prime Minister. We put many arguments to him. I remember the chairman of the dock shop stewards, Dennis Kelly, asking whether there were any natterjack toads in Falmouth. He said that if there were the terminal would not be built, because natterjack toads are a protected species and one cannot build where they are. The environmentalists are much stronger and more powerful than the dock shop stewards, he argued. He is quite right. But, whether or not they are more powerful, the dockers and the Minister have made it clear that there will probably be a battle about the scheme and scheme ports and the protection that dockers enjoy under that scheme. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said from the Front Bench, the Government put the miners first, and they might put the dockers second. Dockers will not take that lying down. They will fight to protect their jobs and the scheme.
I want to know from the Minister whether the revocation of the order is the first step towards destroying the scheme. If it is, the Government are biting off far more than they can chew and they are taking on a lot more than they imagine.
The port of Liverpool is profitable and competitive. It is the slimmer, trimmer port. In its advertisements it is the slimmer, trimmer freeport. In co-operation with the trade unions — the TGWU and others — a lot of labour has been shed. The port has reduced its manpower dramatically. It is making a profit. It is doing everything for which the Government have asked and has implemented all the requests and taken into account the pilot studies done by consultants who came to the ports to find out what needed to be done. Tonight, the Government could be destroying at a stroke all that has been done by management, by the unions and by Governments, both Conservative and Labour.
One talks about why competition should matter, and why should there not be freedom of competition. If we destroy the port of Liverpool and take trade away from it to any extent, and if that trade goes to Falmouth or elsewhere, the port will be destroyed. The social consequences of suffering, job losses and public expenditure in the hinterland of Liverpool will be tragic and dramatic. The Government are playing with massive amounts of extra public expenditure as a consequence of establishing new freeports. We already have too many of them. The rules of a free market are not taken into account at all.
If we believe in a free market and free trade, let us import goods. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is a farmer, intervened earlier to attack subsidies. It is ironic that he talked about free competition. If we are in favour of free competition, let Britain buy food

255
where she can in the world, as cheaply as possible. Let us not have tariff barriers. Food could come in through Liverpool. There would be imports of cane sugar and rum from the Caribbean. Liverpool would not be in these difficulties if we truly believed in free competition. Labour candidates for the Merseyside West and Merseyside East constituencies did so well in the recent European elections because of the damage that restrictions and tariffs imposed by the Common Market did to the port of Liverpool.
If we talk about competition, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East did and about continental ports, we have only to consider Hamburg. I am all in favour of free and fair competition with the port of Hamburg. Let us have the conditions of the port of Hamburg in Liverpool. Let us have the dredging of the estuary, lighting, roads and footpaths and the policing paid for by the appropriate Government grant, in exactly the same way as in Hamburg, and even in Rotterdam. Let us have fair competition with European ports. We would attract much more trade away from Europe and into Liverpool and, if Falmouth is ever built—if the order goes through—into Falmouth, too.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) produced the classic Liberal argument: he is for Falmouth port if it works, but he is against it if it does not. I am against it whether or not it works; I am especially against it if it works, because the social consequences will be dramatic. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way to deal with unemployment in Falmouth, Merseyside and Bristol is not to play one area off against the other, or to offer one goodie to Liverpool, such as the free port, and another goodie to Falmouth, such as the new container terminal. We need a complete change in the economic and industrial policies of the Government, which means planning ports and docks policy. It means considering the direction of shipping—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh about the direction of shipping, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, the positioning of motorways and other infrastructure indirectly affects shipping, and the Government, who take such decisions about the direction of shipping——
Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting moving traffic from the east coast to the west coast. Does he recognise the difference in cost between sending a ship from the east coast to the west coast and sending a truck overland from east to west, whether or not there is a motorway? It would cost about £2,000 to £3,000 to get a ship round the coast, but a truck would cost only about £200.
Mr. Roberts: As I said, the arguments are fallacious, and I shall not examine them now, because I do not have time. There is already an indirect direction of shipping, and the free market ushered in by this order, which will distort the economy of our ports, could have severe social consequences, severe consequences for public expenditure, and could destroy everything that even this Government have done to develop the port of Liverpool. The consequences could be tragic not only for Liverpool and Bristol, but for every port in Britain, whether on the east or west coast. I hope that the House will oppose the order.
11.31 pm
Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is significant that the Secretary of State for Transport should be listening to this debate because, during the passage of the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, he was the most vociferous anti-dock worker from the Opposition Benches identified by the docks and waterways executive committee of the Transport and General Workers Union at that time. We must remove the arguments from Falmouth to what the Government intend for the docks industry and the ports transport industry. Falmouth may not be massively important to the future of the docks industry. However, having heard about the Secretary of State's performances in Committee, and the attitude of the Government to the National Dock Labour Board, it is clear that the Government wish to wreck the board's scheme. They have made it clear in every debate in the House that they intend to destroy the scheme.
In the post-war period, Liverpool failed to get the investment necessary to transform it from a long, winding river and estuary into a deep-water port, soon enough because those who controlled the destiny of the port had a vested interest. They were both the tenants and the landlords of the ports, as is true of all traditional British ports.
Before the war, some dockers were casual labourers. It was possible for about 24,000 registered dock workers to be on the stand every morning looking for work. Some 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of them might be employed and the rest would go home and sign on the dole. That situation prevailed in the ports before the National Dock Labour Board was introduced and established. No matter what arguments are used, it is clear that the Government want to return to the basis of casual labour in the transport industry. To break the back of those in the traditional ports, the establishment of new deep-water ports has been at the forefront of Governments' minds in the whole of the post-war period.
It is a question not only of Falmouth but of how the Government are proceeding to break the back of the trade unions in the docks industry, and therefore the back of the registered dock workers. The Government abhor and hate the National Dock Labour Board, and have made it clear on every occasion that the issue has been debated in the House. There was a struggle in the docks industry to establish civilised — not good — conditions compared with when thousands of dock workers presented themselves to be chosen, almost like animals, by the overseer. That is the sort of world that the Government want to return to. The Falmouth situation is a further opportunity of breaking the national ports structure and the National Dock Labour Board.
We should consider the number of jobs that have been lost in Liverpool. Sympathy constantly pours out by the train load from Conservative Benches. Since 1962, 12,000 jobs—nigh on 14,000 jobs if one goes back a year or two before that—have been lost in the docks industry, to registered dock workers. There are now fewer than 3,000 people employed as registered dock workers in the port of Liverpool. The consequence of the development of ports is that the country is now "overported".
The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) argued about competition. I wonder whether, if people start building factories in Liverpool, and if there is a new car industry on Merseyside, people will argue that that is part

257
of competition. People argue competition when it suits their ideological purpose. The docks industry in Merseyside has developed and the men have fought for better conditions, but the Government will add to the problems through the establishment of deep-water ports in other parts of the country.
The Government have contributed largely to the demise of Merseyside. The docks industry was central to its economy. The ancillary and related industries were attracted to the port because there was warehousing and transport. Advantages have been gained through co-operation by the Transport and General Workers Union, the union operating in the port for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Nothing should undermine that.
In Liverpool, there are six miles of derelict dockland and a major deep-water port at the mouth of the river that are now capable of dealing with modern container roll on, roll off systems and any system that is necessary in modern dock technology. There is no argument for further ports being developed. We are not against, nor should we be against, another port being established in any other part of the country, if it was essential, but it could be done only at the expense of traditional ports. They have already been run down, so that fewer people are employed there, and businesses related to the ports have gone. The whole economy of places such as Liverpool has been driven downwards because the port no longer plays an important part in the local economy. The Government are arguing that the development of ports should be given a free hand, but controls are not confined to ports, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said. There is planning control in many other sectors, and why should it not exist in the ports?
Registered dock workers are losing employment opportunities. For example, Glasgow is likely to lose 50 per cent. of its registered dockers. The losses are not confined to Liverpool, for they are to be found in all the traditional ports. They are suffering as a consequence of the Government's policies. It is clear that the Government have no concept of the real nature of the port and transport industry. It is clear also that the Government wish to establish a deep-water port at Falmouth and to undermine existing ports. Further, it is clear that they wish to undermine the National Dock Labour Board. It is their self-confessed ambition to do away with it.
I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I spent 28 years working in the transport industry. I can tell the Government that dockers hold sacred the retention of the board. If the Government feel, in spite of all that has been said, that they can undermine and eventually demolish the board, they will come up against the greatest possible opposition from registered dock workers and ancillary workers. We are faced with a serious attempt by the Government to undermine the scheme, to make further inroads into the registration of dock workers and to abolish the conditions which have been established over many years of struggle by dock workers and trade unions.
11.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I have two main reasons for rejecting the Opposition's motion. First, I believe that the fears which have been expressed are unjustified and exaggerated. I shall seek to illustrate why I take that view as I deal with a number of issues which
258
have been raised by individual hon. Members. Secondly, the debate has demonstrated the old-fashioned and outdated concepts which lie behind the Opposition's thinking on port policy.
We are an exporting nation, and we are facing cutthroat competition in world markets where we have to fight inch by inch to get opportunities to sell our goods abroad. It is essential that we should be in a position to enable our exporters to compete successfully. We suffer the disadvantage of being an island. Most of our raw materials have to come in from abroad as do many semifinished products. All our exports have to cross the sea. It is essential in an effort to protect jobs in manufacturing industry that we minimise cost disadvantages in going through ports and in suffering the penalty of being an island that is separated from its markets.
It is true that jobs in our exporting industries are dependent upon our ability to compete, and that means that we must have ports in the right place responding to the changing shipper requirements. The needs of ship operators, importers and exporters are changing constantly and it is impossible to foresee the right place in which future port developments should take place.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) hankered after the period of the Rochdale report. He is right to say that that report was the origination of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. That itself demonstrates the weakness of the assumption that Government, Ministers or committees can foresee where future port development should take place.
The Rochdale Committee foresaw a need to concentrate new port development on selected existing ports. In the intervening period the committee was proved to be wholly wrong. Ship sizes meant that ports had to move downstream to estuaries, which was not foreseen. Our entry into the European Community and the alteration in trading patterns meant that we had to develop ports on the east coast at the expense of ports on the west coast. None of that was seen at the time of the Committee. North sea oil meant that terminals have had to be built there. In its exhaustive inquiry, the Rochdale Committee lumped together Harwich, Parkeston Quay, and Felixstowe as minor ports, which did not matter nationally; and Dover was not even mentioned. Yet today Felixstowe is in the top half dozen container ports in Europe, and Dover is the busiest ro-ro port in Europe. In older parts of Liverpool, Preston, and in the upper London docks there have been unfortunate closures. In other words, the scene is constantly changing, and even the wisest Committee, sitting for the longest time and studying in the greatest depth, anticipated future needs wildly incorrectly.
The real question is: how do we determine whether, and if so when, changing demand warrants new investment? There are two basic options. Either one believes that there is a fountain of wisdom in the hands of Ministers—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East does not seem to think that there is such in my hands, nor even in the hands of the Secretary of State—or one relies on the investor, whether private or institutional, to decide whether a facility is missing so much so that it is worth the vast expenditure that is required today to develop new facilities.
I shall examine those propositions. Do hon. Members think that Ministers are better at investment appraisal than investors, and, if so, what is the evidence for it? Is it that Ministers should decide on political grounds and overrule

259
the market? Should Ministers defy the needs of a shipper to protect a constituency interest and, by so doing, saddle the exporter with higher costs than are necessary? The changes which hon. Gentlemen fear will not be made unless substantial cost savings can be made. New ports will not attract cargo unless it is cost effective to use them. The real risk is the fossilisation of yesterday's ports at the expense of competition for tomorrow. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was honest enough to recognise that what inevitably follows from what he sought is the direction of shipping. That view would not commend itself to many hon. Members, or to the shipping industry. The fundamental question that one cannot escape, about which hon. Members have expressed anxiety, is that, if a new port is to be developed, it will cost a substantial sum of money. That can be worthwhile to the investors only if it can attract substantial amounts of cargo. It can attract substantial amounts of cargo only if it can do it cheaper than the existing ports. That opportunity should be available to the exporters of the country so that the jobs of those who work in manufacturing industry can be protected by the opportunities to sell successfully abroad.
I deal next with some of the specific points raised. On the suggestion that new proposals would wreck existing ports, an existing port has major advantage, because its expenditure has been written off, and new investment will be expensive to service. There is a significant cost advantage where old investment has taken place to extend a new port or to create a new port. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also argued that at present there is excess capacity, and it can only be made worse by the order. He illustrated that by saying that some 30 per cent. of applications had been rejected, or withdrawn, over a particular period. I am sorry to say that the facts do not bear him out. Over the last 20 years, there have been 200 applications and, I repeat, only seven refusals. In the past five years, 23 applications have been authorised, and one has been refused. The last Labour Government were more generous, because they authorised 46 approvals, and only one was refused. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the context of the answer at which I observe he is now looking, he will find that it refers to the proportion of investment that required Government approval. There is, of course, a large amount of investment which takes place without its coming within the gamut of being over £3 million and, therefore, requiring the application of section 9. It is that reason which has led the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) expressed the hope that any infrastructure costs on new port development at Falmouth would not fall on the taxpayer. The promoters envisage most traffic being trans-shipped by sea or going by rail. They plan to pay for certain improvements to the Falmouth branch railway and, if the development goes ahead, the traffic that it would bring in would be good news for the future of railways in Cornwall.
On roads, the promoters have been told that, in view of the trans-shipment basis of the project, my right hon. Friend would not expect to approve any increased expenditure on highways in the area solely on account of the terminal development. It will be for the Cornwall county council, as highway authority, to decide within its
260
transport programme and policy the priorities that it sees for any road improvements which might become necessary in the course of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) raised the question of pilotage, and asked whether I would deal with this in the course of a few minutes. One thing that I have learnt about pilotage is that one cannot deal with its problems in the course of a few minutes. I therefore hope that the House will forgive me if I go on to the points that were raised by my hon. Friend on the subject of the dock labour scheme. I fear that he was only exposing the growing pressure for change in the scheme, and the growing anxiety about the situation in a number of scheme ports.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), who has tabled a number of questions on the matter, referred to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's turn-round from loss to profit. I agree that that has occurred. I take this public opportunity to congratulate the board on its success. I visited the port recently, and was impressed by the work that it is doing. He expressed fears that the needs of north-west industry would not be satisfied if the Falmouth terminal trade went on through to Liverpool. I cannot visualise cargo being landed at Falmouth to be dragged all the way across the country to satisfy needs in the Liverpool and Merseyside area. It is not in the realm of reality to express that fear.
The hon. Member for Bootle said that he did not believe that it was viable for Falmouth to go ahead without attracting trade from Liverpool. I have tried to deal with that point already. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) raised a point about Falmouth, which has been raised with me by several other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). Section 9 is seen by many hon. Members as a protection against imprudent investment. The real danger for future port investment is that it would be artificially distorted by a section 9 authorisation, seen as a sort of royal appointment guaranteeing good product. That is not so. The removal of section 9 means that now promoters of new ports must convince investors —unaided by the spurious aura of Government backing—that the scheme is viable and will pay for itself.
Falmouth is a significant matter that has been considered by the House in the past, and it would not be right for me to raise the whole matter again tonight.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 235.

Division No. 376]

[11.56 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

Alton, David

Caborn, Richard

Anderson, Donald

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Thomas

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Clay, Robert

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clwyd, Ms Ann

Barnett, Guy

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Bell, Stuart

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

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

Corbyn, Jeremy

Blair, Anthony

Craigen, J. M.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Crowther, Stan

Boyes, Roland

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunningham, Dr John

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

261

Deakins, Eric

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dewar, Donald

Martin, Michael

Dobson, Frank

Maxton, John

Dormand, Jack

Meacher, Michael

Douglas, Dick

Meadowcroft, Michael

Dubs, Alfred

Michie, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mikardo, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Eastham, Ken

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Ellis, Raymond

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Ewing, Harry

O'Brien, William

Fatchett, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Park, George

Fisher, Mark

Parry, Robert

Flannery, Martin

Patchett, Terry

Forrester, John

Pavitt, Laurie

Foulkes, George

Pendry, Tom

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Pike, Peter

Golding, John

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Gould, Bryan

Prescott, John

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Redmond, M.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Haynes, Frank

Robertson, George

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rogers, Allan

Home Robertson, John

Rooker, J. W.

Hoyle, Douglas

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Janner, Hon Greville

Skinner, Dennis

John, Brynmor

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

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Spearing, Nigel

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Stott, Roger

Lambie, David

Strang, Gavin

Leighton, Ronald

Straw, Jack

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Litherland, Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wareing, Robert

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Welsh, Michael

Loyden, Edward

Wigley, Dafydd

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Williams, Rt Hon A.

McKelvey, William

Winnick, David

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McNamara, Kevin

McTaggart, Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

McWilliam, John

Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Allen McKay

Madden, Max

Marek, Dr John

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Alexander, Richard

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Amess, David

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Ancram, Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Arnold, Tom

Bright, Graham

Ashby, David

Brinton, Tim

Ashdown, Paddy

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Aspinwall, Jack

Brooke, Hon Peter

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Bruce, Malcolm

Baldry, Anthony

Bruinvels, Peter

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Buck, Sir Antony

Batiste, Spencer

Budgen, Nick

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Burt, Alistair

Beith, A. J.

Butcher, John

Bendall, Vivian

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Benyon, William

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Berry, Sir Anthony

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Carttiss, Michael

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Cash, William

Body, Richard

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Chapman, Sydney

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Chope, Christopher

Bottomley, Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

262

Cockeram, Eric

Lang, Ian

Conway, Derek

Latham, Michael

Coombs, Simon

Lawler, Geoffrey

Cope, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Couchman, James

Lee, John (Pendle)

Crouch, David

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dicks, Terry

Lester, Jim

Dorrell, Stephen

Lilley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Dover, Den

Lord, Michael

Dunn, Robert

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Durant, Tony

Maginnis, Ken

Dykes, Hugh

Major, John

Emery, Sir Peter

Maples, John

Fallon, Michael

Mather, Carol

Farr, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Favell, Anthony

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fletcher, Alexander

Miscampbell, Norman

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Forman, Nigel

Montgomery, Fergus

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Moore, John

Forth, Eric

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Fox, Marcus

Neubert, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Normanton, Tom

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Norris, Steven

Freeman, Roger

Page, John (Harrow W)

Gale, Roger

Parris, Matthew

Galley, Roy

Pawsey, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Penhaligon, David

Goodlad, Alastair

Porter, Barry

Gorst, John

Powley, John

Gregory, Conal

Raffan, Keith

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Ground, Patrick

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Grylls, Michael

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Gummer, John Selwyn

Rifkind, Malcolm

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hampson, Dr Keith

Rowe, Andrew

Hanley, Jeremy

Ryder, Richard

Hannam, John

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Sayeed, Jonathan

Harvey, Robert

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Haselhurst, Alan

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hayes, J.

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hayhoe, Barney

Shersby, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Silvester, Fred

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Henderson, Barry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Hind, Kenneth

Speed, Keith

Hirst, Michael

Spencer, Derek

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Holt, Richard

Squire, Robin

Hordern, Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howard, Michael

Steen, Anthony

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

Stern, Michael

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Howells, Geraint

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Sumberg, David

Hunter, Andrew

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Jackson, Robert

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Terlezki, Stefan

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Key, Robert

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Kirkwood, Archy

Thornton, Malcolm

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Tracey, Richard

Knowles, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Knox, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Lamont, Norman

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

263

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Whitfield, John

Viggers, Peter

Whitney, Raymond

Waddington, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas

Walden, George

Wolfson, Mark

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Wood, Timothy

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Woodcock, Michael

Wallace, James

Yeo, Tim

Waller, Gary

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Warren, Kenneth

Watson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Watts, John

Mr. Douglas Hogg and

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Question accordingly negatived.

Harbour Development
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 10 May, be approved. —[Mr. Mather.]

  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1984, which was laid before the House on 22 May, be approved. —[Mr. Mather.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents.)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    NUCLEAR ENERGY
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11753/82 and Addendum 1, 8914/83, 7456/83, 7491/83, and 7937/83; and fully supports appropriate cost effective measures that will help to minimise the Community's dependence on imported oil and encourage the safe, economic and secure development of nuclear power.—[Mr. Mather.]
    Question agreed to.

Power Stations (Coal)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
12.7 am
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the transportation of coal to the Drax and Eggborough power stations through the town of Knottingley in my constituency. During the day, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have been getting rather excited at the thought of the debate being something to do with the coal strike but, unforutnately, I have had to disappoint them as it is nothing to do with the strike.
I should have thought that it would have been much better, rather than having to detain the House now, if the Minister had felt able to meet me with representatives of West Yorkshire county council when I twice requested him to do so. He saw no useful purpose in doing so, so I had no alternative but to raise the matter now.
In my first letter to the Minister of State, Department of Transport, on 6 March I gave the detailed history of events that have led to the present unsatisfactory circumstances. For the information of the House, I shall present similar information tonight.
In letters, I informed the Minister that both traffic delay and environmental problems at Womersley road level crossing, Knottingley, had given rise to considerable concern for many years. In the mid-1970s, for instance, 120 trains a day used the crossing, of which about seven were MGR trains to and from the Drax and Eggborough power stations. Those train movements meant that, on average, the barriers were closed for 21 per cent. of the time, with the average closure time being two and a half minutes. In that period, about 2,500 vehicles were using Womersley road in a 10-hour day, of which about 25 per cent. were heavy goods vehicles.
The Minister will recall that I have informed him since then of two major issues which have affected the situation. First, following a major public inquiry, planning permission was granted in March 1976 for the development of the Selby coalfield, subject to the planning condition that all coal to the power station was transported by rail. Secondly, in July 1977, the decision was taken to develop the Drax B coal-fired power station.
At that time it was anticipated that the introduction of the second phase of Drax would lead to an increase of 33 per cent. in the number of MGR train movements through Knottingley and that the corresponding increase in closure times, together with the increase in road traffic flows due to new developments south of the railway, would seriously aggravate the already difficult situation at the level crossing. In addition, it was clear that train movemets of the volumes envisaged would considerably increase problems in residential areas adjacent to the rail corridor.
My investigations revealed that a meeting was held in April 1978 between the West Yorkshire county council and the CEGB to discuss the problems at Womersley road and possible solutions. Subsequently, a number of reports on the transportation issues involved were considered by the county council between July 1978 and August 1980. At that time numerous meetings were held and approaches made to other agencies involved. These included the then Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Energy

265
and the chairmen of the British Rail Board, the National Coal Board and the CEGB. All were unable to help with the problems identified at Knottingley.
A major option raised was the provision of a new, more direct link from the Selby coalfield drift mine at Gascoigne wood to the Drax power station, completely avoiding Knottingley. A number of alternative alignments for this link, utilising significant track lengths near Selby, were considered. A later option raised was for a rail bypass to the south of Knottingley avoiding Womersley road and major residential areas.
In August 1980, the county council's transportation committee resolved to share with other agencies the cost of an impartial study, to be undertaken by the institute of transport studies at Leeds university. The other agencies supporting the study were the British Railways Board, the CEGB, the NCB and North Yorkshire county council.
The report of that study found that delays and environmental intrusion resulting from rail traffic would worsen in Knottingley in the period 1980 to 1988, that the most serious effects would be that delays at the level crossing would increase by 50 per cent. and that the percentage of local trips within Knottingley affected by the delays would increase from 31 per cent. to 40 per cent. Further, noise and vibration effects from rail traffic would increase for well over 100 properties. The report concluded, however, that there was no viable alternative to the worsening environmental conditions in Knottingley along the rail route other than re-routing coal trains via Selby or providing a rail bypass at Knottingley.
A recommendation in the study was that the West Yorkshire county council should investigate the possibility of providing a new road over the rail bridge at Womersley road, and a subsequent investigation found that the bridge could not be justified. The reason given was that it would lead to new noise intrusion, would introduce an unwelcome new visual feature, and additional land and property would be required.
The county, however, is currently preparing a cost-benefit analysis for the southern rail bypass of Knottingley. The problem here is with finance, since BR and the NCB have not shown a willingness to assist. The issue has already been raised informally by West Yorkshire county council with the EEC, which has stated that the rail bypass does not meet its criteria and so would not commend itself for transport infrastructure funding.There would appear to be no other likely source of EEC funds.
We are therefore faced with deteriorating conditions in Knottingley, as evidenced by independent studies and significant local concern. There is no sign of any help to improve the situation, which will deteriorate as Drax power station is developed. Eventually the problems will be present 24 hours a day and will continue well into the next century.
I regret that the Secretary of State for Transport has left the Chamber, but the House may recall that in a statement on the Serpell report on 24 October 1983, he referred to the objectives set for chairmen, and said:
"This does not rule out the board proposing changes locally, where they make sense …The Government believe that rail freight has strong environmental advantages over road freight, so we want as much freight as possible to go by rail … The board's plan envisages an increase in investment from present levels. I shall support worthwhile investment which relates directly to the financial and business objectives that we have set." —[Official Report, 24 October 1983, Vol. 47, c. 39.]
266
I should have thought that. BR's income over the next 60 years fell into that category. Given that, I should also have thought that my request for a meeting to discuss the problem would have been received and accepted by the Minister and the Department. I was very disappointed that the Minister thought that a meeting would serve no useful purpose. I was certainly surprised that in his letter to me dated 18 May 1984, the Minister should suggest that the Government
"can play no direct part in resolving the issue".
The Government give specific approval for all major capital projects by BR and all transport projects over £1 million promoted by the county council.
I understand that the Government have recently managed to speed up considerably their response time to project requests from BR, and to be fair, I also understand that the Minister has been largely responsible for that improvement. As that has been achieved by good prior consultation between BR and the Department of Transport, the Government will have to be involved at some stage with such a project — and will have to approve it in the end.
Similarly, if a new piece of railway line has to be constructed, a private Bill has to be promoted. Et is inconceivable that this is a matter that would not concern the Minister, the Department of Tranport and the Government. At the very least, departmental non-objection is required, and in practice, approval and support are needed. I am astounded that the Minister feels that this is not a matter for Government and should be left to the county council and British Rail. The Selby mine and Drax power station—the major producers and consumers of coal going through Knottingley—are both of national significance, and both were approved after consideration at highest Government levels. The planning application, accepted by the Secretary of State, specified rail as the method of movement for all coal coming from Selby.
It astounds me that the Minister can now suggest that the Government have no responsibility for the consequence of these decisions—especially as both the mine and the power stations are in North Yorkshire, and thus their rates go to North Yorkshire county council, but the problem is formulated in west Yorkshire.
It is interesting to compare the Minister's hands-off approach to the Department of Transport' attitude to road investment, some 10 million tonnes of coal will be moved from Selby to Drax. If this were to be carried in lorries, a traffic flow of 400 of the heaviest lorries per hour would be generated. The environmental impact of such a flow on a trunk road would understandably trigger the Department of Transport into providing a road bypass for a town such as Knottingley, and the Department of Transport would provide the funding.
Surely the rail network is like the trunk road network—a national and not a local responsibility. I suggest that the Department of Transport should take action to deal with: his environmental problem on rail in the same way that it would deal with a similar environmental nuisance on road—by building a bypass. This is a national responsibility. It means that more than 10 million tonnes of coal a year will be going through Knottingley for the next 60 years, with all the financial income going to British Rail and the National Coal Board. Is it not reasonable that a mere £4 million to £5 million should be provided by the Government to solve what has become an intolerable environmental problem for the town?

267
I have had meetings with British Rail eastern division officers, local branches of ASLEF and the NUR and West Yorkshire county council, all of whom support this scheme. Some 180 coal trains will be going through the town of Knottingley each year for up to 60 years. They will almost be going through people's back doorsteps, so one can appreciate the great and serious problem facing the town. Some of my constituents already have to put up with the rail depot. We accept it, but it causes problems of noise for those living near. Their environment is heavily affected. So far, British Rail has refused to provide double glazing or a sound barrier such as that for these people.
I hope that, if the Minister cannot give an assurance that he will assist with this great problem, for a mere £4 million to £5 million—which is small compared to the sums spent on the Selby coalfield and the Drax power station—to alleviate this problem over many years, he will at least consider my request and agree to meet me and representatives of the West Yorkshire county council to discuss the matter further.
12.24 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) explained to the House that he was raising this matter because I had declined his request to receive a deputation. I assure him that no discourtesy was intended to him, but I have no locus in the matter. I would not wish to bring him and a deputation to London for no useful purpose. I shall explain to the House my reason for saying that.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the kind of inherent conflict between the interests of the different modes of transport which have existed for a very long time but which have recently been exacerbated by the general growth in vehicular traffic and in this case by an increase in railway freight activity. Where level crossings are concerned, there are unfortunately rarely any easy solutions. The hon. Gentleman has explained to the House that there are problems about the level crossing and about the noise and environmental effect on those who live close to the line. He has also pointed out that an increase in the intensity of use of a particular railway line means that people living in close proximity to it will be exposed to noise or vibration more frequently than before.
I have already acknowledged to the hon. Gentleman that it is understandable that some of his constituents do not welcome increased levels of coal traffic on the railway line close to their homes, but it should be understood that it is a situation which is not peculiar to Knottingley. Indeed, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he sat behind my desk and read my post he would find that there are complaints by people about noise when there is a change in the pattern of rail traffic in any area.
Variations in the patterns of rail traffic, as British Rail responds to the changing needs of its customers, must inevitably lead to alterations in the amount of noise or vibration experienced by people living close to the lines involved. Sometimes the changes lead to a reduction in the levels of disturbance and in others to an increase. I think it would be appropriate for me to remind the House of the procedures available to those who feel that they suffer from disturbance as a result of increased rail operations.
Mr. Lofthouse: Can the Minister tell the House if there is anywhere else in the country that has 180 trains per day and 10 million tonnes of coal per year going directly down the middle of a small town on people's doorsteps? I very much doubt that.
Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall endeavour to cover the points that he has raised.
Powers are available under part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to control noise from fixed premises including land and, therefore, railways. Action may be taken under the Act by local authorities, and individual occupiers of affected premises through the magistrates courts. For the purposes of part HI of the Act, "noise" includes vibration.
Under section 58 of the Act, once a local authority is satisfied that a noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, it may serve on the person responsible a notice, which is enforceable in the magistrates court, requiring the abatement of the noise or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence. In practice, the local authority will very often discuss the matter informally with the person responsible for the noise to see whether a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at without the need to resort to legal action.
Under section 59 of the Control of Pollution Act, it is also open to an individual who is bothered by noise affecting his home to complain direct to the magistrates court, which has the power to make and enforce an order with similar effect to that of a local authority's notice, once it is satisfied that noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to recur. Clearly, that applies in this case. However, in fairness to the House, I should point out that it is a defence in proceedings under the Act relating to noise caused in the course of a trade or business to prove that the "best practicable means" has been taken to prevent, or counteract the effect of, the noise. However, because BR is a statutory undertaker the test of the defence of "best practicable means" will always apply only so far as is compatible with the duties imposed on the railway.
In the case of the railway line in the vicinity of Womersley Road, Knottingley, I understand that the total of train movements is in the region of 20 per cent. above that of 10 years ago. It is the concern over this measure of increase which has led the West Yorkshire county council to look at ways of alleviating the problems to which such growth can give rise.
I am well aware, from correspondence that has passed between the hon. Member and myself, that one solution proposed was to replace the level crossing at Womersley Road with a road bridge over the railway. However, it is now being suggested that the railway should be rerouted to the south of Knottingley. I have to say, though, that such a proposal must be considered in the light of the practical operating constraints acting on British Rail. Even if the coal trains which currently use Womersley Road level crossing were to be diverted on to a new line bypassing Knottingley, the existing line would have to continue to handle traffic to the wagon repair yard and motive power depot, and also to a number of sidings, works and warehouses in the vicinity of Knottingley.
Although the proposal could well result in a reduction of rail traffic on the line crossing Womersley Road, it would not eliminate it altogether. The elimination of coal traffic would certainly reduce the level crossing delays, and at the same time bring about a reduction in

269
environmental disturbance to those people living close by the existing railway line. But British Rail would still be committed to maintaining the existing line, and it would have the considerable expense of building and maintaining a new line.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there were 120 trains a day in 1975, which is a considerable number, although much below the level of traffic on a main line. In the past nine years, that figure has increased by 25 trains a day. I am not unsympathetic, but the problem is very familiar to many city dwellers who live near to railway lines and who have far greater volumes of traffic to contend with.
The arguments that have been put forward in favour of making resources available from national funds to ease these local problems by building a new bypass line misunderstand the real position. Let me remind the House of relevant points in the framework of our policy for the railways. These principally revolve around value for money and efficiency. We must bear that in mind very carefully tonight. Only last year, in its corporate plan, British Rail set itself a series of important objectives, backed up by action plans by which they were to be achieved. Its guiding principle was to run an efficient railway, providing its customers with good value for money, while at the same time reducing its call on public funds.
With regard to the freight sector, which BR is determined to run as a commercial business, it is of course paramount that rates and charges should be as competitive as possible if traffic is to be secured from rivals. Reducing costs obviously plays an essential role in that. Let us make no mistake about it; BR faces severe competition for its freight traffic, particularly from road haulage.
Mr. Lofthouse: British Rail does not compete on this line, because the planning conditions for Selby coalfield are based on the coal being moved by rail. So, British Rail does not face competition in that area.
Mr. Mitchell: British Rail faces fierce competition for freight throughout its freight network, although not on this route because of the planning consent to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, it is in direct competition with roads throughout its freight network, apart from on this section.
There is not a monopoly for the carriage of freight by rail. British Rail has to compete successfully with other hauliers. The freight managers of British Rail have to consider costs and expenditure throughout the system, including the town where the hon. Gentleman lives, in order to keep its expenditure down and to be able to compete successfully. If it does not do so, costs will rise, British Rail will not be able to compete successfully and
270
more freight will go in juggernauts through our villages and towns, on unsuitable roads. The Government are trying to get freight shifted on to the railways. It can be shifted successfully on to the railways—we are using section 8 grants generously to try to achieve that—only if the railways are competitive. They cannot be competitive if they incur expenditure on building new lines that duplicate existing ones.
It makes obvious sense for bulk traffic, such as coal, to be carried by rail, provided that the charges for that transport make economic sense for British Rail's customers. The National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board and their customers want the lowest possible transport charges if their costs are lo be kept to a minimum. If that cannot be achieved, the likelihood is that jobs in those industries, as well as on the railways, will be put at risk. The House will agree that the railways offer by far the best option for the transport of coal, and no hon. Member would wish to see the alternative — a vast increase in the amount carried by road.
The Government have no wish to see that. Indeed, we are fully conscious of the great environmental benefits that can be obtained by removing heavy lorries from unsuitable roads. As the House will know, we make available section 8 grants with that in mind.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was for me to decide on investment. There is a misunderstanding here, which is important to the issue in front of us. British Rail proposes investment, and I and the Department vet those proposals and approve or disapprove them. It proposes, and I dispose. The initiative does not rest with me, but with British Rail, which is why the hon. Gentleman should make his representations to it, not to me. If that results in British Rail coming forward and saying that it wishes to have investment involving expenditure on a bypass at the hon. Gentleman's town, that would come to me for consideration and approval
At that point I should be happy to receive the hon. Gentleman and any deputation he may care to bring. However, it would be wrong for me to mislead him and for the deputation to travel all the way to London to see me when I have no locus in the matter. That was why —it was no discourtesy to him, his constituents or those concerned—that I suggested that it would not be helpful for me to receive the deptutation that he had in mind ——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

WALES
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Hotel Development (Grants)
  Hotel Development (Grants)
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Misleading Advertising
  Misleading Advertising
  Centre for Applied Microbiology
  Centre for Applied Microbiology
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Leicester (Grants and Assistance)
  Leicester (Grants and Assistance)
  Regional Development Grants
  Regional Development Grants
ENERGY
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Enterprise Oil
  Enterprise Oil
TRANSPORT
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  MOT Tests
  MOT Tests
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Control of Harbour Development (Revocation) Order 1984
  Control of Harbour Development (Revocation) Order 1984
  Planning Applications (Rest and Refreshment Facilities)
  Planning Applications (Rest and Refreshment Facilities)
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Dartford Tunnel
  Dartford Tunnel
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Scallops (Irish Sea)
  Scallops (Irish Sea)
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Monkeys
  Monkeys
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Islamic Fundamentalism
  Islamic Fundamentalism
  Aberchirper
  Aberchirper
  Freedom of Information
  Freedom of Information
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  EC Prime Ministers (Meeting)
  EC Prime Ministers (Meeting)
  Civil Servants (Benefits)
  Civil Servants (Benefits)
  Barking Hospital (Dispute)
  Barking Hospital (Dispute)
  Ministers (Support Staff)
  Ministers (Support Staff)
ENVIRONMENT
  Capital Expenditure (Construction Industry)
  Capital Expenditure (Construction Industry)
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Isle of Dogs (Housing)
  Isle of Dogs (Housing)
  Heron Wharf (Docklands)
  Heron Wharf (Docklands)
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Berry Head Seabird Colony
  Berry Head Seabird Colony
  Gipsy Encampments (Greater London)
  Gipsy Encampments (Greater London)
  Construction Products (Draft Directive)
  Construction Products (Draft Directive)
  Architectural Qualifications
  Architectural Qualifications
  Voluntary Bodies (Funding)
  Voluntary Bodies (Funding)
  Hotel Development
  Hotel Development
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Homeless Households
  Homeless Households
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  16-plus Examination
  16-plus Examination
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Open University
  Open University
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Schools (Parental Influance)
  Schools (Parental Influance)
  Elsted Village School
  Elsted Village School
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  "Training for Jobs"
  "Training for Jobs"
  Schools (Pupil Numbers)
  Schools (Pupil Numbers)
  Schools (Bradford)
  Schools (Bradford)
  Unemployed Persons (Further Education)
  Unemployed Persons (Further Education)
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Engineers
  Engineers
  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Pickup Scheme
  Pickup Scheme
  Student Unions (Payments)
  Student Unions (Payments)
  Secondary Schools (Liverpool)
  Secondary Schools (Liverpool)
  School Curriculum (Technical Element)
  School Curriculum (Technical Element)
  New Technology
  New Technology
  Workers Educational Association
  Workers Educational Association
  Students (Curriculum)
  Students (Curriculum)
  Itinerants' Children
  Itinerants' Children
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  University Students
  University Students
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
EMPLOYMENT
  EC (Employment Schemes)
  EC (Employment Schemes)
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Coal Industry (Unemployment Benefits)
  Coal Industry (Unemployment Benefits)
  Footwear Industry
  Footwear Industry
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Departmental Staff (Supplementary Benefit)
  Departmental Staff (Supplementary Benefit)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Red Grouse
  Red Grouse
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Television Licence Duty (Evasion)
  Television Licence Duty (Evasion)
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  BBC (Sporting Events)
  BBC (Sporting Events)
  British Citizenship
  British Citizenship
  Television Licensing
  Television Licensing
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  United States Service Men (Drink Offences)
  United States Service Men (Drink Offences)
  Metropolitan Police (Firearms)
  Metropolitan Police (Firearms)
  Firearms (Illegal Trafficking)
  Firearms (Illegal Trafficking)
  Firearms Offences
  Firearms Offences
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Western European Union Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  Western European Union Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
DEFENCE
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Monkeys (Experiments)
  Monkeys (Experiments)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Staffing Inspector
  Staffing Inspector
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Estate Rate Heating Additions (Glasgow)
  Estate Rate Heating Additions (Glasgow)
  Local DHSS Office with Addresses covered
  Local DHSS Office with Addresses covered
  Alcoholic Drinks (Health Warnings)
  Alcoholic Drinks (Health Warnings)
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Home Place Convalescent Home
  Home Place Convalescent Home
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  North-West Regional Health Authority (Bad Debts)
  North-West Regional Health Authority (Bad Debts)
  Rest Homes
  Rest Homes
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  NHS Administrators
  NHS Administrators
  Health Programmes (Expenditure)
  Health Programmes (Expenditure)
  Nurses (Training)
  Nurses (Training)
  Nurses (Duties)
  Nurses (Duties)
  Manpower Audits
  Manpower Audits
  Manpower Targets
  Manpower Targets
  Patients (Readmittance)
  Patients (Readmittance)
  Community Programmes
  Community Programmes
  Prescriptions (Charges)
  Prescriptions (Charges)
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Departmental Office (Glasgow)
  Departmental Office (Glasgow)
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Competitive Tendering
  Competitive Tendering
  Monkeys (Experiments)
  Monkeys (Experiments)
  Heroin Addiction (London)
  Heroin Addiction (London)
  Provision for Retirement (Inquiry)
  Provision for Retirement (Inquiry)
  Camberwell Resettlement Unit
  Camberwell Resettlement Unit
SCOTLAND
  Torness Nuclear Power Station
  Torness Nuclear Power Station
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Patients
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Patients
  Output and Productivity
  Output and Productivity
  Hotel Development
  Hotel Development
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Blackburn Orlit Houses (West Edinburgh)
  Blackburn Orlit Houses (West Edinburgh)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Advice Services (Funding)
  Advice Services (Funding)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreign Debt
  Foreign Debt
  Taxpayers and Inspectors (Transcripts of Meetings)
  Taxpayers and Inspectors (Transcripts of Meetings)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Subsistence Rates
  Subsistence Rates
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Teachers (Travel Expenses)
  Teachers (Travel Expenses)
  Fruit Picking, Scotland
  Fruit Picking, Scotland
  Departmental Staff (Supplementary Benefit)
  Departmental Staff (Supplementary Benefit)
  CORRIGENDUM
  CORRIGENDUM

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

Youth Training Scheme
Lord Hunt: 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 still satisfied with the operation of the Youth Training Scheme in view of withdrawal of support by certain trade unions.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie):My Lords, I am pleased to report that about 350,000 young people entered the Youth Training Scheme in 1983-84. The resistance to the scheme by some trade unions, mostly at a local level, has clearly not diminished the interest of young people in entering the scheme, nor has it prevented its successful operation.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer, which sounds encouraging, but is it not a fact that the non-co-operation of certain unions locally, at branch level, must be having an adverse effect on the development and continuation of the scheme in its second year? Is this not a serious matter, at any rate for the young people who are denied those opportunities? Could he therefore tell the House to what extent the loss of more than 9,000 places between the end of March and the end of April is attributable to the withdrawal of union support? And how many places are likely to be lost following the decision of the Union of Communications Workers to instruct its executive to withdraw support from the scheme?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am wholly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if I understand his inference aright, that it would be a very great pity —indeed, a tragedy—if political considerations usually connected with issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with youth training stopped unions from helping, as we all must help, young people who through no fault of their own are caught up in a great crisis in the jobs market. As to the specific point he made, my advice is that so far the scheme has not been adversely affected; but in relation to the Union of Communications Workers—the Post Office workers, as we think of them—they did pass a resolution at a recent annual conference instructing their executive to withdraw from the scheme. It is too early to say how this resolution will in practice affect the scheme, and initially, of course, that will be a matter of negotiation between the union and the
146
management at the Post Office. I appeal to all those involved not to let external considerations interfere with the need for the whole community to help the young.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, would the noble Earl not think that this has come about as a result, not just of political considerations but of economic considerations, and the fact that certain members of the UCW might think that the Youth Training Scheme has become a cheap labour scheme? In this connection, would it not be better if the Government were to support the efforts of the TUC and, for example, raise the £25 limit, which has been exactly the same since 1982?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think I have seldom heard, even from the Dispatch Box opposite, two more contradictory statements. The whole point of the £25 allowance is that it is an allowance, and not wages. If it were wages, there might be some justification for the line that the noble Lord was taking about cheap labour. In fact, it is not a cheap labour scheme; it is a training scheme, and should be treated accordingly.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that the figure of 350,000, which I think the noble Earl gave, was in fact the throughput over a whole year, whereas the number of young people actually in place on training schemes was something in the region of 250,000 according to the Manpower Services Commission's latest quarterly labour review? Would the noble Earl like to comment on that?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think I would have to have notice of that question. My advice is that 350,000 young people entered the training scheme in 1983ߝ84, which is what I was asked.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, the word he used is "entered". Some of them obviously left, too. Will he look at the MSC's latest quarterly labour review, in which I think he will find a figure which approximates to the one I have given?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I will indeed look at it, but I am also advised by the MSC that there has been an encouraging take-up into real employment of those leaving the scheme, and in some areas the employment prospects for young people have, I am glad to say, improved considerably.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, will the noble Earl say how he expects to get the co-operation of trade unions in any scheme that the Government bring forward when we have had six years of trade union "bashing" from the Conservative Party on the Front Bench?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I fear, living in a dream world. There has been no trade union "bashing", and there will be none.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree, however, that even a training scheme allowance deserves to be updated for inflation? Therefore, why

147
will he not answer my suggestion that it should now be £31 and not £25?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the level of the allowance has had no deterrent effect on young people entering the scheme. They are entering the scheme for training, not for wages.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in view of the severity of the problem of unemployment among young people, can the noble Earl assure us that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to any recommendation that may come from the Manpower Services Commission to extend the eligibility for entry into the Youth Training Scheme to more young people aged 17?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord that if a young person aged 17 is unemployed and if places are available, he or she will become eligible for a place on the scheme, and that we do have 17 year-olds on it. In respect of the future and eligibility as of right, so to say, that is under review at present.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the allowances for Members attending this House have been raised since 1982? If so, can he explain why the Government should not raise the allowances for these youth by the same proportion?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, that is a wholly different issue. I suggest that the noble and learned Lord puts down a Question on the allowances, when it will be answered by the appropriate department.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would the noble Earl be kind enough to remind the House of the reasons which prompted the Government to suggest such a living allowance on the purchasing power of £25 at the time it was first determined? Could he also say what are the reasons why they now believe that the purchasing power of a smaller allowance is appropriate?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as the noble Lord, with his financial background, will be well aware, the Government are moving most of their budgeting into cash terms, and that is one of the many reasons why the Government have been successful in improving the rate of inflation.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, reverting to my earlier supplementary question, in view of the fact that the TUC pledged its full support for the scheme at its inception, and accepting my figure of about 2,500 places which may be lost following the decision of the Union of Communications Workers, would the Government consider using their good offices with the TUC in order to persuade that trade union and any other union in a similar position to reverse their attitude in view of the adverse effect on the training of young people, which is so badly needed for this country's potential economic performance?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is no secret, I think, that there are many items of disagreement
148
between the TUC and the Government. The point I was trying to make, very much in support of what the noble Lord had said, is that these disagreements have nothing to do with the issue of training for young people. In general, the unions have been supportive. I very much deplore those who have not, but I hope that they, too, will follow the general TUC line.

Cervical Screening
2.46 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, in view of the increased numbers of women waiting to have cervical cancer tests, which could save their lives, what action is being taken by general practitioners and community health councils to continue to make tests available to women, and to provide for the necessary treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, health authorities are responsible for providing the now well-established cervical screening service. I am not aware of any waiting lists for cervical smear tests. General medical practitioners and doctors in ante-natal, family planning and certain other clinics take routine cervical smears as part of normal medical care.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, while thanking the noble Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he can say what the Government's present policy in regard to this is, and whether they plan any changes for the future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the present policy lays emphasis on routine screening for cervical cancer every five years for all women over 35 years of age and younger women who have been pregnant on three or more occasions. The Committee on Gynaecological Psychology, which is an independent committee of experts, has recommended that for younger women a smear should be taken when they are first coming forward for contraceptive advice or when otherwise requested and thereafter at ages 20, 25 and 30, but at no other ages except during pregnancy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Minister not agree that there seems to be some apprehension as regards cancer tests? Would he be prepared at least to consider requesting regional health authorities to inform him of any difficulties they might be experiencing?
Lord Glenarthur: Certainly, my Lords, if there have been delays they are probably delays in the laboratory work which is needed to produce the results of the tests.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, would not the noble Minister agree that there is no use in organisations such as the Women's Cervical Cancer

149
Control Campaign informing women and carrying out smear tests if there is such a backlog in the laboratory testing of those smears? Their work will come to nothing.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is not the backlog which the noble Baroness suggests that there is. We are aware that there have been some local difficulties in certain laboratories in some parts of the country—I am thinking particularly of Greenwich and Waltham Forest —but there are no general fears of a backlog in the way that is suggested.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, arising out of the Question asked by the noble Baroness, would the noble Lord look again at the question of the number of women waiting for screening? Also, could he say a little more about how the revised recall system will work, bearing in mind that the previous recall system did not really succeed? Finally, can he say something of the role of general practitioners, who have the closest contact with patients, and of the family practitioner committees in helping to make the scheme work?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is not the evidence to suggest that there is any backlog in the provision of these tests because they are provided in the way I described in the original Answer. So far as the recall system is concerned, the noble Lord will be aware that the National Health Service centralised recall system did not work effectively. In fact, only about 20 per cent. of all recall forms actually achieved a response; so that system was, as he knows, abandoned and the idea now is that health authorities should set up their own schemes. They were asked to provide alternative arrangements in conjunction with family pactitioner committees by April 1983.

European Transonic Wind Tunnel
2.50 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: 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 what progress is being made in locating the European Transonic Wind Tunnel.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Governments of France, Germany, Holland and Her Majesty's Government have all made formal commitments to support the construction of the European Transonic Wind Tunnel (ETW). The selection of a suitable site is currently under active and detailed consideration by the four Governments. Her Majesty's Government for their part will continue to seek to bring the selection process to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that it is highly desirable that we should have these facilities for Europe, regardless of where they are actually situated, and that we should not be obliged always to have
150
recourse to facilities of this kind in the United States? Secondly, I wonder whether I may ask him this other question. Am I not right in thinking that it could be said that there are really two types of wind tunnel which it might he desirable to have in Europe: one, what might be called a digital wind tunnel, and the other a cryogenic or low temperature wind tunnel? If we do need these two, would it be helpful in negotiations to suggest that one might be located in one country and the other in another, since I understand it is not essential that they should both be located in the same place?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the point made by my noble friend in the first part of his supplementary question. The important point is that these facilities should be available at the earliest possible date and Her Majesty's Government's efforts are directed to this end. I understand that this is, in fact, a cryogenic wind tunnel. So far as the digital wind tunnel is concerned, I gather that that is more a popular description rather than a scientific definition. Computational facilities are certainly required and I will draw the attention of the people concerned with the planning of this operation to the comments which my noble friend has made.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am sure that the House will welcome the hopeful note in the noble Lord's answer, but is it not a fact that it is now, certainly, some 10 or 12 years since we seriously started talking about this? Is it not also a fact that within that period Europe has spent hundreds, if not thousands of millions of pounds on these wretched wine and butter mountains and is it not time we came to a decision? Also, may I ask the noble Lord what has happened to that imaginative concept of creating a European centre at Bedford, with the United Kingdom putting its present resources into a common pool?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I would regard a wind tunnel as a different project from a wine or butter mountain. This particular project has admittedly been under consideration for a very long time. The Governments of France and Germany committed themselves to proceeding in the autumn of 1982. We committed ourselves to proceeding in November 1982. The Government of Holland gave their agreement in the autumn of last year. We ourselves convened a conference of senior official representatives of the states concerned in February of this year and we are continuing to press this matter. I entirely agree that the sooner we get this satisfactorily resolved the better. There is no difference at all between the noble Lord and myself on this point. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I am not entirely clear what point he has in mind and perhaps he would let me know in more detail. But the crucial point is that this particular project should not be held up while we may be pursuing some wider and better project which may lie many years ahead.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I should he glad to help the noble Lord about the Bedford project. But could he not be a little more cheerful when he says that he prefers a wind tunnel to a wine mountain?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we are dealing with the aeronautical industry rather than the gastronomic industry.

Historic Buildings: Maintenance VAT
2.55 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 on what grounds and with what advice and in the light of what representations they have decided to remove VAT from "substantially reconstructing" (including gutting) historic buildings and their "approved alteration" (Commons Hansard, 18th May, cols. 271-2) while yet maintaining it on their repair and maintenance.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, repairs and maintenance have always been liable to VAT since the tax was introduced and no change in that position has been made or proposed for listed buildings or otherwise. The concession announced for listed buildings, broadly speaking, excludes them from the extension of standard rate VAT to building alteration and reconstruction which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget. In general, therefore, the status quo is being preserved for listed buildings. This followed representations made both inside and outside Parliament. There were also consultations with the Department of the Environment, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, the Building Employers' Confederation and the British Property Federation.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, whether or not the recent change is a reversion to the status quo ante or has a new element in it, is it not the case that it does use fiscal means to discourage the repair and maintenance of historic buildings, which is what the public interest would like to see encouraged, and to encourage their substantial alteration, their gutting and their reconstruction, which is what the public interest would demand should be discouraged?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would, in fact, welcome the concessions which were announced by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, because those changes ensure that the fiscal impact is no different after the Budget from what it was before. So far as the liability on repairs and maintenance is concerned, this situation has existed since 1973 when the tax was first introduced. There have been numerous proposals that it should be changed, but successive Chancellors of the Exchequer under successive Governments have declined to make any change in that position. The reasons have been fully explained in debate. The last occasion on which this issue was debated was in another place in Committee on the Finance Bill on 30th April.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the changes
152
which have been made, and of which he has been speaking, will add very considerably to the already heavy financial burdens on the churches? I speak on behalf of the Churches Main Committee, though of course I speak as an individual Member of the House, which covers all the churches of England, and they are very anxious about this matter of value added tax. This seems to constitute a discouragement to voluntary giving, which must seriously affect the churches' ability to look after the buildings in their care. Is the Minister aware that representations have been made on this account to the Government and that no reply has, I think, yet been received on that narrower issue?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely appreciate the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate. So far as the last point that he raised is concerned, I understand that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be replying shortly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who wrote on behalf of the Churches Main Committee. As to the other points he raised, the concession announced by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury applies to listed churches, and so far as they are concerned the status quo is maintained. On encouragement of voluntary giving, this Government have taken a series of measures, particularly in the Finance Act 1980 and the Finance Act 1983, to encourage voluntary giving to charities —and, of course, churches are charities —improving particularly the conditions applying to deeds of covenant
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which helps us to understand the problem. I particularly thank him for the first part of his answer, that his friend the Minister in another place may well be replying to us. I am glad that the Minister was in his place to hear that great psalm:
"He that sweareth unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance, shall not fall."
I take comfort from that.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate, and for the encouragement he gives me and other noble Lords to attend Prayers before the commencement of our proceedings.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in spite of what various governments have done or have not done about VAT relief on listed and other ancient buildings, is the Minister aware that the definition "substantially reconstructing" involves a great deal of gutting and demolition and the changing out of all character of so many of our buildings? Could the Minister undertake to give further consideration in the coming year to the whole question of a newer definition and greater incentive in order to conserve and preserve buildings and also make them economically viable for other alternative uses?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I note the points made by the noble Baroness, and I shall most certainly draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, may I assure the noble Baroness that no substantial change has taken place in the definition of "reconstructing".

153
She will find full details of this in Press Notice No. 912, issued by the Board of Customs and Excise. The important point is that in many instances one needs substantial work on a listed building to be carried out in order to give it a second lease of life. This is what is behind it.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, why are the Government always preaching about good housekeeping they are apparently anxious to discourage the policy of make-do-and-mend and to encourage people to destroy and build anew?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords. That is neither a fair nor an accurate interpretation of the situation. As I have said, the liability to VAT on repairs and maintenance dates right back to the beginning of the tax in 1973.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as chairman of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, may I express its appreciation to Her Majesty's Government for their acceptance of the commission's arguments for the zero-rating of structural alterations to listed buildings. However, may I take this opportunity to express the commission's continuing concern with regard to the test under which alterations must reach 75 per cent. of the total cost. Will not Her Majesty's Government agree that perhaps it would be more realistic and equitable to make it 60 per cent., thus reducing the harshness of the test and resulting in more listed buildings being preserved for alternative use?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the first part of his remarks. As to the second part, I am assured that the new 75 per cent. test, which depends on different factors, has approximately the same impact as the existing 50 per cent. test which applies to all expenditure, including the repair and maintenance element in the total cost. It is a much simpler test to operate. I shall however draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what my noble friend has said.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while I know that many of the bodies which the noble Lord the Minister has consulted are grateful for the change that has been made, may I ask whether it is not the case that they are still very worried about the impact of VAT on repairs to historic buildings? May I also ask the Minister whether it is intended that there should be further conversations with them about this matter in the hope that a more agreeable solution can be found?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as I have already said, the concession which has been announced is felt by the Government to meet the main criticism which has been made of the proposals. It is related specifically to listed buildings which can readily be identified. Perhaps I ought to add that in addition to this concession, the Government disburse approximately £17 million every year in grants towards the repair, maintenance and renovation of such buildings.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will have consultations with
154
the tourist industry, which was not on the list of those who had been consulted that was read out by the noble Lord, and which is now, I believe, our principal foreign exchange earner? It cannot be the Government's intention to encourage the gradual erosion and destruction of an important part of that industry's plant.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I simply cannot accept what the noble Lord says in the latter part of his supplementary question. On the contrary, this Government have done a very great deal to help and assist the preservation of our heritage. I appreciate that the number of bodies consulted was limited, but this was because of the necessity to make an announcement at an early date.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give some indication of the annual cost of the concession to which he has referred?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the annual cost of this concession is stated to be £10 million a year.

Future Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the mining dispute public disorder.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I tell the House that the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 30 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Child Abduction Bill will be taken.
On Thursday next, 21st June, it is proposed that the Committee stage of the Health and Social Security Bill shall be adjourned at approximately 6 p.m., that at that point the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order will be taken and that after that again the Committee stage of the Health and Social Security Bill will be resumed.
The consideration of Commons Amendments to the Data Protection Bill, which was to have been taken on Thursday, has been postponed to a date not yet fixed.

Parliamentary Pensions etc. Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Building Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It continues the process of consolidating the extensive and varied mass of legislation relating to public health and follows the Refuse Disposal

155
(Amenity) Act 1978, the Litter Act 1983 and the Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill. The present Bill consolidates the provisions relating to new and existing buildings and such of the ancillary provisions contained in Part XII of the Public Health Act 1936 as are relevant. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

County Courts Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are six of these amendments, and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall take Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 together and Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 separately, for a reason which will shortly appear. In each case I shall be moving that the House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to [Bill 151] as first printed for the Commons].
1 Clause 55, page 31, line 9, leave out ("level 3 on the standard scale") and insert ("£400").
2 Clause 118, page 62, line 18, leave out ("level 4 on the standard scale") and insert ("£1,000").
5 Schedule 2, page 89, line 32, leave out ("An amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale") and insert ("£400").
6 Schedule 2, page 89, line 35, leave out ("An amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale") and insert ("£1,000").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, to which I now speak, all relate to the retrieval of mistakes in drafting. They relate to the fact that the Bill as at present drafted speaks of the standard level of penalties, which is appropriate only to summary offences, whereas they are applied in the Bill to indictable offences, which are not appropriate. That mistake is now retrieved, if the House agrees with the Commons in these four amendments. With the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Schedule 2, page 87, line 31, after ("rules)") insert (" —(a)").
4 Schedule 2, page 87, line 33, after ("1984") insert ("; and (b) for the words "Part VII" there shall be substituted the words "Part VI".").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in substance, these amendments merely retrieve another minor error. The Bill as drafted dealt with Part VII of the County Courts Act 1959, and that has now become Part VI of the Bill. The effect of these two amendments is to substitute a reference to the appropriate part of this Bill. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Capital Transfer Tax Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Building Control Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and the Commons reason for disagreeing to a Lords amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and the Commons reason be now considered.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU, AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT, CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REASON
[Except where otherwise stated, references are to Bill (100). The Commons proposed amendments and Reason are printed in italics]
Schedule 10

  COMMONS AMENDMENT As AMENDED BY THE LORDS AMENDMENT
  The Lords amendment is printed in bold type
  1 Page 83, line 20, at end insert—
  ("3A) The provisions of Part I of the said Act of 1967 shall not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act, nor to a sub-tenancy derived (whether directly or indirectly) from that tenancy, in any case where the landlord is a registered Housing Association and the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only.
  (4) Where, in the case of a tenancy to which this subparagraph applies, the tenant or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy exercises his right to acquire the freehold under Part I of the said Act of 1967, the price payable for the dwelling-house shall be determined in accordance with section 9(1)(A) of that Act notwithstanding that the rateable value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere.
  (5) Sub-paragraph (4) above applies to—

  (a) a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;

  (b) a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967; and

  (c) where in any case that Part applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy.").

  The Commons disagreed to the Lords amendment (to insert sub-section (3.A)) but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof
  [As Amendments to the Bill]
  2 Page 82, line 46, at beginning insert —
  ("Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (enfranchisement and extension of long leaseholds) shall not apply where, in the case of a tenancy or sub-tenancy to which this sub-paragraph applies, the landlord is a housing association and the freehold is owned by a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only.
  3 Page 83, line 2, leave out from ("the") to ("as") in line 3 and insert ("said Act of 1967").
  [As Amendments to Amendment 1]
  4 Line 10, after ("tenancy") insert ("or sub-tenancy").
  5 Line 11, leave out ("or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy").
  6 Line 18, leave out ("Sub-paragraph (4) above applies") and insert ("Sub-paragraphs (1) and (4) above apply").
  7 Line 21, at end insert ("and any sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of such a tenancy").
  8 Line 22, leave out paragraph (b).
  9 Line 25, leave out ("that Part") and insert ("Part I of the said Act of 1967").
  10 Line 29, at end insert ("and any sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of that later tenancy; and sub-paragraph (4) above also applies to a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy or sub-tenancy falling within paragraph (a) or (c) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967".)
  Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 1 and doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 in lieu thereof.
  These amendments need not detain your Lordships for long. I will speak first to Amendments Nos. 1 to 10. Your Lordships may recall that Clause 1 will extend the right to buy to property where the landlord's own interest is leasehold. It will give secure tenants the right to purchase a long sub-lease of their homes, assuming they meet the normal qualifying conditions. Under the terms of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, long leaseholders of houses would normally be able to go on and enfranchise their leases and acquire the freehold.
  However, an amendment modifying this provision was successfully moved against the Government by my noble friend Lord Selkirk when the Bill last came before this House on 10th May. The effect of that amendment was to allow all eligible tenants to purchase a long sub-lease of their homes, but to deny rights of enfranchisement to tenants of housing associations where the association's interest in the property is leasehold and the freeholder is a charitable body.
  On further reflection the Government have decided to accept the substance of my noble friend's amendment. As I said on 10th May, I do not regard it as a wholly logical amendment. It is not clear to me
  158
  why this distinction should be drawn between housing association and local authority leasehold property; nor why we should be providing additional protection for charities which are in many cases those already enjoying special protection under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act. But the Government have to accept that there is strong feeling on this issue in your Lordships' House, and we have therefore decided to accept the substance of the amendment.
  The present amendments are simply designed to tidy up the drafting, and to ensure that the 1967 Act will be disapplied not only in respect of the right-to-buy sub-lease, but also in respect of any contractual extension to that lease.
  I should like to congratulate my noble friend for winning this particular argument —with the very able support, as I am sure he would be the first to confirm, of my noble friends Lord Molson and Lord Coleraine. Clause 1 has raised some exceedingly complex issues and the argument has been long and difficult. But I hope the position we have now reached will be acceptable to my noble friend and to the House.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on their amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 1 and doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 2 to
  10 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bellwin.)
  The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I expect that the Government will be only too glad to get this Bill out of its parliamentary phase. It has been before us, one way or another, for the best part of two years. I should like straight away to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the courtesy he has invariably shown through what has been in part a very difficult Bill, and for the care he has taken in numerous letters to explain points which have been raised in the course of debate. The House can be well satisfied with the redraft which the draftsman has put before us today, and I hope that it will work out satisfactorily.
  I must admit that I am a little sorry that the Department of the Environment should still feel a little doubtful about the wisdom of this Bill —but I am confident that as the years pass the department will be glad that they did not insist on what I thought was a pretty unsatisfactory arrangement of the kind we had before. We should acknowledge that we probably do owe something to my noble friend the Leader of the House for the manner in which he has enlightened his colleagues on what this amendment actually does. We should be very grateful to him.
  I will only say again that we should be very grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the immense amount of trouble he has taken with this Bill —as he has with all the other Bills with which he has been dealing.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 2, page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule I to the 1980 Act (circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise) there shall be substituted the following paragraph —
"5. The dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling-house for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and in this paragraph

159
"designed or specially adapted" means accommodation built or adapted in accordance with the principles of advice and guidance on the design of elderly persons' accommodation issued by the Secretary of State and available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation.".").
The Commons did not insist on their disagreement to the Lords amendment 11 but proposed the following amendment thereto:
12 Line 2, leave out from first ("of") to end of Amendment and insert ("that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph —
"5.—(1) The Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that the right to buy is not capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house; and he shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house —

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and

(b) was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or any other person).

(2) An aplication for a determination under this paragraph shall he made within four weeks or, in a case falling within section5(2) of the Act, eight weeks of the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy.".").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12 to the Lords Amendment No. 11.
Perhaps I could briefly remind your Lordships of the background to the second group of amendments —Amendments Nos. 11 to 25. The 1980 Act allows landlords to apply to the Secretary of State to have dwellings provided for the elderly excluded from the right to buy. That provision has given rise to a number of problems. Most importantly, many elderly tenants appear to believe that they do not have the right to buy at all, and some landlords appear to have been using that provision as a pretext for denying the right to buy without reference to the Secretary of State.
We therefore brought forward proposals in another place last December to end the present exemption procedure, and instead to provide that elderly tenants should have the right to buy on the same basis as other tenants; but that landlords should have rights of preemption where dwellings are resold within 21 years of the original sale. We saw this as a means of ensuring that elderly tenants obtained the rights which Parliament conferred upon them, but at the same time of giving landlords means of meeting the needs of the elderly for housing to rent.
As noble Lords will recall, at Committee stage in this House the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, successfully moved an amendment which adopted a quite different approach: it placed the responsibility for excluding elderly persons' dwellings from the right to buy with the landlord. This is an approach which the Government rejected in 1980. Given the evidence which has emerged since then of the apparent willingness of some authorities to deny elderly tenants their ligitimate rights, it is an approach which is even less acceptable to the Government now than it was in 1980.
When the Bill returned to the Commons, we proposed two measures to strengthen our original provision: the retention of an exemption procedure in certain rural areas, and a tightening-up of the landlord's right of pre-emption. On the Bill's return to
160
this House, however, the noble Baroness's amendment was again approved, though—if she will allow me to say so—by only one vote. Nevertheless, we have concluded that the only alternative likely to win sufficient general acceptance is to retain the present exemption procedure in basically its present form.
That is the effect of these amendments. They provide that it will remain open for all authorities to continue to apply to the Secretary of State to have elderly persons' dwellings exempted from the right to buy. At the same time, we propose to remove some of the difficulties which have arisen under the present provision by clarifying the criteria to be applied by the Secretary of State. The criteria to be embodied in the new paragraph 5 are those at present in Clause 7 of the Bill —the pre-emption provision. Like the previous criteria, they deal with physical characteristics and with the letting of the dwelling; but they are expressed in clearer and more definite terms. They will avoid the need for detailed inquiries into records by focusing on the present state of the dwelling and on the circumstances of the present letting. I believe that is a change which will be generally welcomed.
To minimise any difficulties over the interpretation of the new criteria we shall be issuing guidance to landlords in the form of a circular. This will cover such matters as the factors the Secretary of State will take into account in considering whether a dwelling is suitable for the elderly, and the administrative procedures to be followed. I give an undertaking to the House that we shall consult the local authority associations and other interested bodies, such as Age Concern, on the contents of this guidance before it is issued.
The other amendments in this group are technical, or consequential, amendments. The only one I think I need mention is Amendment No. 14, which deletes the provision presently in the Bill giving landlords a right of pre-emption in respect of elderly persons' dwellings. Now that the exemption procedure is to be retained generally, we see no case for a pre-emption option as well.
I confess to a certain disappointment that your Lordships rejected the original proposals, but again I congratulate the noble Baroness upon her assiduity (if I may use the term) in pursuing her course; not, if I may say so, for the first time —and I mean that in the nicest way. I believe that from the point of view of both tenants and landlords, this originally represented the most satisfactory way of resolving the problems that have arisen over paragraph 5. It has been said more than once in these debates that probably not many elderly people want to buy their homes. That may be true; but it is equally true that those who do should be able to know where they stand.
Nevertheless, these revised proposals, though more modest in their scope, will, I believe, represent a significant improvement on the present provisions. I hope that they represent a compromise which will be acceptable to the noble Baroness and to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12 to the Lords Amendment No. 11 —(Lord Bellwin.)
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for the very clear, and, if I may say so, the very charming and courteous way in which he put forward the changes which have been made in this part of the Bill. As the Minister has pointed out, when the Bill arrived first in this House from another place all except sheltered housing was open for sale. The 1980 provisions have been taken out, subject to the old Clause 7 which covered the 21-year pre-emption buy-back, which was discretionary, anyway.
As the Minister pointed out, my amendment moved here was won twice, but as he also quite fairly pointed out, the second time it was by one vote. It was at that point that we had to make a brinkmanship decision: should we go forward and try again, or not? It seemed to me that the chances of winning a third time were doubtful; I would not say hopeless, but doubtful. The Government were also obviously slightly worried because there was quite a hiatus over this. But if it had been lost, I felt that the position then would have been very much worse than it was before I moved the amendment. Therefore, it seemed sensible to come to some kind of compromise which would be acceptable, not only to the Government, but also to my noble friends and myself, and indeed to all those noble Lords from all parts of the House who had supported the amendment on both occasions.
So the decision then was to go back to the 1980 situation, but as the Minister has quite rightly pointed out, it is a tremendous improvement on itself. First, the criteria are much more clearly spelt out, they are wider, and there is less doubt. It has the advantage over my own amendment that it is not as restrictive. I made my amendment deliberately restrictive so that it applied only to houses which had always been occupied by elderly persons. I did that in order to try to meet the Government's objections; but this has now gone.
The only query arises on the point that we have gone hack to the situation where the Secretary of State has the right of determination. But one of the things which I am glad the Government have finally been persuaded to agree to was the determination that it had to be mandatory on the Secretary of State, subject to the two criteria which are in the Bill.
I think I also asked the Minister for a code of guidance, and he has so clearly expressed it, for which I am grateful; there will be a code of guidance, or a circular. The question of consultation with local authority associations and with other bodies which are concerned with elderly people and the disabled is extremely important.
I would thank the Minister not only for his patience while all this was going on, but for the very large part he played, I am sure, in trying to get some rapport between the hawks and the doves over this question. I think that the definition we now have is very much better. We now have safeguards in the Bill for those elderly people who are living in rented housing, and so it is a very much better Bill. In the future elderly persons in rented accommodation will be in a very much happier and more secure situation.
Finally, this is a considerable victory for this House, and is one of great importance to very many people in
162
the country. Again I express my gratitude for the support received from all Benches in this House. The feeling in the House so far as this question is concerned was quite clear.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, may I say, for the avoidance of doubt following some discussions that were held in another place on this amendment, that we welcome very warmly the new amendment and we congratulate the Government on their generosity and on their understanding of the will of this House. I should particularly like to congratulate the noble Baroness on her assiduity and her devotion to working at week-ends and even to trying to make the Government see the error of their ways. I think she deserves our deep gratitude for the way she persisted in following this matter, strengthened, as I believe she admits, by the knowledge that she had support from a very wide spectrum of opinion in your Lordships' House.
I think this is a considerably better outcome, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord the Minister said about the guidance to be issued to local authorities. That will be very helpful. I think it will be helpful to those councils which desire to retain a stock of housing for the elderly.
I believe that the position has improved compared with what it was under the Housing Act 1980. That Act stipulated that in applying for a property to be exempted from the right to buy, the council must satisfy the noble Lord's department that the dwelling had been designed or specially adapted for elderly people. As I see it, the new clause would require council approval only if a dwelling were particularly suitable for occupation by elderly people. I think that is a considerable advance on both the original amendments discussed in this House and the position under the 1980 Act. Therefore I hope and believe that the new clause will reduce bureaucratic problems, will give councils more liberty, will protect elderly people who need rented accommodation, will improve the position compared with what it was under the 1980 Act, and will be generally and widely welcomed, not only by this House but also, I think, by bodies such as Age Concern and others which care about elderly people. I very warmly welcome the new clause.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I should like to associate myself especially with my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, in welcoming the satisfactory solution to this protracted dispute between your Lordships' House and the Government. I should like in particular to echo the tributes that have been paid to my noble friend Lord Bellwin for the courtesy and patience which he has shown all through these matters, and I wish to associate with him in these remarks the Leader of the House, who has been extremely helpful.
Having said that about the solution of this problem, I should like to take a little of your Lordships' time to examine why this controversy arose. I shall criticise the drafting of the 1980 Act and the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion. I shall not criticise his advisers, whether parliamentary draftsmen or legal advisers or civil servants, because Ministers alone are responsible.

163
In the heyday of Socialist dogmatism, Mr. Douglas Jay proclaimed that the "gentleman in Whitehall knows best". That dogma was hung round his neck like an albatross —and I think it still dangles there —and also round the neck of the Labour Party. I never then expected to see a Conservative Administration adopt that dogma in the way that it did in the 1980 Act. In dealing with the right to buy houses adapted for the elderly in rural areas, the Secretary of State assumed the right at his discretion to decide two things: first of all, to decide what are rural areas, and, within those areas, to decide what individual houses should or should not be sold. In both cases his exercise of his discretion seemed unreasonable.
On 23rd May the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a parliamentary Question which was answered by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale on behalf of the department. Lord Hylton asked why, out of 129 applications made by authorities which thought themselves rural, only 21 had passed the Secretary of State's test. It might be thought by anyone looking out of the train while travelling about this country that quite a large proportion of the countryside is rural. But the Secretary of State took, in the main, two criteria into account in deciding what were rural areas. The first was that he used an illustrative figure of two persons per hectare, or less, to identify rural areas. In the second place, he asked the authorities to satisfy him that the incidence of second homes in their areas was such as to warrant designation. Unless there were a sufficient number of second homes, he denied a designation.
In designating these areas, the Government, in the words of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, as given in Hansard,
"With scrupulous attention to detail … have followed the wishes of your Lordships and Members in another place".
I would substitute for the words, "With scrupulous attention to detail", the words "with unreasonable prejudice". If that is the way the Department of the Environment has administered these provisions, it is not surprising that my noble friend Lord Bellwin should have complained in the Second Reading debate that the administration of these provisions cost his department £150,000 a year. Indeed, but for this pedantic administration there might have been some reduction in the number of civil servants, to which we understand the Prime Minister attaches so much importance.
There is a far deeper ground for complaint. This reference to the wishes of legislators implies that, in interpreting the 1980 Act, the Secretary of State has been perusing Hansard. It is an established principle that in interpreting a statute the courts do not refer to parliamentary debates. Much the same principle should apply when a Minister is exercising a discretion given to him by Parliament. When there is a general debate and different opinions are expressed, it is impossible for either a court or a Minister to gain any trustworthy guidance from the debate.
In the wording of the Act of 1980 dealing with these provisions there is no reference to second homes. The main concern of Parliament was the reservation of suitable houses for elderly people. Second homes were
164
only relevant because such a dwelling was removed from the pool of houses for the elderly. The words "rural areas" ought to have been construed in a reasonable way. This was expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he said that they should be areas which are in every sense rural in the common acceptance of that term. I know that Ministers feel that some local authorities have unfairly frustrated the wish of tenants to buy. My noble friend Lord Bellwin repeated that in his speech this afternoon. I doubt whether this applies in many cases to rural authorities. The Government, however, have provided this complicated system of designation and appeals but it is difficult to resist the suspicion that the Government have allowed their own prejudice in favour of the right to buy to influence their decisions; and the figures tend to confirm that.
It is an unsatisfactory system when appeals are used too frequently to reverse the views of local authorities. The Tory Party has always maintained in principle that freedom demands a wide distribution of power. That means that local decisions, unless perverse, should not lightly be reversed by authorities in Whitehall. It also means that the administration of housing policy should largely be left in the hands of local authorities. I have analysed how it comes about that there has been such a serious difference of opinion between this House and the Government, settled as now, in the case of this new Bill, by the concessions which have been made by the Government. May I now appeal to them to carry this spirit of conciliation a little further and to modify, in the light of all that has been revealed, the interpretation they have put on the existing legislation so as to allow a slightly more generous interpretation than they have done in the past.
I would make a special plea to my noble friend Lord Bellwin to appeal to the Secretary of State to allow the 108 local authorities where he has refused to designate to apply again, with some hope now that he will recognise rural areas to be really rural. I hope also that when considering applications in respect of individual houses, he will not attach such importance to second homes, but much more to the future needs of the elderly. I would say to the Government, being in possession of an unassailable majority in another place, that it is a sign not of weakness, but of strength, for them to agree to modify their policy in the face of reasoned arguments and the declared wishes of this House.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have no intention of replying to my noble friend, except to say that, of course, the authorities concerned by all means can, and should, apply again. Other than that, I shall not take up the other points that he made. As has rightly been said, we have been debating this issue for two years. The last thing I would do at this late stage is to start debating the philosophies and theologies of the right to buy. I hear what my noble friend says
I beg formally to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 13 to 20 —
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12 to the Lords Amendment No. 11.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mining Dispute: Orgreave Incident
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer which has just been given in another place to a Private Notice Question about measures to prevent a repetition of the violence and public disorder that occurred yesterday in connection with the mining dispute. The Answer was as follows:
"The violence yesterday was concentrated at the Orgreave coking plant. The police estimate that at nine o'clock yesterday morning some 10,000 people were in the vicinity. They were there to stop the British Steel Corporation exercising its lawful right to remove coke from the plant. The police were subjected to a considerable level of violence, and to deal with it found it necessary to use both mounted officers and officers equipped with shields and helmets. Ninety-three arrests were made. Of those arrested, 26 have since been charged with riot. The remainder have been charged with unlawful assembly, assault and public order offences. Twenty-eight police officers suffered injuries. The disorder, during which large numbers of missiles were thrown at police officers, continued until after mid-day. Apart from the physical violence, a field close to the lines of police officers was set on fire and three vehicles were removed from a local yard and set on fire. A car filled with rubble was pushed down a hill towards the lines of police officers. Fortunately, it merely hit a wall. A barrier was erected in the road and set on fire.
"In spite of the large numbers of people present and the violence which arose, the police were able to ensure that the vehicles due to go into and out of the plant were able to do so as required.
"With regard to the possible repetition of events of this kind, no Government can guarantee that violence will not recur if there are people who are determined to resort to it. What the Government can and must do is to give the police any support that is needed in their difficult task of preventing and containing violence and dealing with it when it arises. This Government have done that and will continue to do so. The Government must also ensure that the law relating to public order is adequate and that the courts have proper powers to deal with offences against it. For the most part, the provisions of the criminal law relating to such offences as obstruction, intimidation, criminal damage and riot are adequate, and the courts' powers very substantial. I do not believe that there is a need for major changes in this area, although, as the House will know, this is a matter we have under review. What there is need for now is unequivocal and unanimous condemnation of the use of violence
166
as a means of securing political or industrial objectives; and full support for those who are determined to ensure that violence shall not prevail."
My Lords, that completes the reply which was given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his courtesy in repeating that Statement in reply to a Private Notice Question in another place. In every part of your Lordships' House, and in every part of the nation among our decent folk, yesterday will go down as a black Monday. From these Benches there will never be anything other than a condemnation of violence from wherever it may come, nor will there be anything other than support for picketing which is peaceful picketing. Yesterday's scenes on television were too terrible for words, bearing in mind our history of moderation in this country; and, having said what I have said, I cannot do better than to repeat what my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place said after looking at those scenes: "Horrifying, untypical, and un-British".
I am sure that we are all pleased—if that is the right word —that a police inquiry is to take place into what occurred yesterday. But I believe that the nation as a whole knows, as your Lordships know, that no police inquiries, no epithets, and no denunciations will of themselves cure this completely unholy deadlock, which has culminated in the situation that we now face after 15 weeks of this dispute. I believe that from these Benches, which I have the honour to represent at the moment, we are speaking for the nation as a whole when we say that the Government have a duty to act.
That does not mean anything other than this: none of us can stand by idly while these things occur as a result of complete inactivity by a Government who are supposed to stand for law and order and for strong government. There must be third party intervention in this unholy deadlock, especially where the two chief participants have —and it is evident —no confidence not only in one another, but, as they have themselves so expressed, no confidence in one another's words.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister read the letter in The Times this morning from my right honourable friend the Member for Barnsley, Central. With your Lordships' permission, I shall quote merely one sentence of the letter:
"The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Energy must impress upon all concerned the necessity to establish an independent court of inquiry to examine the causes of this dispute, the way forward for conciliation, and the salvation of our main industrial producer of energy".
I ask the noble Lord the Minister, who speaks for the Government on this occasion, if there is not to be a court of inquiry, is there at least to be an approach made by the Government to see that ACAS takes its normal intermediary role in this affair; and, if not now, when? All of us have regretted this Statement. As I plead on behalf of these Benches, let it at least lead to some action before things get even worse.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we are grateful to him for having repeated this Statement? Following

167
what he has said, perhaps I may ask him one or two questions. First, will he accept from my colleagues and myself, and I am sure the overwhelming majority of the House, that we wholly deplore what happened yesterday? There can be no possible excuse, under any circumstances whatever, for what happened at Orgreave. May I ask him whether he is aware that the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Mr. Wright, has indicated today that so far 223 people have been injured, many of them police officers, during the course of these various incidents at Orgreave? This is a scale of violence which is wholly unacceptable in this country.
May I further ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we believe that in these circumstances there should be the firmest and most unequivocal support for the police in the job which they are doing? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us are disturbed by suggestions which have been made that the Government have been attempting to dissuade the heads of nationalised industries from using the civil law to deal with the situation which is arising? Is he aware that secondary picketing is unlawful in this country; and is he further aware that, given the fact that Parliament has spent a great deal of time and devoted a great deal of attention to these matters over the last four years, we expect the civil law in this country to be upheld?
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords —
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think convention requires me to intervene at this stage. I should like to welcome the vigour and robustness with which both noble Lords who have spoken have, on behalf of their parties, supported law and order and those who enforce it. I believe it is crucially important that the nation should be united in resistance to any resort to bully-boy, strong-arm tactics to achieve what the law denies in the protection of other members of the community.
Her Majesty's Government are not sitting in masterly inactivity. They have secured the means by which even this level of violence can be contained at a level at which it does not achieve its avowed objective. I do not wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, into questions on the management of the coal and steel industries when dealing with a Question concerning the enforcement of law and order. On the latter, I can tell the noble Lord. Lord Harris, that, to the best of my knowledge, up to date 406 policemen have been injured in this dispute as a whole. I do not have figures for members of the public.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising before the Minister replied. From these Benches we take very seriously the tremendous problems and pressures which our nation faces at the moment. I am sure that all of us on these Benches would want also to underline our unequivocal support for the police, who are facing the greatest difficulties, pressures and dangers. We know what those pressures are like, because all of us know ordinary policemen and the way they constantly care for us here and outside the Palace. Secondly, we on
168
these Benches should also like to underline the fact that the violence is of such seriousness that it is untypical of the way our nation conducts its business, and we should all abhor that violence.
Thirdly, I know I speak for a number of bishops who are personally concerned here when I say that we on these Benches should like to feel that the Church, which stands for reconciliation in difficult situations, understands better the minds of ordinary miners who are at the moment caught up in this untypical and dangerous situation, and from these Benches we should like to offer anything that we can do. That is not simply saying piously that we will pray —I know there are prayers on this matter being offered in every church throughout our country—but if from these Benches we could offer anything by way of reconciliation we would gladly do so and would gladly go to the point where conversation between conflicting parties can be entered into. Down the years Christian leaders of various kinds, as well as rank and file Christians, have sought to be at the point of confrontation between people, and we should like to offer whatever reconciliation or work we can.
I give one simple and homely instance, and with that I finish. There is in one of the parishes in this difficult area at the moment one member of a church council who is a representative of the National Union of Mineworkers, and there is one member in that particular parish, also on the church council, who is himself a local representative of the National Coal Board. When, in that area, they have had incipient problems in the past, those two have gone together into their local parish church; they have talked and prayed together, and they have sorted out their local situation in prayer together. If there is anything which we on these Benches can do to help in reconciliation, we should like to be able so to do. Pray we do, pray we will —and we will go if there is anything we can do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's intervention and for his perceptions. I am certain that the Church—aptly, the Church militant—can be of help in the field and the home in this matter, though I would not at this stage be able to suggest a national role, if that is what he had in mind. However, his good wishes are almost as welcome as his prayers, without which we would not survive.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken so far have rightly deplored the scenes of violence which were witnessed yesterday. These indeed exceed anything that has occurred in an industrial dispute since the war, and far exceed even those scenes of violence which occurred in the 1972 miners' strike. So we must by every possible means ensure that these scenes do not recur. It is therefore necessary to try to consider what are the causes of this dispute continuing.
As the chief constable who was interviewed said yesterday, there is undoubtedly a sense of frustration, whether or not justified. As a part of that sense of frustration there is undoubtedly, within the mining industry, in my opinion, a feeling of uncertainty about the future. Obviously that future will be made all the more uncertain the longer this dispute continues.

169
The Government have said that they do not wish to intervene in any negotiating position between the participants. However, I should like to submit that there is a way in which, without departing from that intention, the Government can help to allay some of the uncertainty about the future of the mining industry in this country. If the Government were to come out with a clear statement as to their broad energy strategy and the part which coal could play in that, under whatever conditions they wish to indicate, then at least everybody in the industry would know where they stood. I should like to make that suggestion to the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord again tempts me to discuss how the nationalised coal industry should be run. As I understand it, our interest at the moment is not whether the miners should be on strike but whether they should be conducting themselves in the way that they were conducting themselves last night. That is the question on the Order Paper. Therefore, although I am tempted to reply to the noble Lord, I simply say that the way in which the strike was conducted last night is at variance with the experience of British history, that it is contrary to the British character, that it is destructive of the Queen's peace of this country, and that it should not be tolerated.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before the noble Lord who leads for the Opposition intervenes, I wonder whether I can say something. Rules are occasionally meant to have a slightly blind eye turned to them. I think that this was probably right in the case of the right reverend Prelate and of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who possibly went beyond the questions that are meant to be put following statements. I wonder, however, whether from now on noble Lords can phrase their remarks in question form for elucidation from the Minister.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, but go one step further? The noble Lord, understandably, has confined himself to questions of law and order and condemnation of violence. There is no question but that this side of the House condemns violence completely from whatever source it comes. We were deeply disturbed and distressed by what occurred yesterday at Orgreave. Nevertheless, in view of the developing gravity of the situation and the national interest that is involved—I stress the words "national interest"—will the noble Lord at least discuss this matter with his right honourable friends? Is it not the case now—this is relevant to the question—that it is vital that the Government should intervene to seek to bring this unhappy dispute to an end?
Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friends to consider the possiblity of an intervention by way of an independent inquiry which would look at this objectively and hear evidence from Mr. MacGregor, Mr. Scargill and other independent sources? Would be not agree that it is very much in the interest of Britain at this time that this matter should at least be tackled by the Government in a constructive way?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am of course obliged to the noble Lord, I will give the undertaking that he wants
170
because I always draw to my right honourable friends' attention the opinions and views of your Lordships expressed in this House, and I note appropriately the level of enthusiasm with which they are given. What I am seeking to do is to avoid this spilling into a debate on energy or coal policy which it would not be proper to have now. I am therefore putting myself at a disadvantage by not replying to some of the fairly telling points made on the other side, and which I am tempted to do and could put myself in a better light if I did. Of course, I give that undertaking.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether consideration has been given to the legal responsibility of those who organise very large gatherings outside premises that are not their normal place of work and which bear no resemblance whatever to the peaceful picketing that our law recognises?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the question of law enforcement is, in a situation like this, continually under review. It may be useful, although I cannot list every provision of the criminal law that may be used, not all of them in relation to the leaders or godfathers of these events, to give the example that any unlawful infliction of violence against the person is a criminal offence. Violence against property is dealt with under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Obstruction of the highway or of the police are criminal offences, and there is a range of offences of intimidation. Conduct conducive to a breach of the peace is an offence, and there are the common law public order offences of affray, unlawful assembly and riot. But my noble friend has rightly pointed a finger at those responsible who are supposed to be leading a responsible national body and who, with every intention of causing a vast assembly of their membership at one place, cause it to take place in the full knowledge that its intention is to stop a lawful procedure which the police will be bound to protect, It seems to me that the consequences that flow from that decision must lay a very heavy burden of responsibility indeed upon those who take it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that come what may, at some time, full cognisance will have to be taken of the submissions made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, in such a sober and sane manner, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra? Will the noble Lord also bear in mind that there is another element which has not been mentioned and which many people might have seen on television last night in those horrible—those almost unbelievably horrendous—scenes? I come from a coal mining area. I know the solidarity of coal mining folk. It is perhaps not appreciated in this House, but every meeting of a branch of the National Union of Mineworkers, certainly in South Wales, is always preceded by prayers. This is apropos the point mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. The point I wish to make is this. The final scene on television last night gave us a ray of hope. It was of a senior police officer shaking hands with a miner (who was stricken and bleeding) and agreeing when the miner said that many of those who had started the violence were in no way connected with the picketing or with the miners themselves. Surely, this point must be taken as encouraging by both police and miners.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord's question was: "does Her Majesty's Government think that wherever possible enmity should be turned into friendship, and that those who protect the law and those who live under it should be on the same side in maintaining order in our society?", the answer is unequivocally, yes.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, did not Mr. Eddie Shah show how to deal with situations of this sort, and has not the law been strengthened since then?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I think that the circumstances were a little different.

Housing and Building Control Bill
4.7 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments and reason resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
The Commons made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
13 Page 3, line 16, leave out ("subsection (I) above and the provision made by subsection') and insert ("subsections (I) and")
14 Page 8, line 18, leave out Clause 7.
15 Page 22, line 11, leave out ("18A(2) or')
Note: the references in amendment 15 are to Bill (159)]
16 Page 63, line 32, leave out ("18A(1) or")
17 Page 68, line 27, leave out ("18A(1) or")
18 Page 85, line 10, leave out paragraph 10.
19 Page 88, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("Part 1V of Schedule 2 to that Act (charges and other matters) ")
20 Page 90, column 3, leave out lines 48 and 49.
Lord Bellwin: I beg formally to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 13 to 20.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has moved the amendments formally, I intervene because, quite unconsciously—I hasten to say this immediately—he concluded Commons Amendment No. 12 before I had had the chance to intervene following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. This is not the time to repeat the arguments that we have had about the whole of this issue including the consequential amendments to Amendment No. 12. Like my noble friend Lady Birk I consider that this is a victory for the whole House, for all Benches of the House, in defence of the security of elderly people. I should like however to put three points to the noble Lord, if he feels able to answer them. Am I correct in the assumption that it is within the full power of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State alone, to determine whether or not those houses designed for elderly people shall be available for sale?
Secondly, if that is the case, will the noble Lord suggest to his right honourable friend that the figures for acceptance and rejection of applications made by councils on behalf of these houses should be published at least monthly? As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, pointed out, the figures that we were given, both for
172
rejections of applications for rural areas and for the exemption of houses, were totally unsatisfactory. Can we have the figures at least monthly so that they may be examined and the Government questioned on them regarding both applications for designation as rural areas and applications for exemption of those houses made by councils on behalf of elderly people?
Thirdly, the noble Lord mentioned the guidelines that he or his right honourable friend is to issue to local councils. I am sure we all welcome the fact that there will be consultations with the organisations. But will be or his right honourable friend also take into his confidence Parliament itself, and will be publish some form of preliminary guidelines so that these may be discussed before they are finalised, in order that the final say, the final word, rests with both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I said to my noble friend Lord Molson, and I say again to the noble Lord. Lord Hatch, that I am not going to reopen two years of debate at this stage when we are considering these Commons Amendments.
On the last point, if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had been taking careful note, he would be aware that I stressed that it was welcomed that not only will there be guidelines, but that the wording of them will be discussed with the local authority associations as well as with others concerned; and that they will not be published before there has been this input. That has been agreed. That is as far as I can go towards helping the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby:—;has not answered a single one of my questions.
Noble Lords: Order!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 Schedule 10, page 84, line 1, at end insert—
(" . Subsections (4) and (4A) of section 3 of the Housing Act 1980 (meaning of "house", "flat", "dwelling-house" etc.) shall have effect as if any reference to the right to buy included a reference to the right to be granted a shared ownership lease.
. Section 4(3) of that Act (joint tenants and members of family occupying dwelling-house otherwise than as joint tenants) shall have effect as if the reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act.
.—(1) In section 5(2) of that Act (notice claiming to exercise the right to buy) for the words "three years" there shall be substituted the words "two years".
(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement of Part I of this Act.
. At the end of section 6 of that Act (purchase price) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(6) Where the secure tenant's tenancy has at any time been assigned by virtue of section 37A of this Act, the persons specified in subsection (5) above shall not include any person who under that tenancy was a secure tenant before the assignment.".")
The Commons insisted on their amendment to the Lords amendment 21 in:
Line 11, to leave out ("In section 5(2)') and insert ("After subsection (1) of section 5")
for the following Reason:
22 Because the amendment is needed in view of the amendment proposed by the Commons in line 12 of the said Lords amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their disagreement to the Commons amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 21 on which the Commons have insisted for the Reason numbered 22.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
The Commons did not insist on their amendment to the Lords amendment 21 in:
Line 12, after ("buy)") to insert ("there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A landlord's notice under subsection (1) above shall inform the tenant of any application for a determination under paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule Ito this Act and, in the case of a notice admitting the tenant's right, shall be without prejudice to any determination made on such an application."
(1A) In subsection (2) of that section")
but proposed the following amendment to the Lords amendment 21 in lieu of that Commons amendment:
23 Line 12, after ("buy)') insert ("there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A landlord's notice under subsection (1) above shall inform the tenant of any application for a determination under paragraph S of Part 1 of Schedule Ito this Act and, in the case of a notice admitting the tenant's right, shall be without prejudice to any determination made on such an application."
(1A) In subsection (2) of that section').
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg formally to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23 to the Lords Amendment No. 21.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
The Commons did not insist on their amendment to the Lords amendment 21 in:
Line 14, to leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)")
but proposed the following amendments to the Lords amendment in lieu of that Commons amendment.
24 Line 14, after ("above') insert ("shall not apply where the tenant's claim to exercise the right to but' was made before the coming into force of Part 1 of this Act: and the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1A) above")
25 Line 16, leave out ("commencement') and insert ("coming into force").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg formally to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23 to the Lords Amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 21.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Bill
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JACQUES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duty of trade union to hold elections for certain positions]:
Lord McCarthy moved amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("union") to the end of line 9 and insert ("within one year after the date of commencement of this Part to propose to its members the adoption of such rules as are necessary to ensure—").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has recently been telling us about two years of debate. I can only say that it seemed like two years of debate waiting for this debate to come on. But at last we are there.
The first amendment, which it falls to me to introduce at this point, is, in effect, to modify the first clause of the Bill so as to give the unions concerned a choice—a choice which the Bill denies them. The purpose of the Bill at this point—indeed, the purpose of Part I of the Bill—is to impose upon unions a particular way of electing their national executive committee, termed in the Bill their principal executive committee. That alternative method, that system, is to elect their principal executive by a direct election, and to do it also in a very constrictive way which we intend to specify subsequently, particularly when we come to our amendments to Clause 2 of the Bill. In general terms, which is what Clause 1 of the Bill is about, it rules out any possibility of indirect elections.
That is really the crucial issue which we should like the Committee to consider at this moment—not that trade union executives should not be elected, not that they should be appointed, not even that some should be elected indirectly and some should be elected directly, but that no member of a principal executive committee of a union who has a vote—a full member of that executive—should be elected indirectly.
We are trying to raise the issue in the same way as it was attempted to raise it in another place. We want to know why it should be the case that virtually all other forms of representative assemblies, representative bodies or committees, are permitted from time to time, and in some cases entirely, to nominate people to serve upon their principal executive committee, or to elect them directly in some cases, but to elect them indirectly in others. Companies do this, universities do this, professional associations do this, and, as we in this Committee ought to consider most particularly, Parliaments do this. Parliament indirectly elects the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister indirectly elects or appoints the entire Cabinet, who hold office at her say-so.
This is the usual way in which normal bodies work, because it is sensible and convenient to allow some posts to be filled by direct election and some people to have the right to choose, from among that number, people who they know have expertise, who are elected indirectly to serve alongside them. This works in all other systems, but it is no longer to be allowed to work in trade unions. What we really are asking is, "Why?" If it is the case that the Government insist upon it without having a reason, why not let the unions have a choice as to whether or not they want that system? The purpose of our amendment is to say, in effect, that the union, through its proper constitutional rule-making provisions, can put to the membership a choice as to whether they wish to move in the direction of Clause I and Clause 2 of this Bill, or whether they want to retain their existing systems, which in many cases are mixed systems.
One of the most remarkable things about the Government's arguments for this Bill, and for Clause 1, is that they do not make the kind of allegations—this was mentioned to some extent on Second Reading—which at least in principle would support a provision of this kind. We have not been told, and I take it that we shall not be told tonight by the noble Earl, that we must have a system of direct elections in the detailed way prescribed in Clause 2 of the Bill, because the present mixed system in trade unions is riddled with impersonation, or fraud, or corruption, or a continuation or development of the kind of isolated examples that hit the headlines when they occur; for example, the famous ETU case in the mid-1950s. Nobody has said—certainly not the Government in the Green Paper or the Minister or the Secretary of State in another place—that there is at this moment a rash of corruption, fraud, impersonation and a kind of electoral malpractice in British trade unions.
Of course, it is true that assertions are made. The Secretary of State in another place said that there was a scandalous position in some of our largest unions and that that in some sense justified this clause of the Bill. He did not tell us which unions, or how large they were; but he was certain that it was scandalous.
We have not been told—and I ask the noble Earl to tell us if he thinks that it is relevant—that this clause can be justified by various undercover suggestions or inferences that sometimes people whisper but which the Government do not put up. I am thinking, for example, of the fact that maybe those unions that have directly elected executives who go straight to the members and who do not use this dreadful principle of indirect elections, are more moderate, less militant, more likely not to go on strike and less controlled by extremist elements than unions that have mixed systems. Of course, we are not told that because it is an argument which could not stand the light of day. If you take unions like the GMBATU, the TSSA and so on, which have indirect systems, and compare them with other unions like TASS, which have direct systems—or, indeed, compare them the other way round—you cannot find any correlation in terms of the degree of militance or moderateness. It does not seem in any way connected—indeed, why should it be?—with whether you have the system of direct
176
elections or the system of mixing direct with indirect, which everybody else does and which everybody did until the Government tried to impose this provision on the trade union movement.
Therefore, we are suggesting in this amendment that union members should be given a choice; that through the constitutional processes of their unions they should be allowed themselves to decide whether they want to move in the direction of a system of universal direct elections or (if they are the 40 per cent. or so of trade unions that do not have that system) whether they wish to retain their present system, whatever that system may be. If the Government have particular objections to the way in which we have framed this amendment, then let me say that we are not necessarily committed to the words. However, we are committed to the principle. We have other amendments down, and so do other noble Members of this House, which will follow this amendment and which advance the argument of choice in another way.
At the end of the day we are, in this amendment, trying to take the Government at their word. When the Government have been asked what this Bill is about they have said throughout that they are giving the unions back to the members, that they are giving the members the choice. All right: that is what this amendment does and the Government should support it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This opting-out amendment reflects the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on Second Reading. If the amendment were carried and if the opting out facility were to be adopted on any significant scale, the intendment of this Bill will be undermined. The superimposition of the Part I duty forms an essential and an integral part of these proposals, which are so long overdue, to reform the internal management of trade union affairs.
Furthermore, one cannot lose sight of the interaction between Part I and Part II of this Bill. The machinery for electing the quality of the man who makes the decisions as to calling industrial action under Part II, is set up by Part I. Under both these parts a degree of self-regulation is accorded to the officers of the trade unions. The quality of the man who is elected under Part I is important, because he may use the result of a ballot in favour of taking industrial action not to take it, but rather to negotiate with the employers. Alternatively, he may decide that the majority is too thin, and so forth. Therefore, the quality of the decision taken under Part II is reflected by the electoral system under Part I. I suggest that it would be quite wrong for there to be acceptance of these general opting-out provisions.
Lord Vaizey: I have a fundamental difficulty with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Judging by the great pile of papers which the noble Lord has brought with him, we shall hear the same argument frequently. He asked: why should not the unions have a choice? The fundamental difficulty which I have concerns the question, "What is the union?" Until they have had proper elections there is no possibility of saying who the union actually is; it means, I take it, the present body of people who say

177
that they are the union. This whole aspect runs right through every single word that has been said so far on this Bill and on previous Bills. I am sure that it will run right through Bills in future. That, to my mind, is a sufficient and complete answer to the arguments that have been advanced.
Lord Howie of Troon: As we have discussed trade union legislation from time to time over the last several years, noble Lords will have realised that I am in no way averse to passing a law in this area. I do not object to legal restraints and restrictions upon trade unions, but I should like to refer to one point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. If I heard the noble Lord correctly, he said that if the first amendment of my noble friend Lord McCarthy were to be agreed to today—or even later—it would undermine the intention of the Bill. I think that that was what the noble Lord said. That really prompted in my mind the question of what is the actual intention of the Bill. That is something about which we should think constantly throughout our deliberations.
I do not take the rather severe view which some of my noble friends take; namely, that the Government's intention is to destroy the trade union movement. I do not think that that is true at all. However, if we take the Government's assertion that their aim is to return the trade union movement to its members, then the question of their attitude towards my noble friend's amendment raises itself. Is it really the Government's intention here to return the unions to their members, or is it the Government's intention to insist upon one specific and particular mode of election as though that were the only mode of election that we could possibly have? We know perfectly well that there are thoroughly reasonable and decent democratic institutions which are elected by a variety of methods of franchise. While we support secret ballots and all the things which the Government want, we do not necessarily agree that there is only one way in which union executives, and so on, can be elected.
If the Government are serious in suggesting that the unions should be returned to their members, then that question in a way answers the question asked from the Benches opposite about who is the union, because the union is its members. That is what the union is and that is what it always has been. My noble friend's proposal permits the union membership, the individual members, to decide in what way their rules can be arranged to suit the ultimate aim of the Government. It is not enough just to say that they shall run their affairs in the way in which the Government say and in no other way. It is only sensible that the members of the unions should have proposals put to them and that they should be allowed to decide whether their own way of running their own affairs is democratic, provided of course that the rules under which these decisions are made fit the rules of freedom, secrecy, and so on, which the Government quite rightly want.
Lord Denning: I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment. It suggests that proposals should be put before the membership either for excluding the proposed new method of balloting or that there should be other amendments to get a
178
majority. These proposals need amendment of the rules of the union. If I may say so, one has to look into the law books to see how the rules of a union are to be amended.
The common law says that it is a voluntary association by which all the original members are bound and the rules cannot be changed except by agreement of all the members. Most union rules have a provision for alteration, and in his book Lord Citrine says how careful the unions must be in prescribing machinery for altering the rules. He says that snap decisions might be taken and the rules might be altered unjustifiably. But he says that the proper way to alter the rules of most unions is by a postal ballot of the members. Sometimes that can be done at a conference. Perhaps every year or every two years the rules can be altered, but they are not voted upon by all the members. They are voted upon by all the delegates who find themselves there, not having been properly elected throughout. He says that that is an unsatisfactory method of altering the rules and that the right and best way to alter them is by a postal ballot of the membership.
As I understand these amendments, they do not go anywhere near that suggestion; they do not say how the rules are to be amended by the union or the like. Amendment No. 6 brings in Section 1 of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act, 1964. A great deal of protection is given to the ordinary member before the rules can be altered in that way, even about amalgamation. I shall not go into that further now. But I believe that this amendment is quite misconceived and that it does not give proper effect or ensure that the altering of a union's rules is carried out properly. I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.
Lord Rochester: I should like to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in what he has said. As the Committee will learn from later amendments, I am not necessarily opposed to the principle of indirect as opposed to direct elections for the principal executive committees of trade unions. But as I understand it, this amendment seeks only to place proposals before trade union members for their consideration. It makes no provision for the exclusion of Part I of the Bill by means of secret postal ballots; nor does it make provision for electoral arrangements, once adopted, to be reviewed at periodic intervals to see whether the union members agree that they should remain in being or be altered to conform with the Government's proposals under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. For those reasons I am afraid that I, too, am not in a position to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: I welcome the chance offered by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to enable us to concentrate for a moment on the effect of this amendment. The efficacy of the amendment—if it has efficacy—obviously depends on understanding precisely where it lies in the Bill. It lies in Clause 1. Clause 1 of Part I of the Bill is the cornerstone of the Bill and deals with union elections. It imposes a duty on every trade union to ensure that all voting members of its principal executive committee are elected at least every five years by secret ballot. The other issues fall

179
within the subsequent clauses of Part I and deal with the conduct of ballots, with enforcement procedures exemptions, and the like.
The amendment that we are considering would replace the duty currently imposed on trade unions by Clause I to ensure that all voting members of the principal executive committee are elected at least every five years by secret ballot, with a duty to propose to the members, within a year of the legislation coming into force, the adoption of rules embodying the provisions of the legislation. In effect, that would make the statutory requirements optional. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in moving the amendment told us, it would in effect seek to allow unions to choose whether or not they should be bound by Part I of the Trade Union Bill. Variants of this idea have been debated in the other place, but it still seems to me that, in spite of those debates, this is a very novel idea indeed.
Legislation is not normally optional, and it seems to me that there really would have to be exceptional circumstances for making it so. On Second Reading I laid considerable emphasis on the principle that one should measure these rather modest requirements against the enormous privilege of immunity against the amount of legislation which polices or circumscribes company legislation. In this context we do not allow our companies to opt out of company law on the basis of a vote by shareholders. Nor do we allow our employers to opt out of employment protection legislation.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In regard to the election of directors—which is the parallel—would the noble Earl accept that companies, by way of a resolution of shareholders, can indeed opt out of Table A of the 1948 Act, which sets up a model?
The Earl of Gowrie: More is involved in this legislation than the election of officers in particular. This is the point that I shall seek to argue in a minute. The idea that one should bring forward legislation which is, in effect, optional is a somewhat novel concept, and whatever the merits of the argument—and I do not happen to share the noble Lord's views—I think it would be agreed between us that this would be a novel idea.
Therefore, in facing this fact head-on, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has sought to argue that the Trade Union Bill is a special case. He has sought to show on several occasions that this is a legal straitjacket which will steamroller trade union individuality and destroy the freedom which unions have enjoyed over the past century or more. But the fact of the matter is—and the very purpose of the Bill is—that we do not seek to stifle trade union freedom but to enhance it. There is no straitjacket here; the Bill does not lay down chapter and verse about the conduct of elections; still less does it lay down standard electoral rules. For instance, it says nothing about how many members there should be on union executives, nor about how executives should be structured to reflect the composition of the membership, nor about whether executives should comprise lay members, full-time officials or some combination of the two. It does none of those things.
180
The Bill seeks to lay down a few fundamental democratic principles of what I should have thought were a wholly unexceptional character; namely, that voting members of union executives should be directly elected at least once every five years; that in those elections voting must be secret and by ballot paper; that those voting must be allowed to do so without interference or constraint and must have a convenient opportunity of voting; and that votes must be fairly and accurately counted. They do not seem to me to be iniquitous impositions. I would also be interested to know which of those principles noble Lords opposite think union members might wish to reject.
The amendment gives no guarantee that union members would be consulted in such reliable and democratic ways. All that a union would have to do under the amendment—and I am quoting from it—is
"to propose to its members the adoption of such rules as are necessary to ensure"
that union leaders are elected regularly and by secret ballot. As I read that, this would be a once and for all consultation exercise and would not even have to be repeated every few years.
Furthermore, the Committee has been given no idea by the noble Lord how the consultations would be conducted. Would so important a matter be relegated to some low item on a conference or branch meeting agenda, or would it be simply debated at some rules revision conference at which the majority of delegates would be, to put it at its most polite, specialists? Would it be put to a vote, perhaps by a show of hands? We shall be dealing with the methods of voting later.
The amendment seeks to replace this carefully drafted Bill, which has been the subject of extensive consultation and which we believe has the majority of trade union members behind it, with this optional chimera. The truth is that trade unions have had ample time to propose electoral reforms to their members through their own internal procedures rather along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, but historically and recently they have failed to do so. They have had the offer of Government money to make this task un-onerous. It has been there for the taking since 1980 and they have chosen to ignore it. So the time has now come for legislation, and neither the Government nor ordinary trade union members should be bought off with vague promises on the part of unions, as the amendment suggests, to consider our proposals and seek their members' views.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has in the context of this amendment raised a question of great importance, which is whether the Bill should provide for indirect as well as direct election to union governing bodies, and I make no objection to the fact that he has brought it to the Committee's attention. Later amendments, Nos. 4, 5 and 7, raise this question more specifically and will enable us to look at the Bill's provision more directly. Having said that, I do not want to suggest that this is an argument solely about practicality and pragmatism.
A major point of principle is involved. The major point of principle is that the Government believe that it is fundamental to a proper system of democracy and trade unions that those union leaders who take decisions on behalf of their members should be

181
directly elected by those members. Only in that way can the members be certain that they can exercise effective control over those who speak and act on their behalf.
I believe that I have demonstrated therefore that the amendment is unjustifiable. It is based on the assumption that the Bill is rigid and oppressive whereas it is in fact extremely flexible and modest—indeed, too modest for some of my noble friends. It is based on the assumption that existing electoral arrangements in trade unions are fair and democratic, and the amendment is based on the assumption that there is no desire for change on the part of union members. Surely these assumptions are entirely false and cannot be substantiated. I would therefore ask noble Lords to oppose the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to briefly reply to some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, if I understand him, says that this amendment would not simply undermine Part I of the Bill but also Part II of the Bill. I do not think so. Part II of the Bill could exist entirely on its own. It is a restriction on the right to strike. The sanction is the sanction which might be brought by either an employer or an injured third party. It does not depend on there being a Part I of the Bill at all. If you say that this amendment undermines Part I of the Bill, yes, that is what it is intended to do. It is intended to make Part I of the Bill optional, yes; flexible, yes. If that is undermining the intention of Part I of the Bill, that is the object of the exercise.
I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, why I have more papers than he has. I intend to be here rather longer. I intend to see the Bill through. The noble Lord says that the trouble with our amendment is that we are only putting this issue to what he calls the present body of the union. With great respect, this is what we are up against in this Bill, and it might as well be mentioned here. It is now represented by many people that any system of trade union democracy must throw up unrepresentative people who represent nobody—"Nothing but direct elections. Nothing but a system of universal plebiscites is going to create trade union democracy. Where six trade union representative are gathered together, they are selling the members down the river".
We do not need evidence for this. This is solemnly put forward by people who say, without any further evidence. "If you want to run something by reference to the constitutional methods of the union, that is the present body of the union and must be suspected because of it". Without evidence there is not much one can do with arguments of that kind, except to say, as the noble Earl said, that subsequently we have amendments, and other people have amendments, which go beyond the existing body of the union and actually go to the members to give the choice—which is the principle behind this amendment—to the members.
I come to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I hesitate to disagree with him. If I understand him aright he seemed to be saying at some stage that this Bill requires the unions to change their
182
rules, and that our amendment would require the unions to change their rules, and that you have to be very careful before you ask unions to change their rules.
Lord Denning: May I say that it was only the amendment which I thought sought to make the unions change the rules, not the Bill itself. The Bill itself is operating over and above the rules.
Lord McCarthy: Exactly. So is the amendment. We are not suggesting in our amendment that you would have to change the rules. We are saying in our amendment that you would use your existing rules, your existing constitutions, in order to decide whether or not you wished to be bound by Clause 1 of the Bill, so you would not need to change your existing rules.
All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is that I agree that we have his amendment to come. If he does not like our amendment I shall be quite happy to vote for his because I want to see an element of choice. If we go to the members for that choice rather than doing it through the rule book, so be it. I want an element of choice.
I come to what the noble Earl said. I shall leave aside, if I may, because we are going to come to it so many times, all the stuff about degrees of immunity. With Part II of the Bill, there will be virtually no immunities left. How the degree of immunities can justify a particular form of democracy, we are never told. However, no doubt we shall be going over the ground about immunities subsequently.
I would rather stop on the point that the noble Earl made about indirect elections. If he is saying that he might take a slightly more flexible attitude towards the extremely unselective, rigorous and, we believe, unfair way in which this Bill insists on direct elections, if he is telling me that subsequently the Government might bend on direct and indirect elections, then I might feel disposed to remove this amendment. Otherwise it stands.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 167.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Barnett, L

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bernstein, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Beswick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Gifford, L.

Blyton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Briginshaw, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jacques, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

183

Lockwood, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Stone, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Nicol, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Oram, L.

Willis, L.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Allerton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Amherst, E.

Gowrie, E.

Ampthill, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Attlee, E.

Greenway, L.

Auckland, L.

Grey, E.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grimond, L.

Banks, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bauer, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bellwin, L.

Hampton, L.

Beloff, L.

Hankey, L.

Belstead, L.

Hanson, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Bessborough, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Braye, L.

Hives, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Ironside, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kinross, L.

Chelmer, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Chelwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chitnis, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Cockfield, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cottesloe, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mar, C.

Croft, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cromartie, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon- Avon, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Daventry, V.

Mayhew, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Milverton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Minto, E.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Denning, L.

Moths, L.

Diamond, L.

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Northchurch, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Onslow, E.

Dulverton, L.

Orkney, E.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elles, B.

Porrit, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, D.

Elton, L.

Radnor, E.

Errol of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Renwick, L.

Ezra, L.

Richardson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Roberthall, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rochdale, V.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gladwyn, L.

Sandford, L.

184

Sandys, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Savile, L.

Tordoff, L.

Selborne, E.

Tranmire, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Tryon, L.

Simon, V.

Ullswater, V.

Somers, L.

Vaizey, L.

Spens, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Stamp, L.

Vickers, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Walston, L.

Strathspey, L.

Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Swansea, L.

Wigoder, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Winstanley, L.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Teviot, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.59 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("(notwithstanding anything in its rules)") and insert ("(unless it has adopted or, as the case may be. reconfirmed rules which expressly exclude this Part by a resolution approved by a majority of its members which satisfies the conditions of subsection (I A) below)").
The noble Lord said: I want to take this amendment and speak also to Amendment No. 6, which is part of the same argument.
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("(1A) The conditions are—

(a) that such a resolution was first passed within two years of the date of the coming into effect of this Part and has been adopted or, as the case may be, re-confirmed by resolution within a period of five years before the date of any complaint or application made under this Part; and

(b) that the voting on the resolution satisfies the conditions in section 1(2) of the 1964 Act; and

(c) that any complaints in respect of such resolution (and appeals in respect of such complaints) shall be determined in the same manner as complaints under section 4 of that Act (complaints to Certification Officer).").

In this amendment we are trying to meet two of the criticisms which, funnily enough, we surmised correctly might be made about the last amendment. That is to say, we are offering a choice in the same kind of fashion to the members whether or not they wish to come under the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, but we are meeting the point that under our previous amendment we were thinking in terms of a once-and-for-all choice. After all, who is to say that the members might not change their minds?
Under the terms of this amendment they must pass a resolution on the status quo within two years and they must reconfirm that decision each five years. But because there are about people who think that a democratically constituted union which has representatives and uses the same system of government as we do in this House naturally represents nobody, we are suggesting that this choice should go straight out to ballot. For this purpose we are using the plebiscite. We are using a tried, helpful and acceptable system—the technique of balloting established under the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act 1964. This largely repeated similar techniques from previous amalgamation Acts; that is to say, the techniques for consulting and balloting members when one union merges or amalgamates with another. They are regulated by

185
Section 1(2)(b) of the 1964 Act, which states that every member must be allowed to vote without interference or restraint. In that way it is rather similar to passages in the present Bill. It states that, so far as is reasonably possible, each trade union member shall be given a fair opportunity to vote, and it establishes a well-developed system of complaints to the certification officer if there is reason to believe that the ballot has been incorrectly conducted. A trade union member can complain, and he has six weeks in which to complain after the declaration of the election. He can appeal to the certification officer and from the certification officer to the employment appeals tribunal on a point of law.
We are suggesting that this is a tried and established system. It overcomes the substance of the main plausible objections to our previous amendment; namely, that it is done repeatedly, and that it goes directly to the members. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: There is one extra provision in Section 1(2) of the 1964 Act. The noble Lord mentioned certain provisions of it—that every member should be entitled to vote; and that every member should have a voting paper which he could mark. But there is also the important provision that every member had to be given seven days previous notice, and that all reasonable steps had to be taken to give every member reasonable notice of what was proposed. Seven days notice had to be given before the ballot was held. "All reasonable steps" were to be taken to give every member notice of what was proposed before the voting took place. But there is no definition of what are "all reasonable steps". "All reasonable steps" has never been construed, as I know, by the court. But I should have thought that on a matter of much importance to take "all reasonable steps" to tell every member what was the proposal would involve a postal ballot. It seems to me that on an important change such as an amalgamation "all reasonable steps" would include a postal ballot and would not include anything less.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Leaving aside the issue of a postal ballot, which I understand we shall have an opportunity to debate on its merits on a subsequent amendment, why should this facility, or any facility to opt out of Part I, be accorded? Is the reason the one advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, at column 1292 of the Official Report during the Second Reading debate? He then said that it will mean,
"in every union an uncertain and unpredictable change in the existing power balance".
Is it because this shift in the power balance could affect the measure of financial support available at present to the Labour Party from the political levy contributions that this facility in some form or other is pressed? It is at this point that Part I, which I insist does impinge on Part II, also relates to Part III of the Bill.
5.6 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just reminded us, these amendments are very similar in their combined affect to Amendment No. 1, which we have just debated. Like Amendment No. 1, their purpose is to make it possible, in my noble friend's words, to opt out of Part
186
I of the Bill. The only difference is that these amendments—I can at least say this good for them—pay some heed to the democratic rights of trade unionists by proposing that union members be consulted both regularly on whether they wish the Bill to apply to them and by secret ballot. I can of course say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning that, yes, indeed, we shall be discussing the method of balloting at a later stage.
That said, we are back again to the fundamental question of why trade union members should want to exempt themselves from this legislation. In this connection, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in regard to both these amendments and Amendment No. 1, has rested his case on the alleged unreasonableness and restrictiveness of the requirements on elections. If that were the case, I might have some sympathy with the noble Lord, and a self-exemption scheme of the kind he has in mind might make some sense. For instance, if this legislation, by prescribing very detailed or uniform provisions, had directly required changes in union rules and electoral arrangements, it might have been reasonable to allow trade union members to vote as to whether they wanted to accept those provisions or to carry on with their existing arrangements if they could show that they were reasonable. But the fact of the matter is that, in the context of the present Bill, a scheme of the kind proposed in these amendments would involve opting out of the very basic principles and the very unexceptional ones that I outlined when I addressed myself to the previous amendments. That is because the legislation has quite deliberately taken the route of putting forward only the fundamental principles which must be observed.
In connection with both this amendment and the previous amendment the noble Lord has tried to show that this is in some way a doctrinaire approach and that the evidence is not there that trade unionists have been consulted as to whether they want such reforms to their trade union. But a massive consultative exercise took place at the ballot box just over a year ago and the result was surely decisive. Fewer than 40 per cent. of trade unionists voted for the Labour Party and 60 per cent. voted for parties—I am not therefore making a narrow party point of my own here—committed to introducing secret ballots for the election of union leaders. Subsequent opinion polls have confirmed this pattern. For instance, the MORI poll conducted for the Daily Star in September last year showed that 83 per cent. of union members favoured secret ballots for the election of union governing bodies.
I can also refer in connection with abuses such as the block vote, outlawed by this legislation, to no less an authority than Mr. Sid Weighell, the former general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen. He seems to me to be really the kind of person to whom the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, must address his remarks, as well as, of course, to your Lordships. In his recent book, On the Rails, Mr. Weighell wrote—and I am quoting him:
"The NUR electoral system is open to abuse. Indeed, I believe it needs only half a dozen dedicated people to take over any branch in the union. There are some branches that do not even meet at all. The block vote system of voting in the NUR does not really stand serious examination because the votes of all the members of the branch whether they turn up or not are cast for one individual candidate.

187
This means, for example, that an NUR branch might have 300 members of whom only ten might go to the meeting where the election is held and of that number six might vote for one candidate and four for another. But all 300 votes would go to the winner in the contest".
Despite this, block voting is still a feature of the electoral landscape in many unions, including not just the NUR, but also COHSE, the General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, NUPE and USDAW; so in spite of the small concessions made to democracy in these amendments, I must ask you to reject them for the same reason as you rejected Amendment No. 1. The standards set by the Bill for union elections are reasonable, flexible and quite self-evidently desired by the great majority of union members. The abuses which they will eliminate, such as the block vote and voting by show of hands at branch meetings, are quite simply indefensible. There can be no justification for making such standards optional, just as there could be no justification, for example, for making the secrecy of the ballot optional in a parliamentary election. The time for these reforms has come; they are widely supported and union members do not wish to see them further delayed; and so I ask your Lordships to reject the amendments.
Lord McCarthy: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I thought was saying he rather liked the amendment in the sense that it went to the machinery of the 1964 amalgamation Act. If he says to me that necessarily means that our amendment, if passed, would involve a postal ballot, I say I would accept that, if that be what the 1964 amalgamation Act means. That is a matter for someone to establish, if they wish, by challenging a decision of a union either on amalgamation or, if this Bill went through, on a decision under that provision, and going to the certification officer; and if they did not like the decision they got from the certificating officer they could appeal against that decision. I would abide by whatever it is the court says is meant by the 1964 amalgamation Act, and if that means a postal ballot, so let it be a postal ballot. We are not against postal ballots.
I think that we are probably going to have the argument between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about the connection between Parts I and II of this Bill dragging on into the small hours. I will not go into that now, but rather I would simply say that when I said at Second Reading—and this is a point of some substance—that I was worried (and that was not the only reason I was worried) about Part I of the Bill because, I think he said, of the uncertain and unpredictable change in the power balance of the British unions, I was not thinking about the party power balance. The damage to the party power balance is being done in Part III of the Bill and we will come to that in due course. I was talking about a union like the GMBATU, or a union like the T & GWU, or like ASTMS, because I would argue that whereas direct elections of a principal executive committee suit certain types of union, and particularly those with a highly cohesive and coherent centre of activists like the AUEW, who use full-time trade union officials and put them on their executive, these systems of universal direct election without indirect election do not suit
188
large conglomerates. They will break up the GMBATU and cause considerable damage also to the T & GWU.
It is not an accident that unions of a certain kind use direct elections to their executive, and unions of a different kind do not universally use direct elections and nothing else. It has a great deal to do with union structure, with occupational nature, and with the way in which the union grew up historically. What you destroy when you destroy the balance in the GMBATU is one of the most efficient, stable and moderate trade unions in the country. I do not intend to press this to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): The next amendment is Amendment No. 3. If this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

(a) that more than half of the voting members of its principal executive committee (the "majority members") hold their positions by virtue of having been elected as such members at elections in relation to which section 2 of this Act has been satisfied;

(b) that no majority member remains such a member for a period of more than five years without being re-elected at such an election;

(c) that the method of election of such number of other members of that committee as the rules may specify (being less than half of the voting members) shall be determined by the rules except that no such person shall serve as such member for a period of more than five years without being re-elected at such an election.").

The noble Lord said: We now come to further amendments testing the extent to which the Government are insistent that their comprehensive method for direct election to the principal executive committee is the only method of democracy which shall be permitted to trade unions. It is part of a new campaign to control the autonomy of trade unions, and this amendment does not challenge that completely, but it does attempt to inquire how far the Government are prepared to go. In simple terms, the amendment is saying that if the Government impose their will with 51 per cent. of the executive elected by their method, why should not the union members, to whom the choice should be handed, at least not have the right and power to elect 49 per cent. to suit the methods of their organisation?
In approaching this Committee stage myself, I would wish to say that sometimes on these employment Bills, and indeed some others, one hears voices in your Lordships' Chamber which appear to suggest that there is some virtue in a matter that combines profound policy and technicality of law in not knowing much about the law in order to have a good go at the policy. That is not a view that I share. I think this is a matter of very difficult law and very difficult trade union practice.
Why are the Government pushing their view in the face of the clear finding of the Donovan Commission in 1968—and I quote:
"That it is not practicable to prescribe a set of model election rules which would be suitable for every trade union".

189
It is that finding of the Donovan Commission which has been sustained in varying ways by subsequent research, especially by the recent research of Mr. Undy and Dr. Martin (well known to the Government) and which the Government have been unable to match in regard to the issues that arise. For example, the Government's position that they must control the method of election completely and by the one method in Clauses 1 and 2 in great detail does not guarantee a higher turnout, as the research shows. It may or may not. This method does not guarantee greater accountability. The research shows that it may or it may not. It is not prompted by any major scandals or malpractice; we have been over that—the chance has been offered and it has not been met. It does not correlate in any way with support for the Labour Party, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, may have been suggesting, unless I misunderstood him. It is an imposition of a doctrinaire dogma as to how every union—each one of the 442 (because here are many organisations other than the 105 affiliated to the TUC)—must elect the executive in this manner.
I thought at one stage in his first speech to us today that the noble Earl seemed to be expressing at any rate a little sympathy with the idea that indirect elections could be a possible way of conducting decent, democratic associations in this country; and I would be surprised if he did not have that view because, as my noble friend has said, most associations other than trade unions, as well as trade unions, do in fact use that method when it is appropriate.
As for the argument that the Government are entitled to reject every amendment because they won the general election, as though there were some general plebiscite on every Bill that they were going to bring forward in the five years, I hope that we will not hear that again, because there is no point in having a Committee stage if that is the Government's view, and indeed no point in having any debates at all. That means that if you win an election, you put through what you like for five years; but that would not accord with the principles of this Bill.
There are four questions that I wish to put to the noble Earl on this amendment, which is, I repeat, giving the Government 51 per cent. for their imposed procedure on the executive—a majority control—but is asking, "Why cannot the members have the thing which suits their organisation for the rest?" First, it is well-established and was admitted in the Government's own Green Paper at paragraph 41, that many officers are appointed, especially by smaller unions, because that suits the organisation and it would be very silly to disturb those practices where, if I may quote the Green Paper, the union's needs
"are better served by selecting a General Secretary for appointment on the basis of his expertise and experience, rather than by election from within the union on the basis of popular support".
There are such cases. The Jarratt Committee of the CBI indeed recommended in 1980 that that practice be extended. That is the first point.
Secondly, is it not within the Government's knowledge that it is trite to say that amalgamations and mergers of unions, which it has been public policy among governments of various political colours to promote since the war, are facilitated by having an arrangement where sections can be appropriately
190
organised on the executive, which would not necessarily—at least, in the first instance—rest upon a mere Clause 2 type during the election? It is well-known that the TUC has put the point to the Government often and enough, and I know of no place where a clear answer has been given on this Bill. What is the Government's answer to the argument that dogmatic insistence on election according to Clause 1 and Clause 2 will inhibit the continued rationalisation of trade union structures—which one thought was a non-controversial objective on both sides of the House—in such a way that some amalgamations that would be useful to industrial relations will be held up?
I come to the third point. Why should not some members go on to the executive indirectly? There are organisations which have members put on to the executive by the conference. There is the British Airline Pilots' Association and various other organisations. I am trying to pick organisations about which people will not say that there is some subversive element of support for the Labour Party. Then there is the Health Visitors' Association. Why should they not be allowed, as they do now, to put some people from the conference on to the executive?
My fourth point is that there are some organisations which have rather elaborate arrangements for co-option on to the executive and these would fit the amendment particularly, because they are a minority. The National League of the Blind and the Disabled is a trade union. Why should the Government insist that it can no longer operate the rule to co-opt some of the members of the executive? Why should not the Association of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes—I should have thought that the Government wanted to be nice to them—go on with their rule of co-opting people on to the executive? In more general terms, with those four points, it is well recognised that direct elections entail a greater politicisation—in the broadest sense; not in a party sense—within a trade union; an increase in factionalism or, as those who support it say, an increase in democracy because it promotes a party system.
What we are saying in this amendment—to come to my final point—is: all right, if you want a party system within more trade unions, including all these hundreds of small organisations, have it for 51 per cent., but let the union get on with some sensible arrangements, which are suitable for its affairs, for 49 per cent., because we suspect you may see over the years that the members come to respect the 49 per cent. elections, and modify them in ways which are more suitable than those left with creaking legislation. But whoever may be right, since the Government believe in market forces, it is not very fair to us, because it is not 50/50. So why not take them on 51 to 49, and see which is the better market force within the union. See which the members regard as the best way to organise their affairs.
If the Government do not want to try that, are they not saying that they will not allow the members of autonomous organisations even to have a minority of people on their own executive according to the rules that they wish to have? And let us have no more about companies, because companies arrange their boards according to the general law and their own articles of association. Let us, too, have no more talk about

191
clubs. Many Members of this House belong to clubs, and they do not have legislation telling them that they can elect a committee only according to Clause 2. They would be very cross if they were told that; and members of trade unions also feel that. So I hope that the noble Earl will give us some response to this amendment as a practical matter for the kinds of organisations I have cited, and their very deep concern about their day-to-day affairs being completely disturbed in an undemocratic fashion by the imposition of these clauses. I beg to move.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, surely the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has on this occasion allowed him to fall into error. Part I of this Bill is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the sort of model rules as envisaged by Donovan. They are a super-imposition. We went all over this on Second Reading and it is hardly worth repeating it again.
As regards the noble Lord's reference to legal problems and policies, I was attending but I am afraid that the point went clean over my head. I did not know what the legal problems were and that is reasonable enough. I did not know what the policies were and I suppose that that is reasonable enough. But it was all far too quick for my intelligence. Dogmatic insistence will continue, so he says, to inhibit the union structure in the way of merging. Why should it? Why should direct elections inhibit this? I have listened with such attention as I could truly muster, and with respect I heard no truly reasoned objection to direct elections which could support the substance of this amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: On behalf of the Government, I can of course plead guilty to dogmatic insistence. It is the dogmatic insistence, which lies at the heart of the Bill, that a trade union's governing body should be democratically accountable to the members. This amendment would undermine the basis of that insistence of Part I of the Bill, by allowing people who have not been elected in accordance with the basic—and I may say very broad—democratic principles in Clause 2 of the Bill, to vote on a union's governing body. I insist on the breadth of these principles, because I think there is an expert and subtle attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to imply a very wide and detailed intervention into the requirements for unions in this way. Our view is that it is essential that the Bill's requirements should apply, quite simply, to every voting member of a union's principal executive committee, because these persons are the key day-to-day decision-makers in a trade union. The way each and every one of these people casts his or her vote can have a profound effect on the lives and jobs of the union's members, and can also have a profound effect on those of us in the wider community. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, raising in this context the spectre of the in-house rules of White's or the Garrick. The fact is that the members of White's and the Garrick do not control the lives and jobs either of the other members or of those of us who are not fortunate enough—as is the case with me—to belong to those great institutions. It is therefore only reasonable,
192
surely, that all those with voting powers should be democratically accountable to the membership. It is also clear, as I tried to demonstrate earlier, that that is what the members want.
It would be illogical to exempt up to half the voting members of a union's executive from this fundamental principle of accountability. One does, again at the risk of wearying the Committee, have to pose the question: what is it that is so objectionable in the Bill that it should not apply to every voting member of the executive? Clearly it is not that there should be elections at least every five years, because that is something, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, that his amendment concedes. Nor do I believe that the real objection is to voting by ballot paper, or to voting in secret, or to voting at obviously convenient places and times. I do not believe that anyone in this House, wherever they sit, takes the view that these are iniquitous or unacceptable requirements.
We come back again therefore to the Bill's requirement for direct election. I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, that he is quite wrong in suggesting that I have a soft spot for indirect elections. Of course I am aware of the anxieties that have been expressed by some unions over the consequences of having to give up systems of indirect election to their executives. Change is always rather a nuisance. I can understand those anxieties, but I do not think they should cause us to lose sight of the fact that what we are after are basic and broad democratic principles. Indirect election goes against the fundamental principle that the votes cast by individual members should be the decisive factor in the election of the executive.
In saying that I am of course aware that some unions may well wish to ensure that different interest groups or sections within the union are adequately represented on the executive. But that does not depend on indirect election. The Bill specifically permits this kind of sectional representation to continue. Equally I am aware that some unions will want to ensure that their executive benefits from professional expertise which may not be found within the union—for instance, financial advice. But, once again, there is nothing in the Bill to stop a union co-opting an accountant, a lawyer or indeed any other person on to its executive. Such persons can, under the Bill, attend executive meetings. They may speak at executive meetings. They may advise the elected executive members. The only thing they may not do is to vote when it comes to the final decision-making, unless they themselves have been elected in accordance with the statutory requirements.
That, in a sense, answers in principle the four questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. In more detail, where general secretaries (a point which the noble Lord raised) are concerned, the Bill does not require general secretaries to be elected when they have no vote on their union executives. As to amalgamation, Clause 4 makes special provision for union amalgamations. The Bill is no barrier to union amalgamations. I have already dealt with indirect elections—Lord Wedderburn's third point to me. On his fourth point, I have also dealt with co-opted members of executives. As I have just

193
said, the Bill allows for these, so long as they have no vote because, to return to my earlier point, votes in these areas can have a very far-reaching effect on the lives of members of unions and upon life in the wider community.
So this Bill is indeed—as has been said—about giving the unions back to their members. It is not about making the unions half democratic or two-thirds democratic, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, would seem to wish. It is about making them fully democratic. As I said earlier, the Government have given the unions ample time and ample opportunity to reform themselves. The Government have made funds available to this end. These funds have been spurned. The TUC and its affiliates have refused to take advantage of the easy way to extend their members' rights. Therefore the time has now come for statutory measures, but they are very flexibly and very widely drawn up. At this stage the kind of half measures tossed into the legislation by the suggestion of the noble Lord are simply not good enough. I hope that the Committee will not follow the noble Lord if he presses his amendment to a Division.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before expressing my disappointment with the Minister's response, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that if I fell into error I am sorry. It may be because I went too quickly, as he put it. But I could say to the noble Lord that we are not dealing with model rules. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Donovan was talking about a model which you could then satisfy with variation from union to union.
We are talking about a single set of procedures which are detailed and which are not (as the noble Earl, at least in our view, suggests) broad in principle. They are very detailed. However, I shall not follow the noble Earl by trying to debate Clause 2 when we are still on Clause 1. When we come to Clause 2 we shall show again how these are detailed impositions upon trade union freedom which are in breach of our international obligations as well as in breach of many principles of democracy in this country. But that is for Clause 2. We merely note Clause 2 and Clause 1 at the moment as a single method of election. Nothing else is allowed.
The noble Earl cannot try to make a difference between us on the proposition—I hope I quote him correctly—that he believes, and we do not, that unions should be democratically accountable to their members. Anybody with any experience of British trade unions would be hard put to it, in comparative terms with trade unions around the world and with employers' organisations both here and throughout the world, to put the British trade union movement low in the league of democratic accountability. It is simply false to suggest that it does not enjoy a high reputation for democratic accountability with its many varieties of methods of election of executives and its rich variety of practice. But that is not the issue between us. The issue is whether these rules must be imposed without exception.
The noble Earl said that he will not accept any part of this amendment, which might go a little way towards making things better. The noble Earl said in
194
passing that people could be brought on to the executive under these provisions, so long as they had no vote in the final decision-making. That is a phrase which I noted with interest and to which we shall return later. Of course it is true that they are allowed co-option and indirect election, so long as the people put there can have no effect on the vote.
Why this is also objectionable is very simple. We still believe in the improvement of industrial relations. We do not believe that the Government should stand away from industrial relations problems. We believe that the Government should help with industrial relations problems.
Some of the industrial relations problems relate to the trade union structure. We have always said so. Trade union structure, just like the employers' organisation structure, company structure and the structure of multinational organisations, (which are hardly in the same league of accountability, democratically, as trade unions) have to be looked at with care and not simply by the application of a simplistic formula. This Bill imposes a simplistic formula. But we have learned clearly that the Government not only will not hand back the constitution of the union to the members; we have also learned that the Government will not even hand back 49 per cent. of the constitution to the members. That is now clearly established.
We shall have other Divisions. On this particular occasion I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, after ("position") insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: My interest in trade unions and in trade unionism is slightly different from that of either Front Bench, for they both concentrate, at least to some extent, on the major trade unions, and their thinking is dominated to some degree by the influence of such trade unions on the economy. It is no doubt influence of that kind which has caused the Government to introduce the legislation that is now before us.
As noble Lords may recall, my interest is in smaller, white-collar unions, especially those representing professional engineers, technicians and people of that kind. Trade unionists and trade unions of the kind with which I am closely acquainted and for whom I speak would be dismayed at the noble Earl's description of trade unionism as given today. I am quite sure that in the heat of debate he has exaggerated his view of trade unionism. The trade unionists for whom I speak are nothing like the people he described in earlier discussions.
In the unions I know, there has never been any hint of scandal of the kind to which the noble Earl has drawn our attention on several occasions already. Nor, incidentally, are the unions for which I speak likely to be affiliated to the Labour Party. So they need not come under the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—for that is something that seems to worry him very much. In fact, I have no idea whether the members of any of these unions are in any way interested in the Labour Party.
The matters covered by Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 were drawn to my attention by the Engineers' and Managers' Association. They are a well-known group of unions whose democratic credentials are, I would claim, absolutely beyond reproach. I am perfectly sure that when the noble Earl replies he will have no cause to reproach those unions in respect of their adherence to democratic principles; to the precise principles of democracy and accountability which he wishes to see and which I wish to see.
The unions of which I speak are law-abiding on all occasions. They are responsible and they are sensible. They are even—to use the vogue word of the day—moderate. They are also successful as trade unions. They represent their members properly and obtain advantages for them in terms of wages and conditions. They are not weak because they are responsible, and they are not weak because they are moderate. Neither are they weak because they are democratic and cannot be said to be undemocratic.
The EMA is a federal union whose principal council is indirectly elected (and I am sorry to trail over this ground yet again) by constituents who are themselves directly elected, so that the chain of accountability is clear and short. It is plain and it is unconfused. As I have said already, the Government propose one method only for electing councils, and that is direct election. Is that absolutely necessary? I do not think it is necessary. If the Government want democratic accountablity, as the noble Earl the Minister has said, then it is the views of the union's members which should be paramount—provided that those views are freely and properly expressed through any system that the noble Earl likes and under any system of electoral restraint that he likes, just so long as the members are allowed to express their views properly and freely. It is the members' views that should be paramount, and not those of the Government or of anybody else. Incidentally, it is possible that union members might wish to adopt the Government's proposals, and it is possible that they might not wish to adopt the Government's proposals but to continue with the system they have used successfully in the past.
Later in this debate we shall reach Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, set down in my name. Some of the ground they touch has been covered already, but we shall return to this same ground in that part of the Bill. These amendments are designed to retain for unions the right to determine through a secret postal ballot whether their members want the Government's proposals and whether the Government proposals are a real improvement—and that is important—on the existing rules within the restrictions of democratic accountability which the Government and myself both want.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 allow such an alternative to the Government's proposals if union members do not consider that the proposals are an improvement. At this stage I shall refer to those later amendments only in passing, but there is one aspect worth mentioning this early in the debate. It is that those later amendments are entirely consistent with the proposals discussed in paragraph 54 of the Green Paper entitled Democracy in Trade Unions, published
196
about 18 months ago, where alternatives to the course now proposed by the Government are considered. I felt at the time the Green Paper was published, and still feel now, that those alternatives are there considered sympathetically. Paragraph 54 states:
"Established systems of indirect voting might be held better to reflect members' needs and the diversity of interests of the membership. And if other arrangements could be demonstrated to have the support of a majority of members democratically expressed, the question arises whether such arrangements could not then be accepted as a valid alternative to the specified legislative requirements".
My proposals are exactly in line with those contained in paragraph 54 of the Green Paper.
I fear that the Government are showing themselves to be adamant on this matter because of a misconceived notion of unity across the whole system of union organisation. Paragraph 128 of the Green Paper to which I have referred concludes:
"The Government has no preconceived ideas of the best approach in each case, and is well aware that, before any decisions are taken, there is a need for very careful consideration of all the issues involved".
Quite so; I accept that, and I agree with it entirely. Who could disagree?
I am sorry, however, that the reaction of the noble Earl to the amendments we have discussed so far shows every sign of "preconceived ideas" and little evidence of sufficiently "careful consideration". In these two modest amendments, I am giving the Minister a chance to fulfil the underlying good sense of the Green Paper's conclusions in paragraph 128, and I hope that he will accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise to speak to this amendment because with Amendment No. 7 in my name and that of my two noble friends the end product would be the same in its effect on the Bill. I rise with some diffidence because as a lifelong trade unionist myself I find what is proposed in this particular clause to be totally unacceptable. During proceedings in another place the Secretary of State and the Minister of State referred to the fact that they were not putting the trade unions in a straitjacket. But I believe it was only last week, when the Secretary of State announced there would be further amendments brought before your Lordships to be dealt with at Committee stage here, that the Minister used the word "straitjacket"; and it is obvious that the Government intend completely to tighten the straitjacket. It is not lightly accepted when we hear some noble Lords on the other side talking as though they had support for trade unionism in general when they really mean that they are like the person who believes in acrobats and circus performers so long as they can perform in a straitjacket and with leg irons on.
I myself have been a member of the AUEW since 1937. I have never been a professional trade unionist, only a rank and file member, with the exception of holding for quite a long time the humble but, I consider, very important position of a shop steward. Shop stewards are in certain respects more important than some in the hierarchy of the trade union leaders. So I am not speaking specifically on behalf of the AUEW here because I think their own rules, under which they operate at present, fulfil most of the

197
requirements. They are supposed to be a model of democracy.
I wondered, when the debate started on the first amendment, whether this Chamber was in Committee or whether it was functioning, as it does very often, as the highest court of law in the land. We had the situation of a noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who almost presented the case against the prisoner in the dock, the trade unions, without any evidence, saying that the trade unions had behaved badly, and could not be trusted; and then we had a noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who seemed to subscribe to that view with all his legal knowledge of matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord, as always, for his courtesy in giving way, but would he mind telling the Committee what he is talking about from the point of view of suggesting that I referred to trade unions as being in the dock, untrustworthy and so forth? I have consistently supported the responsible trade union movement in all our debates, and I should like to know.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that certain officers of trade unions appointed under the system with which he does not agree may have behaved badly in the past, or may behave badly in the future. We shall look at Hansard tomorrow, but I think that was said.
I find that difficult to accept, bearing in mind that there are some noble Lords on this side of the Committee who have had distinguished service in major trade unions and whose record would stand examination from any point of view whatsoever.
What is behind the amendment to which I speak? The trade unions having already gone through the procedures of this part of the ballot and elected people to certain important positions as delegates, or whatever you call them, because they have been subjected to these clauses and have gone through the provisions of the Bill, it asks these bodies of people to elect their executive committees on a national basis. I see nothing particularly wrong with this; and if the Government's belief is that by doing this they may change the militant or less militant standpoints of some unions by inflicting this type of ballot on them, and that it will produce the type of trade union leadership that they desire, nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is that most of the trade unions that have operated under the system I am talking about, where secondary elections take place and people are elected to positions then choose a national executive, have been under no scrutiny whatsoever for what one could call militant or outrageous behaviour. In fact, it used to be said in my own party that the big trade unions, which use this type of election, were the barriers to the approach of Left-wing politics. That has been historically said and accepted, so I do not know why the Government think in those terms.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in reply to the first or second amendment moved by Lord McCarthy, brought in the question of company law. I, being a layman, would not want to discuss company law, because I know little or nothing about it; but I must
198
take him back to the fact that there was some grave disillusionment and concern some time ago over the behaviour of some of the most important financial institutions in this country during the lifetime of the last Conservative Government. They did nothing about the major part of it. The main clauses that would have dealt with those excesses and put them right were withdrawn by the then Minister of State. It is no good the noble Earl shaking his head. If he checks in Hansar d, the record of the last Conservative Government, he will see that I am correct.
The Earl of Gowrie: The Committee and I would certainly be enormously relieved if the noble Lord would address himself to the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I will do so. I am merely pointing out that the noble Earl himself introduced the question of company law into a trade union Bill.
The Earl of Gowrie: I did not introduce company law into this amendment or context. This is an irrelevance.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry, but the noble Earl cannot set the rules to suit himself. He did introduce company law into an amendment earlier in this section of the Bill, which was not dealing with company law. I think I am entitled to draw a comparison. He referred, of course, to Mr. Sidney Weighell, the ex-member of the NUR, as though he were talking about somebody who would be a friend to all of us on this Bill. I do not know how Mr. Sidney Weighell came to be elected to the General Secretaryship of the NUR, but I know that his resignation was precipitated by his doing some of the very things for which the noble Earl is criticising other people. So he cannot have the argument both ways, in my opinion.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am not trying to.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said when he moved the amendment. It is a very important amendment concerning some of the smaller unions and the way they amalgamate on a small scale, more like an association. I think that those trade unions who, through their members, want to do this, ought to be able to proceed in this manner to have their elections to certain positions. Then, if their rules comply with this Bill they can proceed to elect their executive councils from those people who man the bodies that have already been subjected to the restrictions of this Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The charge laid at my door by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is assuredly ill-founded. I am content to allow the matter to be resolved by Hansard. That shall speak for itself.
Leaving the noble Lord's speech to return to the substance of this amendment, I find myself in sympathy with the spirit of part of it because it follows the line of the set of Government proposals set out in Amendments Nos. 22, 33 and 42, which encourage postal balloting; because it affords an option which encourages postal ballots by trade unions who have

199
either practised them in the past or feel able to practise them now. But it does not command the postal ballot. If the amendment stopped there, it would be one thing; but it endorses the principle of indirect elections, a principle which for the reasons I have already sought to give I find unacceptable. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Lord Rochester: I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if only to say that I hold him in respect for the objective way in which he approaches these matters. I am glad to confirm that in the past, in my opinion, he has shown every sympathy with trade unions and their role. I want to express our sympathy with the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, taken together with Amendment No. 45 on which he spoke previously. This amendment covers nearly all the points that my noble friend Lord Aylestone and I had in mind in tabling Amendment No. 8 to which we shall shortly come.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, we are troubled about the position under the Bill of certain highly responsible trade unions which have deliberately—and I venture to suggest wisely—devolved as much authority as possible to their constituent groups. In this respect at least, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy and others have already pointed out, they differ in their way from lots of other large organisations in the country—companies, voluntary bodies, and even I suppose in degree political parties.
The principal executive committees of the unions that are spoken of by Lord Howie are therefore composed of people elected by their constituent, subsidiary groups, and therefore by definition not directly elected. One such union, as he has said, is the Engineers and Managers Association and for that union and for its general secretary, Mr. John Lyons, I personally have a great respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, has explained—and I will not go over the ground again—the procedure that they adopt in electing the members of their governing body. I must say, with all respect to the noble Earl, that if the Government's legislation is going to create difficulties even for unions such as these by insisting that they must conform to a single system of direct election of their governing bodies, then in my view this will antagonise quite unnecessarily just those elements within the trade union movement that at this time need and deserve most encouragement.
Lord Beloff: I hope that the noble Earl will give consideration to this amendment for the views which have been advanced both by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and by successive speakers. The only point that I should like to make is that I find it very confusing that the Government do not (as we shall learn later) accept the view that the initial form of elections by secret postal ballot is a guarantee of democracy and at the same time regard as undemocratic any form of indirect election, however strong are the guarantees of the way in which the initial electors have been elected.
After all, if we look at political institutions, indirect election is an accepted democratic method. The
200
president of the German Federal Republic is elected by politicians who, themselves, have been elected in secret ballots. The President of the State of Israel is elected by members of his Parliament who, themselves, have been elected. No one suggests that either of these eminent persons have not been democratically elected. I think that there would be very great rigidity (apart from the damage which would be done to particular unions in particular circumstances) if the Government were to interpret it mandatorily—and I accept that they have a mandate for moving in this direction—and to interpret it so rigidly as to say that no indirect election can ever be democratic because no one can possibly accept that view.
Viscount Hanworth: Amendment No. 4 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 5. No. 5 is one way of dealing with the problem arising with federated unions. They are those which are registered trade unions with smaller groups within the union. It seems very cumbersome and expensive if ballots have to be conducted at all levels. Moreover, there is the other objection that there is no guarantee that the smaller groups will be adequately represented on the main executive committee. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 raise the same point. Amendment No. 44 also seeks to avoid this duplication of balloting by making such ballots unnecessary at the smaller group level. If the Government do not like the proposed amendments—and, personally, I like this one very much, as the last speaker has dealt with it in some detail—I hope that they will seriously consider the problem which I have raised and will come forward with a proposal at the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Gowrie: At one point I have to confess that I was a little uncertain as to whether there was universal agreement about which amendments we were speaking to. But I am assuming that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. These amendments raise a very important question: whether the Bill should provide for indirect as well as direct elections to union governing bodies. I certainly make no objection at all to noble Lords opposite or to my noble friend Lord Beloff bringing this issue to our attention. Indeed, I share a number of the concerns which have been put forward during the discussion of the amendment.
I accept, for instance, that many unions want to ensure—and here I am quoting from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, during the Second Reading of this Bill—a proper balance between sectoral interests and between local experience and head office expertise. But what I cannot accept is that these concerns can be met only by allowing unions to deny their members a direct say in the election of the members of the principal executive committee of the union. In fact that is the point that I shall seek to argue.
The Bill as drafted goes a very long way towards meeting two of the major arguments which are advanced in favour of indirect elections. I acknowledge, with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, the paragraph in the Green Paper which dealt with this point. In the first place, it is alleged that direct elections

201
will allow inexperienced members to gain seats on the union executive in place of those whose abilities are known and respected by their immediate peers.
The Bill allows unions, so long as they act within their rules, to require, for example, that candidates for the governing body must have been members of the union for some minimum period of time. In the second place, the Bill makes explicit provision to the, effect that where a union is divided into, for instance, constituent sections, seats on its executive may continue to be allocated between the various sections on whatever basis the union's rules may provide. Thus the carefully constructed "balance" on some executives as between different sections of the union which, we hear sometimes argued, can only be achieved through indirect election need not be disturbed by the Bill's requirement for direct elections.
But having said all that, I do not want to suggest that this is an argument solely about practicality and pragmatism or the best practice of the vast majority of unions. There is a major point of principle here. The Government believe that it is fundamental to a proper system of democracy in trade unions that those union leaders who take decisions on behalf of their members—and, as I argued at an earlier stage, these are decisions that can affect their members and the lives of all of us—should be directly elected by those members. Only in that way can the members be certain that they can exercise effective control over those who speak and act on their behalf.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and I are at one, as he kindly acknowledged, about some of the electoral issues involved. It therefore grieves me to hear him describe as a straitjacket—with all that emotive inference of Whitehall diktat, bureaucratic interference, political intervention, and the rest of it—principles as simple and broad in this area as those enunciated by the Bill. You cannot really talk in terms of a straitjacket about requirements that voting members of union executives should be directly elected at least once every five years; that in those elections voting must be secret and by a ballot paper; that those voting must be allowed to do so without interference or constraint, and must have a convenient opportunity of voting; or that votes cast must be fairly and accurately counted. That does not sound to me like what I understand to be a straitjacket.
6.12 p. m.
Lord McCarthy: Does the noble Earl not agree, though, that the straitjacket which Parliament is in is the straitjacket of the noble Lord, Lord Howie? What the noble Lord, Lord Howie, wants is precisely the way in which Parliament works—in which Parliament elects the MPs, and the MPs elect the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister elects everybody. It is a system of indirect election; and so is this noble House. That is the straitjacket. Why can the trade unions not have what Parliament has?
The Earl of Gowrie: I made it clear in my opening remarks to this amendment that I am objecting to indirect elections as a matter of general issue, principle or historical event no more than anyone else. What I am saying is that in the case of trade unions the
202
members of the principal executive committees can make decisions which affect the lives of members and which can affect the lives of people outside, and that the Prime Minister (who has been used in this connection) and the members of her Cabinet—who are, if you like, indirectly elected or appointed—are accountable to people and to the electorate in a wholly different way, and they cannot—
Lord McCarthy: No, no!
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Lord is a don at Oxford. I spent long years in Oxford having to suffer the rigours of what is called Oxford philosophy. He is not comparing like with like and is engaged in semantics which would have him drummed out of Nuffield. It simply will not do. The activities, nature and constitution of unions are not comparable to those of Parliament; and the role of Parliament in our national life is not comparable to the role of unions in national life. I am not arguing that the one is more important or better than the other at this stage. I am talking about wholly disparate functions altogether.
While I am on this point, it will not do either for the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, to suggest that people on this side of the House—my noble friend or I—are engaged in a piece of union bashing in this legislation. As I have said, the principles enunciated by the Bill are very broad and there is a great deal of self-evident support for them—and support, I may say, from all sides of the House. Most of the previous Labour Government who sat on this side of the House in those days have now moved to that side of the House, and they support them. We are really not dealing with highly contentious legislation at this point. I admire the debating skills which enable the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn, Lord McCarthy and others, to get my back up and thereby suggest that the legislation is rather more contentious than it is. I shall now, if I may, put my back down again and revert to the rather modest principles of the Bill and the modest principles of this amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Merely for the record, I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that the legislation is contentious in one respect in that it has met the sustained opposition of the Trades Union Congress. The noble Earl feels that he is right; but it is contentious legislation and he should not go on record in suggesting that that is not so.
The Earl of Gowrie: It is contentious to the Trade Union Congress, but it is not contentious to trade union members. That is the very point of the Bill.
As I said, this is not an argument wholly about practicality and pragmatism. I know that it is argued that indirect elections can be just as democratic as direct elections. As I have said, I do not think that that stands up to close scrutiny. One simple system of election which would be permitted under the noble Lord's amendment is the election of the executive by the union's annual conference. Let us just have a look at that system. That is the system used in both the Society of Civil and Public Servants and the Post Office Engineering Union. The annual conferences in those unions are attended by some 700 to 800

203
delegates. It is only too easy to imagine the enormous practical problems which would be involved in ensuring that the election of such a lage number of delegates was subject to the requirements of the Bill.
Even if those problems could be overcome, it is highly unlikely that all the elections would be contested. In the ASTMS executive elections in 1983, five of the 15 divisional representatives on the executive were elected unopposed. If that can happen where there are just 15 seats being elected, it is only too easy to imagine the proportion of contested elections where there were 700 or 800 seats being elected. The reality surely is that under a system of indirect election, the ordinary member will all too often find himself with no effective choice.
Even assuming that elections at the lower level are contested, there is still of course no guarantee that those elected at that level will cast their votes—and this is again another drawback of the system of indirect election in this context—for the executive in accordance with the wishes of those who elected them. I have a specific example of that difficulty, because the recent experience of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation bears the point out only too well. A survey of the federation's 60,000 members, which the union itself commissioned, showed that no fewer than 94 per cent. of the union's members were in favour of mandatory strike ballots; and yet when the proposal to adopt strike ballots in the union was put to a delegate conference in December last year, they threw it out. So I think that there can be no clearer example of why the only effective guarantee that the views of ordinary members will prevail is for those members directly to elect their union executive.
Coming back to a point made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon—and it was, I think, also echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—I do not think that those noble Lords have fully appreciated the degree of flexibility in the Bill. The Bill meets the genuine concern that unions should be able to continue to ensure that the different interest groups within the union are adequately represented on the executive. I dealt with that point a little earlier. Clause 2(3) of the Bill provides that unions can continue to allocate seats on their executives on whatever basis their rules provide as among different occupations, geographical areas or sections within the union.
It is true of course that they will have to change their present systems of indirect election. I can make no apology for that, because it is a fundamental principle of Part I of the Bill that every trade union member should be able to vote directly for one or more representatives on the executive of his union. It is inevitably the case that where the election of the governing body is delegated to an annual conference or to some other intermediate body within the trade union, there can, as I have said, be no assurance that the views of a majority of the members are accurately reflected in the composition of the governing body.
I hope I am a reasonable and pragmatic fellow. I recognise that the Bill will require some unions to move from systems of indirect elections to a system of direct elections. I appreciate not only that change is sometimes a nuisance but that people who are
204
required to be making changes may sometimes feel that they are in some ways subject to criticism and that the changes are as a result of these criticisms. In the great majority of cases I freely acknowledge the criticisms may not be valid. It would therefore be a real criticism of the Government themselves if they were requiring changes which were complex, detailed or, in the noble Lord's phrase, a straitjacket. But given the breadth of flexibility and essentially agreed nature of these reforms, given the fact that many unions already use systems based entirely on direct election and that the Bill is simply extending this practice to all unions, I do not think that people will find it difficult in practice. I will ask the Committee therefore to reject the amendments.
Baroness Gaitskell: May I ask the Minister a question on something which confuses me after his speech? He says that he likes the congress and dislikes the members. That is something that I find very difficult to understand.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am grateful for the opportunity to clear up any such impression. I dislike neither. The point I was seeking to make was that a measure of this kind may be opposed by the Trades Union Congress without being opposed by most members of trade unions. That was the point I was seeking to make.
Baroness Gaitskell: Thank you.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Earl a moment or two ago referred to the Inland Revenue Staff Federation. He was not quite correct in the account he gave of what happened at the conference last December. It is quite true that a survey of the members independently undertaken showed that 94 per cent. of the membership were in favour of a pre-strike ballot. The noble Earl said that when that proposition came before a delegate conference they threw it out. That is not quite correct. What the motion failed to get was the necessary two-thirds majority of the delegate conference to become effective. That is somewhat different. It was not thrown out—in those words; it just failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority.
On other recommendations made at the same conference, as a result of the same survey, the necessary two-thirds majority was obtainable, particularly in relation to the election of the executive council by ballot of the members. So I do not think it is correct to suggest that the delegates of that conference were so unrepresentative that they did not approve of what 94 per cent. of the members supported: it was a little more selective than that. The debate on whether or not there should be pre-strike ballots obviously had to refer to some of the complications of doing that. We shall come later in the Bill to some of those difficulties and they may be formidable.
May I just add one other word about what is before the Committee at this moment. I do not know whether it has been mentioned before, because I was unavoidably called out earlier in the debate. The fixing of a limit to the period for which a member of an executive committee may serve, without being elected

205
or re-elected by ballot, may imply that that is the length of the executive committee's life. In the case of Parliament, I think that probably the first decision to be taken, perhaps allied with another, was: how long shall the Parliament last without being reelected? That very often is the important consideration in deciding the method of election. The problems of reelecting or electing an executive committee by ballot will be difficult enough in any circumstances, but a great deal more difficult if it is a postal ballot of people in their homes, for obvious reasons: because of records, and all the rest of it.
How frequently will a union feel that it can go through that process to re-elect its executive committee? Many people may say that if they are elected by indirect methods for three years out of four, what is the reason for sending them to an election by ballot in the fifth year? What is so important about the fifth year? I think what we have to be careful about here is that this method of election may well establish the tenure of executive committees for longer than they get under the existing system. That could result in some executive committees remaining there perhaps rather longer than their members would wish. You cannot have it all ways; here and there will be some side effects and disadvantages of whatever alternative a union is required to adopt.
I offer those observations because I see that the simple process of electing by ballot is so bewitching to a democrat, and yet in the circumstances in which it may come to be applied it gets entangled in all sorts of problems, some of them psychological and some of them probably insurmountable. My worry about any attempt to give the unions an option under this Bill is, quite frankly, that the debate will not be on the merits of the proposal but on "whether we adopt any part of that wretched Tory Bill". It will become a political debate in many unions because of the source of the option that they are given. However, that is another point of view.
I do not know where it will all end, but I am quite sure there is a packet of trouble awaiting everybody concerned in rearranging the affairs of unions to meet these requirements and I am very much afraid that not all the results will be what the sponsors of the Bill desire.
The Earl of Gowrie: I was most interested by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, with all his experience. That is why I rise rather quickly to deal with the points while they are fresh in the Committee's mind. Obviously I welcome what he said about his scepticism about anything being optional in this area. Since I do not want the optionality suggested by the previous amendments, I very much welcome that.
In fact, it is a very important part of the Government's approach, and I think a very distinct part in relation to the previous Conservative Government's approach at the time of 1971, that we should try and do this step by step, not, as some critics or some political opponents have argued, in order to undermine the structures piece by piece but simply to take people with us. We have sought in this legislation consistently to do that.
206
It is of the essence, if you want to take people with you—and in this context we mean the vast majority of ordinary union members—that you should have considerable flexibility and, as I have sought to argue, the suggestions being made for the election of the executives are pretty flexible. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was worried about the five-year period being inflexible. It is not, because the five-year period between elections is simply a maximum, and of course it would be possible to operate within that maximum.
On the issue of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, I am most grateful to him for setting the record straight, if I have got anything wrong. But I do not think the essential point I was making is very different—that 94 per cent. is a lot more than two-thirds; and there are difficulties in proceeding in something as critical as the areas I was mentioning. I was not talking about mandatory strike ballots. I was talking about executive power and authority by an indirect electoral system.
Lord Howie of Troon: I rise with some embarrassment, since the noble Earl and several others have drawn attention to my describing the Bill as a straitjacket. My embarrassment arises because I do not remember doing so. I must have been carried away by a flood of emotion at the time due to my feelings about this part of the Bill. I accept that I did say it, if the noble Earl says that I did. It is not quite a straitjacket; it is really a tight bandage.
In our discussions on the Bill over and over again the noble Earl has drawn our attention to the flexibility of the measure. Every now and again, however, he brings out some little inflexibility. What came out a moment or two ago, when he first spoke, is that not only is the method of election to be specific, but the candidates themselves have to be limited in some way. So flexibility becomes relative as we proceed. No doubt by the end of the day we shall see how flexible flexibility is.
More important, the noble Earl makes a mistake in principle. I greatly hesitate to say this because I think I heard the noble Earl disclosing that he had studied philosophy at Oxford. I never did. I hesitate to intervene between the two Oxford Front Benches here. That would embarrass me further—
The Earl of Gowrie: I shall set the record straight. I did not study philosophy formally, but I spent a lot of time reading it.
Lord Howie of Troon: Yes, I know. I tended more to billiards in my day. That was probably much more sensible, and I was better at it then. I think, however, that the noble Earl has mistaken principle here for machinery. The principle in which I think he is interested and the principle in which I am interested, as are many people throughout the country and all those people he mentions who support the intentions lying behind the Bill, is the principle of accountability. His method of direct election, if my interpretation is right, is really machinery for obtaining accountability. All that I am doing in this amendment is proposing another form of electoral machinery for obtaining the same accountability. I want the same accountability. I do not want to slip out from that at all. I do not think

207
that the noble Earl was right in saying that it is a principle. However, he is the philosopher and I am not. I shall leave that to him.
I was greatly heartened by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and encouraged by his suggestion to the Government that they should think a little further about the matter. I do not think that there has been any evidence from the Government Front Bench that the Government have yet begun that process of re-thinking. But we have plenty of time. Maybe the noble Earl the Minister will philosophise a little further, consider the extremely sensible remarks of his noble friend Lord Beloff, and come at least part of the way towards us. I do not intend to divide the Committee at this stage of the proceedings. I think it likely, however, that I shall come back at Report stage with some other form of words, unless the Minister's philosophising prompts him to do the same. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments 5 to 7 not moved.]
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
(" (1A) The principal executive committee may opt to waive the obligations of this section if within 12 months of the commencement of this Part and at intervals of not more than 5 years thereafter, it holds secret postal ballots to which the provisions of Section 2 mutatis mutandis apply and of which the results show satisfaction with the current arrangements governing the election of the principal executive committee.").
The noble Lord said: There are a number of points concerning this amendment that have already been made and I shall try not to repeat them. Basically, like the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has for the moment withdrawn, it depends for its philosophy on paragraph 54 of the Green Paper, Democracy in Trade Unions and the alternative approach suggested there. Briefly, this was that if a majority in a secret ballot periodically confirmed their support for the existing arrangements for electing the governing body of their union, then other statutory requirements would not apply.
At Second Reading of the Bill I suggested that if that was the outcome of such tests of opinion, it could not then be claimed that arrangements were being imposed on union members from outside against their wishes. If, on the other hand, the members indicated in the ballots that they preferred the arrangements set out in the Bill, that would strengthen the Government's hand because implementation of their proposals would then have been shown to be widely accepted by those immediately concerned. I see that as a most important point.
The purpose of this amendment is to take the matter a stage further. In doing so, I suggest that we deal with the principle, or principles, involved rather than get too bogged down in detail. Let me give a lead in that direction by readily acknowledging that the wording is of a fairly general kind. For example, the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill have been drafted for the purpose of electing members of the principal executive of trade unions. Therefore a number of those provisions are clearly not applicable to the different purpose of this amendment. That is why the handy Latin tag mutatis
208
mutandis has been inserted. I suppose that that can roughly be translated as "changed where necessary".
Then the amendment refers to secret postal ballots. This is a fairly vital point and. if I may say so, is a major difference from Amendment No. 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that we discussed a little time ago.
I do not want to anticipate the more general debate that we shall have later under Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. Suffice it to say that for the crucial purpose of this particular amendment we have judged it essential that there should be a mandatory secret ballot of all trade union members and that therefore it is a major plank within the amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has already said in response to earlier discussion that if the Bill had taken the form of a detailed set of regulations covering all aspects of the conduct of trade union elections, it might have been reasonable to allow unions to opt out of those regulations on the basis of a membership ballot. But in drafting the Bill the Government had taken the opposite view in laying down certain minimum democratic electoral arrangements or requirements, from which trade unions should not be allowed to opt out. I understand that view. Indeed, it explains why my noble friends and I are in general support, as we made plain at Second Reading, of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
I am still concerned, however, more particularly about those responsible trade unions whose arrangements for the election of their governing bodies already conform to the basic democratic principles enunciated by the Government, albeit on an indirect basis.
I take no comfort at all from what I understood the noble Earl was saying in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for whose intervention recently I, too, was grateful. As I understood it, what the noble Earl was saying ran something like this: "Look—if you don't have direct elections to the principal executive committees of trade unions, those elected to the governing body of the union at the intermediate level will sometimes vote or act in some way different from the way in which the people at the local level who first elected them will vote or act". Of course that will happen, but I suggest that it will happen also in practically any national organisation of which one can think. So one really comes back to the basic point: who are we to insist that the governing bodies of these unions must be elected directly, and in no other way?
But more than that—and perhaps this is the crucial point of this amendment—what is there really to worry about if, under the provisions of secret postal ballots, the principal executive committees of trade unions are permitted, within 12 months of the commencement of this part of the Act and at intervals of not more than five years thereafter, to retain the present arrangements? This amendment calls for a continuation of the current arrangements to be subject to the test of secret postal ballot under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill, whatever form Clause 2 eventually takes following the discussions we are to have later on Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
It is widely and, I believe, justifiably believed that the majority of trade union members would prefer the

209
electoral arrangements set out in Part I of the Bill. That is the Government's contention, and it is supported, as the noble Earl has said, by the way in which the voting went in the last general election. There is every indication that, if this were put to the test, then members of trade unions generally would opt for the Government's proposals. Therefore, such a test should surely be welcomed as a means of proving the point conclusively and to the satisfaction of all concerned. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: As we have already indicated, we support this amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Rochester, will press it to a Division. It operates slightly differently from previous amendments that have been moved because he has had the courage to take hold of Part I of the Bill and suggest that the test under which the union members should decide whether or not they want to keep their existing system, or change to another system, should be the test of the Bill itself—not the constitution of the union, which we suggested, and not even the provisions of the 1964 amalgamations Act, which we suggested, but Clause 2 of the Bill. I do not see how anybody can object to a choice of that kind.
We have lots of criticisms of Clause 2, and we shall come to them later tonight. We consider that in some ways it is impracticable. Certainly we consider that it imposes very severe constraints upon trade unions which would be required to carry it out. Nevertheless, those are the tests of the Government, and what the amendment says is: "We accept those tests but, nevertheless, we will give to the union member the choice as to whether or not he really wants to come under the terms of this Bill".
The only other thing I would say is that the noble Earl (I am afraid he is not in his place) occasionally mentions public opinion polls on this Bill. A little earlier this evening he mentioned one which I suppose relates to this particular amendment—the MORI poll. I think he said the results were 87 per cent. It asked, "Are you in favour of secret ballots?" As I said to your Lordships' House on Second Reading, that is not the question one needs to be asked to decide if one is in favour of this part of the Bill. The question, "Are you in favour of secret ballots?" does not say, "Are you in favour of secret ballots by direct election, getting rid of all the systems of indirect election and all the existing arrangements that you have in your union?" No one has asked anybody that. What the MORI poll asked was, "Are you in favour of secret ballots?" I am afraid it is the wrong question. If one wants to put the right question, the proper question, it is perfectly fair to suggest that the right and proper question is in this amendment.
Lord Aylestone: In supporting my noble colleague on this amendment, may I remind the Committee what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said on Clause 1 when he was opening this Committee stage? He said, "Let the unions have a choice". We on these Benches are of the opinion that under certain circumstances, where it is clear that the individual trade unionists of a trade union wish to retain their existing electoral system, they should be allowed to do so for a period of five years, provided it is done within
210
12 months from the commencement of this Bill. But there must be a test of whether or not the individual trade unionists are in favour of this, and the only possible test can be a secret postal ballot. A little later on in the Committee stage we shall discuss secret postal ballots, but at the moment we are of the opinion that, if a union is to retain its existing system for the élection of its executives, it can be done only through the arrangement of a secret postal ballot.
The Earl of Gowrie: Again, these amendments, Amendments Nos. 8 and 45, are concerned with allowing trade unions to exempt themselves from the Bill's requirements on union elections, although in saying that I accept, of course, that these amendments propose that they should be able to do so only on the basis that the referendum of members be conducted by a secret postal ballot. I can sympathise with the wish of the noble Lords, Lord Rochester, Lord Aylestone and Lord Howie, to ensure that if union members are to be given a choice as to whether the Bill should apply to them, then that choice should be a genuinely free and fair one. But I do not think these amendments remove the Government's fundamental objection to this proposal.
We simply see no justification for allowing trade unions to opt out of the very broad, very basic, very elementary democratic requirements, however democratically they decide to do the opting out. There would also be a certain irony in union members voting in one of these referendums by postal ballot to allow themselves to vote by, for instance, a show of hands and the block vote when it comes to the vital matter of electing their principal executive committee. I do, therefore, ask the Committee to recognise the need for all unions to have these basic electoral procedures just for their principal executive committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said repeatedly that he vigorously supports the overall principle of the Bill, and I know that the Social Democratic Party does as well. These amendments are somewhat at variance with that vigorous support and I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Rochester: I shall be brief. I cannot accept, and I hope that this was plain from what I said at the beginning, that this particular amendment—limited as it is—is at variance with our general support for Clauses 1 and 2. It covers a number of points that have been dealt with in earlier discussion; namely, secret postal ballots; the possibility of there being indirect elections for the principal executive committees of trade unions; and the possibility of there being a degree of option, at any rate, allowed to trade unions within the very strict limits imposed by this amendment.
As this amendment comes at the end of a batch of amendments in which all these points have been covered, and as there is a clear difference of opinion within the Committee on these points, it would be as well at this point to clear the air and to get the position sorted out. Moreover, I have been encouraged by the potential support, for which I am grateful, of the Labour Opposition and I have derived some encouragement from the other side of the Committee, and particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Howie of

211
Troon, for which I am also grateful. Therefore, I think that I should press the amendment to a Division.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Aylestone, L.

McCarthy, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bernstein, L.

Meston, L.

Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Nicol, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Chitnis, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Gifford, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Stone, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Whaddon, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigton, L.

Allerton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Avon, E.

Croft, L.

Bauer, L.

Cromartie, E.

Bellwin, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Beloff, L.

Davidson, V.

Belstead, L.

De La Warr, E.

Bessborough, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denning, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Digby, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Caithness, E.

Dulverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elles, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Chelmer, L.

Elton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Faithfull, B.

Colwyn, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrers, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Forester, L.

Craigavon, V.

Fortescue, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Gainford, L.

212

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Glanusk, L.

Pender, L.

Gowrie, E.

Portland, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Radnor, E.

Greenway, L.

Reigate, L.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renwick, L.

Rochdale, V.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Hives, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Savile, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Selborne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Lawrence, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stamp, L.

Long, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Swinfen, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon- Avon, L.

Tranmire, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Minto, E.

Trumpington, B.

Molson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mottistone, L.

Vaizey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Munster, E.

Vickers, B.

Northchurch, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wise, L.

Onslow, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
7.4 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert ("and whether or not it has by virtue of the rules power to delegate functions to other persons or bodies.").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 11 which is concerned with the fundamental question of a definition in this part of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Howie put it with felicity, the tight bandage of Part I of the Bill controls the elections to and the procedures for election to the principal executive committee. The principal executive committee is defined in subsection (5) of this clause as meaning:
"the principal committee of the trade union exercising executive functions, by whatever name it is known".
The object of this amendment is to add the words on the Marshalled List:
"and whether or not it has by virtue of the rules power to delegate functions to other persons or bodies".
In my submission, this is an example of that amalgam of legal problems, policy issues and practical problems, of which I spoke earlier. Most trade union rule books naturally allow the national executive committee, as most trade unionists would know it, to delegate its functions. The rule book of the Transport and General Workers' Union allows the general executive council to:
"have power generally to carry on the business of the Union, and may delegate such of their powers to the general secretary as they may deem necessary".
In a later rule it allows the general executive council to delegate:

213
"to any national or regional trade group committee … such of their powers as are necessary or expedient and consistent with the powers and duties of such committees as in these rules provided".
That is the simple case.
Then there is the rather more complicated case which one finds, for example, in the rule book of the National Union of Public Employees, where the executive council may form an economic committee, an organisation committee and certain other committees for:
"earning out such functions as may be assigned to them by the Executive Council".
In the same rule book one meets a phenomenon which is not unknown in others: national committees for certain industry sections of the union—in this case water, the universities, local government and the health service—which also have a relationship to the executive, which it would take too much time for me to detail but which is one of interconnection with the carrying out of the functions of the executive council.
There are more complex cases in union constitutions. One which was discussed in another place is that of the British Dental Association which has a representative board, a council and something which is called an executive, and it is certainly by no means transparently clear which of those is the body to which subsection (5) of this Bill applies. This would be a matter which had to be decided by a court. I stop my illustrations short with those unions but I have a much longer list. Of course, the Government will know of these matters. Even the amalgamated engineering union, the AUEW, has a national committee and a national executive, and although its rule book is not as complicated as that of the British Dental Association, it would have to be looked at carefully.
This is important, first, because of the uncertainty which still exists in the Bill: and, secondly, because it illustrates something about the nature of this legislation. First, I deal with the difficulty in the Bill. In these various rule books a court would have to decide which body, if there was doubt, "exercised" the executive functions. The Government have chosen this word carefully and stuck to it through some pretty close discussion in another place. The Oxford English Dictionary tells us the main meanings of the word, "exercise":
"to put in operation, employ, apply or make use of; to carry on, carry out, perform";
and then, of functions:
"To fulfil, exert, possess; to perform one's office".
One does not get a hint of delegation there. One gets a very clear statement that in order to "exercise functions"—the words that the Government have chosen—one carries them out, one performs them; one does not delegate them to someone else, to use the words in the NUPE rule book, "to carry out". Therefore a problem arises simply on the interpretation of this amendment, which I am sure the noble Earl will regard as an attempt to help the Government, because in helping the Government we are also trying to help the unions and to help people who might otherwise have quite pointless litigation. The power of delegation of function does not by itself take the body out of the definition of subsection (5).
I hesitate to use the further gem that I found in the various dictionaries; but as all these Oxford people
214
have been talking about their philosophy, perhaps I may say that exequatur in relation to the authorisation of the publication of a Papal bull or the recognition of a consul by a government to which he is accredited, means "let him perform", not "let him delegate".
Therefore, the amendment would cure a drafting infelicity of which the Government have now been guilty for many months, and of course it would save money not to have litigation on this. But the further point is that it shows that the nature of organisations of people is such that power is something which is diffused. It is not a simple matter to know where power lies in an organisation. Merely to define the principal executive committee in this way will not be the end of the matter.
Our amendment might help, but the Government will be forced along this slippery slope, along from the tight bandage to an ever tighter bandage, because they may find that unions draft their constitutions in such a way that they do not like the bodies to which some procedure of election is being used which is not to their liking. So the important thought behind the amendment is that the Government should think again about whether they can, according to their own philosophy, simply legislate for something which they choose to call on this definition a "principal executive committee". That is for the long-term. For the short-term this is an amendment which at least would avoid some of the ambiguities in the subsection. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): This amendment raises the question of which body in a trade union is its principal executive committee. In fact, the Bill is quite specific on this point. Clause 1 (5) reads:
"In this section 'principal executive committee', in relation to a trade union, means the principal committee of the trade union exercising executive functions, by whatever name it is known.".
That seems to me to be a perfectly clear definition. It is one which has been embodied into earlier legislation in Section 15(7) of the Employment Act 1982, where its use has given rise to no difficulties of interpretation. In short, it means the union executive, and I can assure the noble Lord that the fact that the executive may delegate, or have power to delegate, certain of its functions will not normally affect the fact that it remains the principal executive committee of the union for the purposes of the Bill.
I use the word "normally" only because although the question of whether or not a committee has the power to delegate some or all of its functions is irrelevant, the extent to which it actually does so might bear on whether or not it is the principal executive committee. If, for example, the principal executive committee of a union was suddenly to delegate all of its functions to some lower body, then there would obviously be very considerable doubt about whether the higher body was in fact still the principal executive committee. The lower body, which was exercising all the functions of the higher one, could well—and I think rightly—be held to be the principal executive committee of the union for the purposes of the Bill. But, beyond that extreme case, the Bill imposes no restriction on the ability of the executive to delegate certain of its functions to other bodies within the union. The amendment is thus unnecessary and I trust

215
that on that basis the noble Lord might agree to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I can dissent from very little that the noble Lord has told your Lordships' Committee, except his conclusion. Of course the definition has caused no problem under the Employment Act 1982 because no issue has yet arisen in court in which the problem occurs; but it will. Secondly, it is of course the case that in most situations one will see what is the executive committee; but I come back to my example of the NUPE rule book. The noble Lord gave us an extreme example. But let us take the NUPE rule book, under which the executive council can delegate another committee to carry out certain of the functions. That is what the rule book says. Carrying them out is exercising them. It is still responsible to what the rule book calls the executive, but then when the ordinary executive of a union carries out its functions it is responsible to some other body, usually to biennial conference, annual conference, or whatever it may be.
To say that there is ultimate responsibility—if that were the test—would be no answer at all. Indeed, it would take one out of the subsection. Responsibility is legislative, whereas exercising the functions in this subsection is executive. The executive function is not clear in many bodies quite apart from trade unions, and it is not a simple matter.
Apart from anything else, the noble Lord's reply is one that I would hope the Government would consider again. He said to me, and to your Lordships through his proposition, "I assure the noble Lord that there is no problem". We have heard that a number of times. I am sure that spokesmen of my own party, when sitting where the noble Lord now sits, gave the same assurance, only to be upset by the Court of Appeal, and by noble and learned Lords in your Lordships' Judicial Committee, because there was a problem where the situation was not foreseen.
All that we say is that it is a typical example in employment legislation where the Government are peculiarly resistant to accepting what they see as unnecessary amendments; amendments that could do no damage, but which many other people see as amendments which could possibly save costs in litigation. It is a pity that the Government take the attitude that they do. It is a matter to which perhaps we could come back in another connection on Report, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
7.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthyme to the central issue of Clause 1. It is necessary to point out to the Committee that Clause 1 of this Bill is not Clause 2 of this Bill, because the noble Earl has been telling us throughout this Committee stage that Clause 1 is reasonable, flexible, and easy to accommodate because Clause 2 is
216
reasonable, flexible, and easy to accommodate. Later this evening we shall argue that Clause 2 is a horror, that it could have been written in order to trap the unwary lay official of a trade union into going beyond the law. But that is Clause 2, and we shall be talking about that after dinner. This is Clause 1.
What Clause 1 does is simple: it imposes a particular method of election on trade unions. What we have to argue is whether or not the Government have made a case out for that this evening. We say on this side of the Committee that we have not heard any case at all. What the noble Earl has been saying to us comes to the following. Trade unions are different. They are different from clubs. Of course you do not have to impose direct elections on clubs; they are different from trade unions. Professional associations are different from trade unions. You do not have to impose direct elections on professional associations. They are different. Companies are different. Parliament is different. Everything is different from trade unions, and therefore everything else can be left alone. But trade unions must be regulated. Trade unions must have this particular form of direct election imposed upon them by law. They must be denied—and this is the essence of Claue 1—the facility which all these other organisations have, and quite rightly utilise, if they want to use indirect elections. That is what the noble Earl has been saying.
It is no good the noble Earl, when he gets annoyed, saying that I am an Oxford don. He is a Balliol man. It has nothing to do with that, either. It has to do with common sense. It has to do with not having an answer to a question. It has to do with asking—amd I shall ask over and over again—how does it come about that the trade union is so different that this peculiar, special, nasty restriction must be imposed on it but not on the club, the professional association, the company, and the Prime Minister? We have not been told the answer to that, and I suspect that we shall not be told. That is quite simply because there is not a reason, except that the Government want to be extremely difficult towards trade unions. That is the only possible conclusion you can come to. That is the evidence we have had tonight. We have tried to save them from the extremity of their own position. We have tried to cover their nakedness by suggesting a number of possible ways of modifying their extremity.
We have said, "Since you cannot justify it, since you do not know why it is that trade unions are so different that they are not like the Prime Minister, why not let the members have a right to decide? That is what you have been going on about all over the country—give the trade unions back to their members". I do not know who took them away and who has them, but we say, "All right, let the members decide this one". We have been joined by other parties. In the final version of the "let the members decide" concept we had the most gentle form of that proposition moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which allowed the use of what I believe to be the pernicious Clause 2 of the Bill. But we say, "All right, use Clause 2 of the Bill. Have a postal ballot, but let the members decide. That might cover some of your nakedness". The Government say, "No".
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, "All right, then don't do it for everyone. Do it for most people.

217
Let a few people be indirectly elected. Make it 60 per cent or 70 per cent." They said, "No, we are not having that". So we said, "All right, why not take Parliament as the model?". This is really what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, did. His amendment was modelled on Parliament. How anybody who sits in this House and who does not advocate its abolition can say that he does not believe in the system of appointment, including ex-officio appointments, and in indirect elections, I do not know.
But never mind, here we sit in this House of Parliament, and down at the other end they operate the Howie system. They have a direct election, and from among that number there emerges a Cabinet, a Government, and a Prime Minister. It is good enough for them and one cannot say that they do not have the powers that trade unions have; one cannot say that they do not have the privileges that trade unions have; and one cannot say that they are not as important as trade unions. All one can say is that they are different. Therefore, because they are different these nasty things can be imposed on them.
I do not speak as an Oxford don: I speak with simple common sense, but there is a name for the fallacy which says that something which is different can somehow be made to do something which is awful just because it is different. It is called the "excluded middle" and that is what this is about and why I oppose it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: May I interpose here? The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, mentioned clubs and various other organisations. But one cannot in any way compare a club to a trade union. Trades unions have vast powers altogether, although the small trade unions perhaps do not. These powers enable them completely to hold the public to blackmail. I do not want to go into all this. We know all the old arguments about that, but one might as well say that a great number of local authorities are different.
Lord McCarthy: Yes.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: So they are. It depends to a great extent on their geographical position, but all members in a local authority and all members of the adult population in that community have a vote, even those who are not ratepayers. One could call all local authorities slightly undemocratic from that point of view, that on the average only one-third or half the members pay rates but all the others nevertheless also have a vote. I cannot see that they are all that different from unions. I do not see why a union's executive should not have to be elected on a broad vote of the members, but I will not go on labouring this point.
I mentioned this years ago and I am so delighted to see today that the Government have now produced a Bill to try to see that all members of a trade union, apart from certain sections as defined in the Bill, have the right to choose the executive they want.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to repeat the speech I have just made. The point I was making I thought was simple. It was that every other institution including clubs and Parliament is allowed the privilege of an indirect election; the Government want to take that away from trade unions and they do not justify it.
Lord Renton: I think that the Government have Clause 1 about right, although I have misgivings about Clause 2 as it stands. I am very surprised at Clause 1(6), which reads:
"Nothing in this Part shall affect the validity of anything done by the principal executive committee of a trade union"
Under Part I of the Bill the things that will have to be done will concern voting for elections within the union. Much that will have to be done to carry out the provisions of this part of the Bill will have to be done, of necessity, by the principal executive committee. If anything goes wrong in the sense mentioned in Clause 3—which says:
"Any person who claims that a trade union has failed to comply with one or more of the provisions of this Part may apply to the court for a declaration to that effect"—
when the court is asked for a declaration, will it have thrown in its face Clause 1(6) which says that nothing shall affect the validity of anything done by the principal executive committee? It seems to me to be a strange inconsistency and it is one which I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will be able to explain.
The Earl of Gowrie: If I may, while it is fresh in the minds of the Committee, I shall take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. It might be helpful if I explained the meaning of subsection (6) as its wording is, of necessity, rather more legalistic than most of the provisions in Part I.
Subsection (6) has two purposes which are, in essence, opposite sides of the same coin. The first is to protect the interests of union members. Union rule books show that many day-to-day functions of unions which are of obvious benefit to the members are within the authority of the principal executive committee—for example, hearing appeals from members and authorising payment of benefits. Clause 1(6) ensures that an executive is not freed from these kinds of responsibilities simply because one or more of its members have not been elected in accordance with the requirements of Part I.
The second purpose of the clause is to ensure that trade unions are not freed from both their various liabilities and responsibilities to those outside the union both under statute and under union rules by failing to comply with Part I of the Bill. It would be quite unacceptable if unions could, for instance, escape liability under the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts for calling unlawful industrial action by failing to elect the members of their executives in a proper democratic fashion. Indeed, it would be absurd if infringement of one Act amounted to a licence to break another. Perhaps my noble friend would be kind enough to study what I have said when it is printed in Hansard. If he is not satisfied, as I hope he will be by what I have said, perhaps he would return to it on Report.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful for that explanation. I shall want to study it because I feel that subsection (6) as drafted does not bear out what my noble friend has said.
The Earl of Gowrie: It would be helpful to the Committee if my noble friend could look into it and no doubt return to the matter if he feels that he should.

219
We have had a long discussion on Clause I Stand Part which has enabled us to focus more clearly on the main effects which Part I of the Bill will have. We have had useful discussions, in spite of the odd philosophical digression, in particular on the issue of whether trade unions might in some way be allowed to opt out of the Bill's requirements. We have examined the detailed provisions of the clause in considerable depth. That I am sure will be helpful when we come to examine the later clauses.
I am not at all concerned at this point to make debating points, particularly when faced by an old hand at the game like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, but I would gently point out to him that there is only one Parliament and that all the enfranchised are able to vote for it. To start comparing parliamentary constitutions and the constitutional position of the executives within them with the plurality of unions and the different rôles of unions, I do not think would stand up to serious scrutiny or even the scrutiny of a Balliol man.
I had hoped that the discussion would also have been helpful in bringing out some signs of realisation from noble Lords opposite that just possibly the trade union movement is not a movement, like other institutions, where all is always for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I regret to say that in this I have been a little disappointed. Criticisms of some union practices, which are absolutely common currency among union members, and indeed common currency among some present and former union leaders, become in the minds of the Opposition unwarranted attacks on trade unionism as a general principle when enunciated by the Government. Again and again we hear about unwarranted and unjustifiable interference in the internal affairs of trade unions. In this issue, as indeed in many others, the Labour Party is continuing to bear out its role as the bastion of true conservatism in this country. We have had little sign of any movement today.
I think that noble Lords opposite ought genuinely to reflect on a number of facts. I think they should ask themselves why it is that in a recent poll no less than 83 per cent. of union members favoured secret ballots for electing trade union leaders.
Lord McCarthy: I did point out when the noble Earl was out of the Chamber that the particular poll about which he talks does not in any way sanctify the Bill. What people were asked was: Are you in favour of secret ballots? What this Bill does is to do away with indirect elections. They were not asked to sanctify Part I of this Bill.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am not seeking to use this to "sanctify", as the noble Lord puts it, the Bill. I am seeking to say that an examination and scrutiny of practices committed by trade unions is overwhelmingly wanted by trade unionists themselves. I would not call into account one ballot, or a ballot of this nature, if it were not part of a general tendency. If it were not part of a general tendency, it would not have been fewer than 40 per cent. of all trade unionists who voted at the last election who supported the Labour Party. More than 60 per cent. supported
220
parties (this is not a narrow point) which were committed to the reform of trade union democracy. Again, I make the point that it is the former colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, those men and women with experience of government in the Labour Party and who have moved into the Alliance, who are of the same view as we are in this respect.
Clause 1 is the foundation on which Part I of the Bill rests. The central proposition is that the members of the governing bodies of trade unions should be elected in an individual secret ballot at least once every five years. That is the proposition which noble Lords opposite are asking the Committee to reject. The fact that they are asking us to reject this proposition is precisely why not only are they not in office but they have lost the support of so many of their own supporters and of so many ordinary trade union members.
The Trade Union Bill will end the practice of elections conducted by means of the kind we have heard—means so arcane that sometimes fewer than 2 per cent. of the members vote. It will end the show of hands; it will end the block vote—that charade of democracy in which the votes of thousands are cast on the basis of the preferences of a handful of people. I have never in my life heard any philosophical or constitutional justification of the block vote. The Bill will radically alter, therefore, the practice of democracy in the trade union movement in this country. It will do so because the Government who are bringing it forward have received overwhelming support at the polls for this legislation, and people want to get what they voted for. Clause 1 is the cornerstone of the reforms, and I therefore ask noble Lords to support it.
7.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 42.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Croft, L.

Allerton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Amherst, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Attlee, E.

Davidson, V.

Avon, E.

De La Warr, E.

Aylestone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Denning, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Beloff, L.

Digby, L.

Belstead, L.

Dulverton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elles, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ezra, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Faithfull, B.

Caithness, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Forester, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gainford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glanusk, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gowrie, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Craigton, L.

Greenway, L.

221

Gridley, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portland, D.

Hampton, L.

Reigate, L.

Hankey, L.

Renton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Renwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hives, L.

Rochester, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rodney, L.

Hooson, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Seear, B.

Kitchener, E.

Selborne, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sharples, B.

Lawrence, L.

Sherfield, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Simon, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Slim, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Marsh, L.

Tordoff, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tranmire, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Meston, L.

Ullswater, V.

Minto, E.

Vaizey, L.

Molson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Mottistone, L.

Whaddon, L.

Munster, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Northchurch, B.

Norwich, Bp.

Winstanley, L.

Onslow, E.

Wise, L.

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bernstein, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rhodes, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Denham: Before I move that the House do now resume, I think it would probably be helpful to your Lordships to know that we will not come back to this particular Bill before a quarter to nine. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Child Abduction Bill
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT SIMON in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence of abduction of child by parent etc.]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("fourteen").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make two things abundantly clear. The first one is—and I speak personally but I believe I have all my friends with me, in fact—this is a good and necessary Bill. Therefore it is our hope that the Bill will receive parliamentary sanction in both Houses as soon as possible. That leads me automatically to the next thing which I have to say. It is this: although all the amendments that I am going to move are, in my view, sensible amendments and ones which would better the Bill, it is not my intention at any time, because of the first point I made, to divide the Committee because I believe that might lead to an unacceptable conclusion for this Bill; namely, that it would take time for the amendment to be considered in another place, and that might in fact defeat the early passing of this necessary Bill.
I hope that will not in any way prevent your Lordships, when asked if you are content with the amendment, from giving strong vocal expression to your views, because that at least might impress the Government Benches and the sponsor of this Bill and sound another place to see whether the amendment is not in fact a good one. With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 1, I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 7.
Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 9, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("fourteen").
Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 17, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("fourteen").
Amendment No. 7: Page 4, line 4, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("fourteen").
Your Lordships will see that I am on the point of the age which should be the governing factor of this Bill, and of course I am referring to the age of the child concerned. In my view, the age which has been selected in this Bill is quite illogical. It is the age of 16, and I will say why I think it is illogical in a moment, if I may. It also happens to be completely contrary to the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in their 14th Report on offences against the person, and this Bill is supposed, in the main, to follow the recommendations of that committee.
That committee consisted of a number of experienced people who sat and deliberated upon all the matters mentioned in their report, and certainly on

223
the question of child abduction; and it does not seem to be very sensible that when a Committee expressly gives its attention to important matters such as the question of age their recommendations should in fact be over-ruled. I will refer, if I may to page 102 of their report. It is Cmnd. 7844, and I am reading from paragraph 239:
"We consider that an age limit of 14 is appropriate for these offences. If a person unlawfully detains a child above that age without the child's consent he may of course be charged with unlawful detention. If, however, a child over 14 consents to be taken away from his or her parents"—
and (if I may say this in parenthesis) it is that matter that this Bill deals with—
"we do not consider that any offence should be committed, unless the taking is for unlawful sexual purposes. Practical reasons have led us to fix the age at 14 since parental control over that age may be difficult or non-existent".
The experienced members of the committee, after considering the matter, and with their knowledge of what life is like in the average family, came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to make the age above 18. I could have understood it if those responsible for this Bill had said: "We don't think we can follow the line recommended by the committee because after all children in care, children who are being dealt with in the Family Division where there are custody orders made, care and control orders made and maintenance orders made, in both cases go up to the age of 18."
So I could have understood it if those connected with this Bill had decided to use the age of 18. They have used the judgment of Solomon upon this Bill, but I do not think with the wisdom that Solomon was famed for, because they have said, "No" to 14, as recommended by the committee, "No" to 18, which might have been the logical alternative, and they have dived in between and made the age 16. That seems to me to be a not terribly clever thing to have done. I ought to mention, because I want to make it thoroughly clear for those interested in the law in Scotland. that I have endeavoured in the amendments to which I am speaking to make the part of this Bill which deals with Scotland consistent and therefore, again, I have sought in the amendments to alter the age from 16 to 14. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I fully understand the noble Lord's reasoning in tabling this amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 7, which would lower the age of a child in respect of whom the offence of abduction under this Bill could be committed. This amendment seeks to bring the age of the child into line with the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has explained, on which much of the Bill is founded.
Perhaps I may explain why on further consideration 16 was thought to be the right age to which protection from abduction should extend. First, in addition to implementing the Criminal Law Revision Committee's views, the Bill is designed to fill any gap in the law which might exist. We must be confident that this Bill makes it clear beyond peradventure that it is criminal for a parent to take a child away unilaterally until that child is of a responsible age. Any
224
discussion of what is a responsible age must of course be arbitrary. I was struck by the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Second Reading and again today, that 18 years is the age at which care and custody orders cease to have effect. I have thought about whether the age limit in the Bill should be raised rather than lowered, but I believe that 16 is right for this Bill. A 16 year-old can marry and take certain decisions about sexual relations. He or she can leave school and live on his own income, and more to the point he can express his own will and thoughts with clarity.
Of course, logic is most important, but it does not always work with people. I speak now as one who has been a chidren's officer and a director of social services, and who stood in loco parentis to children who were committed to the care of the local authority until they were 18. In my capacity as a children's officer and a director of social services, I also dealt with the casework in cases of adoption, divorce, and custody being given to one parent.
Adolescence is a strange time in a young person's life, and in my experience although children are now much older at a younger age than they used to be, nevertheless there is a very big difference in dealing with children of 14 and 16. The age when they have left school, when they are earning, when they are seeking to be independent of their parents and yet dependent on their parents, is a very difficult one: and in my experience—with a few exceptions—that difficult age is reached not at 14 but at 16. That is the age when young people are seeking to be independent and are rebelling against their parents. It seems to me we should be putting at risk a number of children of 14 who cannot easily stand up for themselves; but at 16 they know that they are independent of their parents in several ways. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if we were going to be logical we would recommend 18. But if we are taking into account the adolescent stage of young people, I believe that 16 is the right age rather than 14, although I know that there might be some differences.
There is a second point, which is that when young people have been brought up by one parent and have been in constant touch—as indeed they should be—with the other parent, then, when they are seeking to be independent, particularly if they have had a deprived and difficult early childhood, they rebel against the parent who has been bringing them up. At that stage, I used to find that they very often wanted to go to the other parent. The grass was always greener in the other field. I found that, very often, they would go to the other parent and then after a while would return to the parent who had been bringing them up. But I did not find that this age of rebellion came at 14. It was much more likely to come at 16 when they were independent, earning their own living and permitted to live away from their parents. So I would strongly recommend 16, while understanding the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has given for saying 18, and I submit that 14 is too young.
Lord Meston:I am afraid that I, too, am not able to support the amendment. All age limits are arbitrary, but 14 is too low. This is a good Bill and to reduce the age to 14 would diminish it. Children do not cease to

225
need protection at the age of 14, and they do not cease to be entitled to protection at the age 14. Not all children between 14 and 16 are sophisticated, and one must remember that Clause 1 is aimed at international kidnapping which can have irrevocable and traumatic effects. An offender under Clause 1 may well be in breach of a custody order or a care order which lasts until 18; but this does not stop the aggrieved parent from legitimately applying to vary a court order by proper processes of law, in which case the child's wishes would properly be taken into account. It does, however, prevent an aggrieved parent taking the law into his or her own hands.
Clause 2 also covers a very wide range of offences from the trivial to the most serious; for example, where a child might be abducted for the purposes of child prostitution or something of the sort. The second point is that in law—and I suggest in practice—parental responsibilities and discipline do not cease at 14, although sometimes one is tempted to wish that they ended much earlier. The other point is this. One has heard of illogicality. In fact, there is considerable consistency in the age of 16 with other statutes. There is no magic in consistency; indeed, I am glad to say that lawyers thrive on inconsistency. But one looks at the various purposes for which 16 is the magic age. It is the age of consent for medical treatment, and treatment of that kind, and it is the age of consent for sexual intercourse. It is the age limit under a number of statutes. When looking at my copy of Archbold today, I noticed that it is the age limit under Sections 1 and 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and under Sections 6, 26 and 28 of the Sexual Offences Act. And 16 is the school leaving age. Fourteen was the age limit under the old child stealing offence in the Offences against the Person Act. To preserve the 14-year-old limit would not be a step forward; it would be a step backwards to the 19th century. One has to remember also that there is a grey area in cases involving 14 to 16 year-olds. I suggest that that grey area would be more than adequately covered by the discretion which this Bill invests in the Director of Public Prosecutions. Accordingly, I cannot support the amendments.
8.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Although I always listen with the greatest respect and attention to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, he has not won me this time. He often does and he often helpfully corrects me when I am wrong. But I am not with him on this amendment. I want to refer in particular to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull: "adolescence is a strange time". Those of us who are parents will remember, if we are elderly parents and grandparents—as I am—that the age of 14 to 16 is a very turbulent time. It is a time when it seems that 14 to 16-year-olds grow up three times as fast as people of other ages. Therefore they do not understand themselves or know themselves quite so much as they think they do and as we may hope that they do. So on pure grounds of caution, compassion and care I should like to say that I have been swayed more by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, than by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, both of whom I hold in the greatest respect.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I shall not take up the time of the Committee by rehearsing the arguments with which the amendment has already been opposed, because I support them all. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will forgive my saying so, the point that he made was a lawyer's point—cogent as such but not touching the reality or experience which I have had of children of that age. It should also be added to what has already been said that at the age of 14 there is a very wide difference in the degrees of maturity exhibited by children. And not only is there a wide difference in the range of maturities. The same child may differ very considerably from day to day. It seems to me that all the arguments point to selecting the age of 16 as the safe decision.
Lord Elton: With the greatest brevity and only for the sake of completeness, because we have an almost entirely complete set of arguments before us. I would just remind the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in case he has forgotten (although I do not suppose he has) that Article 4 of the European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children says:
"The convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a contracting state immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16.".
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has now been dealt a full set of cards. I leave him to add them up.
Lord Mishcon: On this occasion the addition is not difficult. I am so glad that when I moved the amendment I announced to the Committee that I had no intention of dividing it. Therefore it enables me to retreat with some dignity, having listened to all the speeches which have been made in your Lordships' Committee. Apart from hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who always speaks with such experience and tolerance on matters of this kind, and the right reverend Prelate, who knows, without my having to embellish the remark, that he has my deepest respect for any view that he ever expresses, it was a great delight to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, again make a contribution to our proceedings. I can only say—there is no arrière-pensée behind this—that I wish we heard him more often, because he has obviously got such a contribution to make.
I can only, as I said, retire with some dignity—apart from not dividing the Committee—by making two points. First, at least I am in the good company of the right honourable Lord Justice Lawton, the right honourable Lord Justice Waller, Professor Sir Robert Cross—I shall not mention the names of all the eminent people who formed the committee which made this recommendation.
Lord Elton: I understand that Lord Justice Lawton was consulted about this change and agreed to it.
Lord Mishcon: It is within the ability of a great judge to change his mind. I was merely referring to his original opinion when I quoted him. My second point is that I believe it is absolutely right that we should have debated this matter. The Bill had a very short

227
tenure in another place, for very good reasons. The age question was not, I believe, debated there—certainly not at any length. It is right that, having gone away from the recommendation of the committee, your Lordships' Committee, with its usual care—especially when it comes to the young and the under privileged—should have allowed me to put the point of view that I did in this amendment. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("him") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: I believe that here I am on stronger ground. In moving Amendment No. 2, may I also, with the permission of the Committee, make it clear that something has gone wrong, either at my end or at the Public Bill Office end. I intend to take all the blame and to say that it must be at my end. I intend to move only Amendment No. 2. When Amendment No. 3 is called I shall say, "Not moved".
This amendment is important. Your Lordships will know of the defences that are provided for in the Bill. They are set out in Clause 1(5) on page 2. The first two sets of defences seem to be thoroughly reasonable:
"A person does not commit an offence under this section by doing anything without the consent of another person whose consent is required under the foregoing provisions if—

(a) He does it in the belief that the other person—

(i) has consented; or

(ii) would consent if he was aware of all the relevant circumstances; or

(b) he has taken all reasonable steps to communicate with the other person but has been unable to communicate with him".

Then follows paragraph (c), which is a most extraordinary defence:
"or
(c) the other person has unreasonably refused to consent".
If we leave this paragraph in the Bill—I should be so interested if the noble Lord, Lord Meston, could make a contribution on this amendment, too—it means this: that any parent could say, "I don't think I am going to try to go further than this. I have asked the other parent. My former wife has said, 'No'. I think she has been thoroughly unreasonable in saying 'No', and I am going away with the child. If I am charged, I shall argue before the court, at great length, no doubt, that in my view my former spouse unreasonably refused to consent".
This means that on possibly every occasion when the provision is invoked, where there has been communication between the spouses, then the court of necessity must listen to a whole argument (unless it falls within the proviso in lines 26 to 31, which are obvious exceptions) as to whether the father or the mother who took the child away did so honestly believing that the other person was unreasonable.
It is not for the court to decide whether the other person was unreasonable; as I understand it, it would have to be the belief of the parent concerned that the other spouse was unreasonable in refusing consent. To me, this drives a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill—quite apart from elongating the proceedings in court and making them thoroughly unpleasant because the whole question of a parent's
228
reasonableness or unreasonableness will come into issue.
I believe that I have something rather important to say in this amendment. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill and the noble Lord the Minister, who I know is supporting this Bill on behalf of the Government, do not think that deleting (c), and all that follows from that, will affect the further passage of this Bill. Even so, I will not challenge their judgment because, as I have said already, I will not be dividing the Committee. But this is one of those occasions when I hope that the strength of the Committee's voice will have an effect if the amendment is not accepted. I beg to move.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I can well understand the concern to which the amendment gives expression; concern about the impact of the Bill upon a family that has never had recourse to the courts in divorce or other proceedings and where children are not the subject of a custody or equivalent order. I hope that I can allay that concern by showing that the provisions of the Bill are intended to strike a balance in this kind of case such that Clause 1 will be effective without being too oppressive.
The primary purpose of Clause 1 is to prevent the permanent abduction of children abroad in "tug-of-love" cases. However, it makes no explicit concession for persons wishing to take their children abroad for a short visit—such as a package holiday or even a day trip to France, where there is no intention of leaving this country for good and depriving the parent left behind of all contact with the children or hope of recovering them. It is this kind of innocent travel arrangement which the defence in Clause 1(5)(c) is intended to cover.
It may be helpful if I set out the position in a little detail. In a case where a child is the subject of a custody order and one parent is refusing the other permission to take the child abroad on holiday, the parent with the holiday plans can and should go back to the court which made the order, for leave to make the proposed journey. The court's permission, if given, will override the other parent's views on the matter. But if the court's permission is not sought, or if it is sought and refused by the court, then it will not be open to the holidaymaker to rely on a defence of the other parent's unreasonable refusal.
Taking the same example of the holiday trip but applying it to the married couple, where there has been no family breakdown and no custody order, if one parent does not consent to the other parent's travel plans, there is deadlock between them. It is not practicable or reasonable to expect one or the other to go to court for a custody order when the only matter at issue between them concerns the foreign holiday. Indeed, they may not wish to take such a drastic step. It is this type of case where the parent may rely on the defence of unreasonable refusal to consent in subsection (5)(c). Without such a defence, even a day trip to France with the children taken without the approval of the other parent would be an offence. In these circumstances, it seems to me to be right that a parent should not have to face criminal proceedings, subject only to the exercise of the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute.

229
However, there will be other circumstances where something rather more than a package holiday is at stake. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave a good example on Second Reading and he explored the issue further today. It is the kind of case where the father, say, is posted abroad for a year as part of his job and wishes to take the children with him—but his wife disagrees. It is clearly not good enough for him to go away taking the children, and dismissing his wife's arguments out of hand.
One course of action open to the parents would be to obtain a custody order in respect of the children with a view to obtaining the court's ruling on the issue in dispute between them. However, the parties concerned may be reluctant to do this. Despite a major disagreement on what is undoubtedly a major decision in their family life, they may have no desire or intention to split up and may be loath to seek court intervention in the affairs to the extent that custody proceedings make inevitable. Indeed, a custody order giving custody to one or the other would aggravate the disagreement.
In these circumstances, it is open to them to make use of legislation already on the statute book, which provides machinery whereby parents can obtain a court decision on any particular matter in dispute between them affecting the welfare of their child. It is to be found in Section 1(3) of the Guardianship Act 1973. This reads:
"Where a minor's father and mother disagree on any question affecting his welfare, either of them may apply to the court for its direction, and (subject to subsection (4) below) the court may make such order regarding the matters in difference as it may think proper".
Subsection (4) goes on specifically to preclude the court from making an order as to custody or access in these proceedings. Therefore, if the parents are unable to reach a compromise with regard to the foreign posting, there is this ready-made procedure for independent arbitration of their differences on the point. Having had recourse to the court under this procedure, however, it should be noted that it is not then open to the parent to claim the defence of the other party's unreasonable refusal to consent under subsection 5(c) of the Bill if he subsequently takes the children abroad in breach of the court's direction.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships' Committee that the inclusion in the Bill of the defence found in subsection 5(c) is justifiable in that there will be cases where the criminal law should not bear heavily on family life—but equally, the existence of the defence will not allow cases to slip through the net which should be caught by it and where adequate remedies are available to assist parents to resolve their disputes so that one parent is not tempted to take unilateral action to the detriment of the other parent's position—and, even more important, to the detriment of the children's welfare.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Baroness sits down, and only to avoid my having to make this point later without giving her an opportunity to answer it, will the noble Baroness mind if I reflected out loud on the comments she has just made? I would have thought that what the noble Baroness has just said was an argument in favour of my amendment and not one
230
against it. She has said that there is ample provision—and that is absolutely right—for a parent in certain circumstances, where there is a dispute and there have been no court order and no matrimonial proceedings, to go to the court and get a ruling. If that is so, why have this defence?—because this is an application that could always be made.
It will not be in the case of a holiday abroad that the Director of Public Prosecutions would ever authorise a prosecution because a holiday abroad means something short and the child will be brought back and will be caused no harm. The director will authorise a prosecution where there is the sort of case I mentioned at Second Reading and a father has said, "Look, I'm awfully sorry, I refuse to go to the court. There is no need to go to the court. I know my wife is being unreasonable, she is not coming with me to France, and she ought to. I have been given a job there and I am going to take our child. I'm going to rely upon this defence if she won't go to the court".
That strikes me as being bad for the child, bad for the parents, and bad for the court that has to hear the case and has to look at this Bill and find that it has to adjudicate on whether the other parent was unreasonable. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would care to deal with that argument before she sits down.
Lord Elton: I just want to put this reflection into the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in dealing with this matter, which I hope we can do swiftly. It arises from his original speech, because he is apparently under the impression that the defence is that one parent believes that the other person has acted unreasonably. But if he looks at subsection (5), he will find that the requirement that the belief should be in the mind of the parent is contained in only subsection (5)(a); it is not in subsection (5)(c). The defence there is that the other person has unreasonably refused to consent, and therefore the court will be deciding about that, and not about his state of mind.
Lord Mishcon: This is the Committee stage and therefore your Lordships are used to people bobbing up and down, which can be rather useful. I accept what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I used cautious words. I have forgotten whether I said that it was arguable that it was a question of belief, or it appeared possibly to be a question of belief. I still do not know how anybody can otherwise commit an offence, since criminal intention is obviously part and parcel of the commission of a criminal offence. If the person honestly believes that the other party unreasonably refused, and comes before the court and says so, then the court decides "Well, you may honestly have believed that, but we don't think that the other party did unreasonably refuse. Therefore you have committed a criminal offence, even though you honestly believed that the other party was unreasonable". From all practical points of view it will be a question of the genuineness of the honest, bona fide thought that the parent had that the other party was being unreasonable. I shall not detain the Committee any longer.
Lord Meston: It seems that this point derives from the definition of "abduction", which is taking without

231
consent. If that is the definition of "abduction", then I would suggest it is sensible to add a defence of this nature where there is no order for custody to cover the pre-litigation snatch. That is not to say that a custody squabble should be transposed from the proper courts to the criminal courts, but it provides a defence for the parent who otherwise would be vulnerable to prosecution and conviction where the other party has unreasonably refused consent. In practice, where families have reached the stage of disharmony which has been described by various noble Lords, of course, there will already be a custody order of some sort, albeit an emergency order.
In introducing the concept of unreasonable refusal of consent, the Bill presents a concept well known to the law which can be well understood by a jury when properly directed. But it also sensibly provides that the defence is not available where the person removing the child is flouting some custody order and is taking the law into his or her own hands. Accordingly, I would suggest that the Bill ought to stand as it is.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether I may try to draw this question to a conclusion. It seems to me that my noble friend has put forward fairly strong arguments. But it also seems to me that in a case where a child is taken abroad by one parent without the consent of the other, if the conditions in paragraphs (a) or (b) are not satisfied, then the other parent who remains in England, let us say, would always be able to prove that his or her spouse had committed a criminal offence unless this defence was available to him or her. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Lord and I hope that he will read in Hansard the remarks which have been made. if he remains in doubt, perhaps he will remind us of his concerns at the next stage.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether I may add one extra comment. The Bill must address the unilateral action of a parent in taking a child out of the country, but where the court judges on the facts that consent was unreasonably withheld, it is surely right that this should constitute a defence for the parent who has removed the child.
Lord Mishcon: I am much obliged, and in order to show my complete broadmindedness, may I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on his contribution, even though he happened to oppose the amendment that I was moving. I find it difficult to swallow a situation when a matter of this kind is going to be decided by a criminal court and jury and not even a family court. Nevertheless I am taking the hint from the noble Lord the Minister and at this stage I certainly would wish to withdraw the amendment, but I would always, of course, sit down before doing so if any other noble Lord wished to address the Committee. it appears that no other noble Lord, spiritual or otherwise, wishes to address the Committee and so I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offence of abduction of child by other persons]:
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Penalties and prosecutions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("seven") and insert ("five").
The noble Lord said: The drawers of this Bill seem to have adopted a little bit of a perverse attitude from time to time in regard to the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, as I mentioned on a previous amendment. Here we are dealing with the question of the penalty, I am looking at this moment at page 103 of the 14th report, to which I referred earlier, and for which I therefore do not have to give a full reference. On page 103, at paragraph 244, the committee recommends that we adhere to our provisional recommendation that abduction should be punishable with a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment, and should be triable either way.
I now turn to page 105 of the report, and paragraph 251, which deals with the offence of unlawful detention. This is preceded by these words:
"The offences of false imprisonment. kidnapping. child stealing and abduction of an unmarried girl under 16 should be replaced by the following four offences".
One of them is the offence of unlawful detention. In paragraph 251 the committee recommend that the offence should be triable either way and punishable with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. But when you come to this Bill you find that the penalty is seven years' imprisonment. It is not a question this time of Solomon's judgment, of coming between the three and the five and making it four. It has gone up to seven. I cannot at the moment understand why it should. I have gone to the greater of those two and have made it five, and I move the amendment at this stage as a probing amendment to find out the reasoning behind the maximum sentence of seven instead of either three or five. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: Once again I must acknowledge the careful and sensitive motive behind this amendment, which would reduce the maximum penalty for offences under this Bill from seven years to five years. The latter would preserve the power of arrest, which is vital to the proper enforcement of this measure and which would be lost if anything lower than five years were proposed. Perhaps I might explain why I do not think we would be wise to lower the penalties at all. This Bill replaces the old offence of child stealing with two offences based on the offence proposed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and making a distinction between parental abduction and others, which I believe we all accept to be proper, so that the parents will not be brought further than is strictly necessary into the scope of a criminal offence in relation to actions upon their own children.
As regards abduction by non-parents, seven years is the present maximum in the 1861 Act. It was thought then to reflect properly the gravity with which society

233
viewed child stealing. I should not like us to be seen to view the worst cases of such activity with any less gravity today. The Criminal Law Revision Committee Report looked at abduction as akin to kidnapping, but, where the child was willing to be taken away, as aggravated abduction, for which the committee recommended life imprisonment. I should add that my confidence in the penalty as drafted is enormously increased by the agreement of Lord Justice Lawton to the maximum seven years for both offences.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to pay my tribute once again to the Lord Justice for having the tolerance and breadth and openness of mind to have changed his view presumably as chairman of this very distinguished committee. I find with some regret, in spite of the fact that there were so many eminent lawyers and judges on this committee, that their recommendation has not been accepted. But I have indicated previously that I do not want this Bill to be interfered with in any way in regard to its passage through Parliament, and it would be quite wrong for me to take up any further time of the Committee on the question of sentence. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Offence in Scotland of parent, etc. taking or sending child out of United Kingdom]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Penalties and prosecutions.]:
8.33 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")
The noble Lord said: May I, with the permission of the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 9 in moving this amendment?
Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("exceeding") to end of line and insert ("five years")
I have tried to show a consistency (or an inconsistency) as far as this Bill is concerned, because we now move over the Border and we are in Scotland. For some reason which for the moment escapes me there are different penalties in Scotland from those about which the noble Baroness was just speaking. If your Lordships look at Clause 7 of the Bill you will see that it reads:
"on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months",
instead of six months; and,
"on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both".
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord the Minister were so convincing in thinking that it should not be three and it should not be five, but that it should be seven: but if you happe0n to be fortunate enough to commit the offence over the Border, or you happen to
234
be of Scottish nationality, then you are obviously entitled to a mitigated treatment and, therefore, you can come below the sentence that I was recommending in my amendment.
It was to produce consistency or some measure of logicality, even though that is supposed to be a quality mainly associated with lawyers and, therefore, obviously I do not want to claim it, since somebody said that it was really the province of a lawyer to be logical. As I have said, I move this for the sake of consistency. I shall be interested to learn, in any event, why there is this suggested difference in treatment. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. These amendments seek to provide for uniformity in the maximum penalties available under the Bill among Scotland, England and Wales. Although I would agree that having the same maximum penalties for the same statutory offences north and south of the Border is desirable, I think there are good reasons for the differences which the Bill presently provides. Therefore, we cannot accept these two amendments.
Perhaps I might start by dealing with the second amendment first. It relates to the more serious offences, which will be prosecuted on indictment. The Bill presently provides the maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment in Scotland as compared with seven years in England and Wales, as we discussed earlier. I explained then why I thought it was right not to have different maxima in Clauses 1 and 2, but, in relation to Scotland, this Bill does not need to address abduction other than by parents; nor does it need to address the wider question of kidnapping, which the Daily judgment raised.
Your Lordships will know that the structure of Scots law is different from English law. This Bill must not seek to distort that structure, but only to ensure that there is no loophole between the two jurisdictions in a matter as important as this. The English penalty for Clause 1 is consistent with Clause 2 and with the child-stealing offence that it replaces; but it does not, and need not, fit the Scots scheme. For example, a maximum penalty of two years corresponds to the normal maximum penalty available in the sheriff court in Scotland, so that any case which requires to be tried on indictment can be taken there. This is appropriate as the sheriff court, in its civil capacity, is the court in Scotland which is empowered to hear divorce cases and to make orders relating to the custody of children. As it is orders of that sort which someone committing an offence under the Bill will be disregarding, it seems appropriate that any criminal case taken should be prosecuted there.
I fully understand that it would be a neater Bill if all the penalties were identical, but I think that, as drafted, the provisions make the measures able to work satisfactorily in both jurisdictions, and this is more important than contriving an artificial and uneasy fit.
The amendment also removes the reference to the possibility of a fine, as well as imprisonment, on conviction on indictment in Scotland. I think that noble Lords would agree that, while a fine instead of, or as well as, a sentence of imprisonment might not be

235
very frequently imposed in these cases, it is right to give sentencing courts the maximum range of options so that they can arrive at the most appropriate sentence in any given case. To remove the option of a fine from Scottish courts considering these cases would be an unnecessary restriction of that discretion.
Noble Lords may point out, of course, that there is no comparable provision on the face of the Bill allowing a fine to be imposed in England and Wales instead of, or along with, imprisonment. But I am advised that under Section 30 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 a Crown Court convicting someone on indictment of any offence may impose a fine in lieu of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way, such as by imposing a sentence of imprisonment. There is no exactly comparable provision for Scotland, and that is why explicit provision is needed on the face of this Bill to ensure that Scottish courts have this power also.
Let me now turn to the first of these amendments dealing with the maximum penalty on summary conviction. At the moment the Bill provides for Scotland a maximum period of imprisonment of three months or a fine of up to the statutory maximum, while in England and Wales the maximum period of imprisonment is six months. There are again two reasons for this distinction. The first is, as I have said, that the Scottish penalty does not relate to offences of abduction by strangers. Secondly, three months is the normal summary maximum in Scottish courts, and is usually exceeded only in relation to a second or subsequent offence inferring violence or dishonesty. It was, therefore, thought right that the normal summary maximum should apply in cases of this sort. Of course, any case which might attract or deserve a longer sentence of imprisonment can always be taken on indictment at the discretion of the prosecutor.
I hope that the explanations I have given of the reasons behind the two differences will be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he may withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I briefly add to the words of my noble friend that the penalty in Scotland under the common law for abduction by a third party, other than parents, is of course far greater than in England, because the High Court can go up to life imprisonment.
Lord Mishcon: Let me at once express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for teaching me something. It is not the first time that she has taught me and I hope it will not be the last. I was under the impression, obviously mistaken—and I am not a Scots lawyer—that the same powers existed in Scotland, as in England and in the rest of the United Kingdom, to impose by way of an alternative a fine instead of a term of imprisonment. I am grateful to her for having taught me that that is wrong.
I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble Baroness has said, and indeed to the contribution that has been made by the noble Earl the Minister. I do not admit—I hope that this will not seem ungracious—that I follow the logic or justice of what has been said, but, since the whole Bill is an
236
important Bill, and, I repeat for the last time, a very necessary Bill, I do not intend to carry this matter even further tonight, and therefore ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Trade Union Bill
8.47 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
Clause 2 [Requirements to be satisfied in relation to elections]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert ("and the union shall use its best endeavours to ensure that so far as is reasonably practicable an opportunity to vote is accorded to every member entitled to vote in accordance with the provisions of this section.").
The noble Lord said: This is not the first occasion on which it has fallen to me to move the first postprandial amendment of a somewhat technical character, but this amendment is, nevertheless, in our view, something of importance. This amendment seeks to ensure that the duty of a union in respect of the direct elections (which have now been made mandatory by the approval of Clause 1) should be to use its best endeavours—and I stress those words—to ensure that every member entitled to vote has an opportunity to vote so far as is reasonably practicable.
I say at once that I stress the words "best endeavours" because the provision differs from the formulation of the Government's Bill and their own amendment to that Bill in Amendment No. 22, to which we shall come later, in respect of the standard of care required on the union's part. But it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I discuss that point in relation to Government Amendment No. 22, because I apprehend that the major issue on this amendment is not that standard of care. On the contrary, the amendment is to attempt a solution to something which bothered the Committee, and especially the Minister of State, in another place.
The argument was put to the Government there that the way in which Clause 2 is now drafted means that, if a union or union official—union official, of course, because perhaps it would be better if we discussed these matters in the terms of the human beings concerned rather than these abstractions—failed to allow a member to vote who was entitled to vote, the liability of the union would appear to be absolute, or at any rate nearly absolute, because of the structure of subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 2.
Let me put the argument briefly, although I am not sure that that will do justice to it. The conditions upon which a union is permitted to divide its electorate of members into constituencies by trade, occupation, geographic area and the like: it is permitted by subsection (3)—only if the conditions of subsection (4)

237
are met. In subsection (4)(b) we find that no member of the union must be denied entitlement to vote at all elections held for the purposes of this part, otherwise than by virtue of belonging to a class mentioned in subsection (1).
That seems to mean that if the denial is improper and outside subsection (1)—which, by definition for the purpose of this debate it is—then there is a case which under Clause 3 is open to a complaint to the High Court by any member of the union. When this point was put to the Government in another place—and it is only possible to discuss this against what the Government said by way of answer to the point there—if I may quote the Minister of State, in his various replies to this point, he began on 17th January at col. 487 by saying this:
"Is the honourable gentleman confusing entitlement to vote with opportunity to vote? If the argument is that an individual did not have an opportunity to vote, that would not mean he did not have an entitlement to vote."
Then at col. 488 he says:
"In talking about the opportunity to vote, when one is entitled to do so one could deny someone's entitlement to vote, by, for example, so arranging the rules that someone who should be entitled to vote does not have that right."
Then he came back to the point and gave this example. This is at col. 490:
"If someone who is entitled to vote is not sent a ballot paper—let us take this simple example—he is being denied not his entitlement but his opportunity. It is surely clear that he remains entitled to vote, he has not been disfranchised. He simply cannot exercise the right that he continues to hold. There is a clear distinction between entitlement to vote and opportunity to vote".
That is the foundation of the Government's case in another place. It is in order to make rather more clear this very grey area of the difference between entitlement to vote and opportunity to vote that this amendment is being moved. I say at once that of course I understand the distinction between entitlement to vote and opportunity to vote but without anything express in the Bill about opportunity to vote; the grey area between the two is very grey indeed.
The Minister of State, Mr. Gummer at col. 491 in the same debate says:
"For the last time I should like to try to clear up the matter I shall give the honourable gentlemen two examples. If I an entitled to a dividend in a country that passes laws saying that the dividend cannot be remitted to this country, that does not deny me my entitlement to the dividend. It just stops me getting it. Similarly, if I am on my way to vote and someone beats me up, that does not mean that I am removed from the electoral register or that my entitlement is removed. It means that physically I cannot vote. One example is of a denial of entitlement; the other is denial of opportunity."
In fact that was not the last time that the honourable gentleman came to the matter because, in relation to Clause 8 of the Bill, as it now is, the same point arises. He said on 16th February, at col. 1150:
"I am sure the honourable gentleman cannot produce an example of denying eligibility accidentally. Denial of eligibility is to say to somebody, 'Although you have rights under the Bill to vote, we shall not let you vote; you do not have a right to vote'".
Then a little later on he says:
"We may disagree about it, but it remains a fact that to deny eligibility a union has to go out of its way to say it will not give a right to vote to people who have the right to vote. To deny opportunity can easily be done accidentally and it is then covered by the reasonable practicability rule."
238
With respect, it is not covered by the reasonable practicability rule as the Bill now stands. Indeed, although the Minister of State's examples are perhaps acceptable—and I am sure he would not be accused of being philosophical or in any way connected with the University of Oxford for taking such peculiar examples as dividends which could not reach this country from another—nevertheless it shows how far and wide he had to stretch to sustain this distinction.
What we are saying in this amendment and offering to the Government, with a genuine request that they reconsider this matter—and asking it to put something express in the Bill on the point—is that a union is entitled to know what its obligation is in relation to opportunity, just as it is entitled to know what its obligations are in respect of entitlement.
Although, as I say, there is a grey area between the two, I found, on the distinction which the Government have made, the anchor of their case through the Minister of State in another place. The point is not covered in the new Government amendment, Amendment No. 22, and I apprehend that the noble Minister will not argue that it is because, although the notion of opportunity is re-defined, the obligations of the union are still there only dealt with in terms of what is reasonably practical, which is a very different matter from that of ordinary skill and care.
It would be useful to spell out the union's duty at the beginning of Clause (2), as we have suggested, because we are dealing with the trade union movement. Here I come back to the reality of the matter. However much noble Lords in this place or elsewhere pass resolutions about postal ballots, direct elections and all sorts of other procedures, the trade union movement of this country has worked and will continue to work—perhaps unfortunately in some ways—on a very small number of full-time officials, a very large number of voluntary shop stewards and other helpers. They are entitled to have spelt out in simple language this distinction, if it exists, between entitlement and opportunity. As it stands, the Bill does not do so and it is on that very simple, and I hope not academic, ground that I beg to move this amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am very sympathic with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, when he says that this is not the first time that he has had to open the batting after dinner and engage in what he described as "postprandial amendments of a rather technical nature". I think it gives rise to a wonderful image of his noble friends hogging it back there, puffing away, while the wretched noble Lord wrestles with these arcane and difficult matters. I accept that the noble Lord has been trying to be helpful. The amendment is concerned with opportunity to vote, and in particular with protecting trade unions from the possibility of legal action for breaches of the statutory requirements in circumstances where they have used their best endeavours to prevent such breaches from occurring.
In respect of the point that he raised at the end in referring to my honourable friend Mr. Gummer, Mr. Gummer was of course absolutely right in the distinction he drew between entitlement and opportunity. It is heartening to know that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, accepts the distinction, which was one that the Opposition in another place

239
altogether failed to comprehend. Of course the Bill makes clear that there is a difference between entitlement and opportunity. For example, the reference to entitlement in subsection (1) is quite separate from opportunity in subsection (6).
Returning to the rather wider issue of the amendment, I should say that, although the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has chosen to place his amendment at this point in Clause (2), the question of the union's obligation to provide a convenient opportunity to vote arises, in the main, in relation to subsection (6), of the clause, as I have just said. I say this not in any sense as a criticism but merely because, as the Committee will have seen, the Government have moved their own amendments to subsection (6) which we shall come to shortly. With what I hope will be the noble Lord's and the Committee's forbearance, I intend therefore to be rather brief in my remarks on this amendment because it covers ground which I think we will want to discuss more fully later, in the light of the Government's own amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is concerned with a situation where, if I may so put it, the union is keen, so far as is reasonably practical, to accord to every member entitled to vote, an opportunity of voting in accordance with the requirements of Clause 2. Indeed, the union is not merely keen: it is using its best endeavours—though I must say that that is a phrase which I personally would not want to have to try to interpret to a court. I think I can reassure the noble Lord that this is in effect all that the Bill requires. Subsection (6)(a) of Clause 2, as proposed in the amendment that I shall be moving shortly, requires unions to make arrangements for the casting of votes which are designed to secure that every person who is entitled to vote is so far as is reasonably practicable given an opportunity to vote. That opportunity must be by post or at the workplace, but that is a rather different question. The noble Lord's amendment assumes that the union is using its best endeavours to comply with the requirements of the clause.
In substance, I see no difference between the noble Lord's proposition and that in the Government amendment. which is in turn merely a re-wording of the original proposition in the Bill. Both the noble Lord's amendment and ours make allowance for what is not reasonably practicable. Beyond that, it is clear that any union which is prepared to use its best endeavours to provide the required opportunity to vote will make arrangements for the casting of votes which are designed to secure that every person entitled to vote has an opportunity to do so. In short, the noble Lord's amendment is helpful but unnecessary. It could possibly be confusing on top of the other provisions in the clause. Accordingly, I hope that he will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful for the noble Earl's sympathy in so far as it related to the gastronomic aspect of our debate, but not for the rest of his remarks which would perhaps best be taken up, as he suggested, on Government Amendment No. 22. I can perhaps just say in respect of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place that they certainly accepted the distinction between
240
opportunity and entitlement (indeed, who could not?) as a conceptual matter. What they could not get the Government to see was that there was a grey area between the two which needed more definition in the Bill. I do not think that we have that. However, as the noble Earl suggests that this is a matter that the Government aim to deal with in Amendment No. 22, I shall, with respect, come back to my submission on that amendment. On this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("such classes of members as are defined by the rules of the union, being—").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with your Lordships' leave, and if my notes permit it, speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
Amendment No. 15: Page 3, line 4, leave out ("in employment") and insert ("engaged in such employment as the rules of the union prescribe and for such period as stated in the rules;").
Amendment No. 16: Page 3, line 5, leave out ("any subscription or contribution due to the union") and insert ("such number or amount of subscriptions or contributions due to the union as the rules of the union prescribe;").
Amendment No. 17: Page 3, line 12, after ("who") insert ("by virtue of the rules of the union").
These amendments, in our submission, involve the same central point. It can be simply put. In order to be allowed to divide the electorate of members into constituencies, the union must fulfil two basic conditions. First, under Clause 2(1)(b)all the members of the class must be excluded by the rules of the union from voting. There must be an exclusion rule for all of them. The second hurdle that the union must clear is that the class must fall—and here I am talking to subsection (2)—into one or more of the classes set out in subsection (2); that is, members who are not in employment, members who are in arrears with their subscriptions and members who are apprentices, trainees, students or new members of the union.
In regard to the first hurdle, it is clear that the rules must include the exclusion provision. The problem arises—all four amendments are conveniently taken together because the principle is the same—in regard to the second hurdle. The issue is: who is to decide what is meant by the definition of the class into which the excluded members must fall? For example, let me take trainees or apprentices. When a court is confronted with the arguments that the union has done what is needed and that the union has done not what is needed, how will it decide whether the union rule clears the second hurdle as well as the first? As the Bill is drafted, the court, in my submission, would apply what I might call for convenience (although it is not wholly accurate) the objective test; namely, what the court thinks the Act means. What does the court think a trainee is? What does the court think "arrears of subscription" means? What does the court think "not in employment" means?
The other way of approaching the matter could have been to allow the rules of the union to define what is meant by "trainee or apprentice", "in arrears of subscription" or "not in employment". It is our

241
submission—I apprehend that it is likely that the Government may resist this amendment and, if so, it will only show how the Bill is to overtake the rules of the union yet again—that the rules should decide the meaning of the word. In saying that, I wish to make clear a point that it is clear to any lawyer and, indeed, to any layman. Of course, if the Act demands that the rules talk about apprentices, then the rules must define apprentices in a way that is capable of reasonable understanding but that allows for flexibility. It does not impose the court's interpretation; it imposes the rules interpretation provided that that is a reasonably understandable and reasonable interpretation of the term.
The point may seem a fine one to noble Lords; but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will, I am sure, remember the case of Lee v. The Showmen's Guild in 1952, in which his great judgment showed that the construction of a rule of the union is a matter of law and cannot go outside that which the court can allow. On the other hand, within that compass the rules can have some autonomy and give a reasonable interpretation to the term. In that case it was the term "competition".
What makes it clear that the Government are leaving this to the court completely and not to the rules plus the court is the way in which the rules appear in the rest of the clause. This is a very important point in the practical administration of trade unions. For example, if the rules are to define the terms, the Bill says so. It says so, as the noble Earl will see, in Clause 2(1)(b), Clause 2(3)(c) and Clause 2(4), but it does not say so in Clause 2(2). Because it does not say so in Clause 2(2) but does say so in the other subsections and paragraphs that I have cited, the court would be bound to see a distinction in the approach of the Act to the terms defined by virtue of the rules in those other subsections and paragraphs and the terms that are not defined by reference to the rules in subsection (2).
The central point therefore runs through all four amendments. There are small points that distinguish them. I put tonight simply the central thrust that, surely, here is an area in which the Government could allow the members to define what they mean by an apprentice, or, in particular these days, what they mean by a member who is not in employment. I am quite sure that from their trade union experience my noble friends can easily give examples—indeed, I can myself—of the way in which, in one trade, not being in employment is regarded as rather a different matter, in shading and area, than in, say, the print industry, where not being in employment often acquires a rather technical meaning.
Really, this is no more than a plea to the Government to have another look at this and see whether the rules are not the right place to give the leading interpretation of all of these matters in subsection (2), or, if they do not accept that, to give an explanation, which so far has never been given, as to why, in Clause 2(1)(b), 2(3)(c), and 2(4), the rules govern interpretation, but in 2(2) they do not. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: As my noble friend has mentioned me, perhaps I may say that there are many words in
242
many statutes which have to be interpreted by the courts. There could have been in this statute a definition section which gave the meaning of all those words—apprentices, training, and so forth. But often those definitions are not useful at all. I gather the suggestion in the amendment is that the definitions should he put in the rules. I do not think it should be left to the rules to give the definitions. I believe that, without a definition clause, ordinary people and ordinary courts will be able to apply these words perfectly well, and there is no need for the amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: Well done!
Viscount Long; Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, speaking to this amendment, I should like to say I am glad, (a) that he has had a good supper, and (b) that he has got his definitions right as to what is an apprenticeship, as well as the different groups he is talking about.
Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 2, to which these three amendments relate, reflect once again the Government's basic approach in this Bill. These subsections provide for one of the essential democratic requirements of any election: that is, for the basic principle of one man, one vote. But at the same time the Bill allows unions to continue to operate sensible restrictions on entitlement to vote in an election where these do not conflict with the Bill's basic democratic requirements.
In particular, subsections (1) and (2) allow certain groups of members to be excluded from all elections to the governing body if that is what the union's rules provide. The groups concerned, which are set out in subsection (2), and which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has described, are members not in employment, members who are in subscription arrears, and members who are apprentices, trainees, students or recently-joined members of the union. To define these groups, and who is to go into these groups, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, implied, is a very difficult and sensitive area, and probably one could go on always trying to define who goes into which group.
Turning now to the specific amendments, the case for Amendment No. 14, as I understand it, is that it should be up to the union to decide in its rules, first of all, whether it wishes to exclude all or any of the classes of members in subsection (2) from voting; and, secondly, if it does wish to exclude some of these groups of members from voting, how precisely it wishes to define these exclusions. I can assure the noble Lord that, on this basis, his amendment is entirely unnecessary. Again, I go back to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who said it is very difficult to define these groups.
I want to make it clear to the Committee that nothing in subsections (1) and (2) requires unions to exclude all or any of these groups from voting. The provisions are entirely permissive. Moreover, if the union does wish to exclude one or more of these classes from voting, then it is entirely up to the union to decide whether to exclude all those in the class—for example, all those who are in arrears of subscription—or only a part of that class—for

243
example, all those who are more than, say, three months in arrears. The only qualifications are that the exclusion must be operated in accordance with the union's own rules, which is precisely what Amendment No. 14 is about, and, secondly, that having decided on an excluded class of members—for example, all those more than three months in arrears—the union does not then pick and choose arbitrarily by allowing some of them to vote and others not.
Exactly the same point arises in relation to Amendment No. 16, and it may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain in a little more detail why this is so. The effect of Clause 2(1) and (2) is that a union can continue, perfectly lawfully under the Bill, to exclude from voting in elections for its executive a class of members which is, or which falls within, a class of members distinguished by the fact that they are in subscription arrears. The key words are "which falls within". The effect of these words is that in order to benefit from the exemption provided by subsection (2) a union will not be required, for example, to exclude from voting all those of its members who are in arrears of subscription to any extent. It can, for example, exclude from voting only those who owe more than a certain number or amount of subscriptions or contributions due to the union.
I now turn to Amendment No. 15, which raises a slightly different issue. Rather than allowing unions to exclude from voting those not in employment, such as unemployed members, it would permit unions to exclude from voting both members in particular kinds of employment and those who had not been employed in a particular kind of employment for a given period. If the amendment is designed to ensure that unions can continue to apportion seats on their executives as between different occupational groups which are represented in the union, then it is unnecessary. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2, to which we shall shortly be turning, allow such arrangements to continue as long as those concerned are directly elected by the members of the trade group concerned.
If, however, the amendment is designed to legitimise rules in some unions which disfranchise members outside the trade, then different questions arise. In the first place, very few unions have such rules, though I understand that some do have them. The reason the Bill does not cover such arrangements is that, unlike the other categories listed in subsection (2), there seems no obvious justification for allowing unions to exclude members in particular occupations from voting in all executive elections. If people are allowed by the rules to continue as members even though they are outside the normal occupations covered by the union, and particularly if they are still required to pay a subscription, there seems no reasons why they should be denined entitlement to vote in all elections to the executive.
I hope that I have given the noble Lord enough information, and I trust that his anxieties have been allayed, and that I have given him time to define which grades go into which categories. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have a very minor difficulty as regards this matter. I refer in particular to subsection (2)(c), which lists a number of excluded classes including:
"apprentices, trainees or students or new members of the union".
While we have little difficulty over apprentices, trainees and students, I should like to ask what exactly is a new member of the union. How new is "new"? Does "new" mean a member who has one month's membership, or one year's membership? How long does it mean?
Alternatively, am I to interpret this as referring back to Clause 2(1)(b). where it says, in addition to these groups:
"all the members of which are excluded by the rules of the union".
In other words, the rules of the union might themselves define a new member. Where the rules of a union define a new member, I do not think that there is any difficulty. But if the rules of a union do not themselves define a new member, I wonder where we are. Should we in some way say whether a new member is a man who has three months' membership, or six months' or a year's membership or whatever? Should not a new member be actually defined in some way, or am I wrong again?
Viscount Long: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for voicing his anxiety over what is a new member. I think that what he is worried about is a member who has recently joined. It is deliberately flexible. Union rules will be the test, unless they are manifestly absurd. It is flexible in that regard.
Lord Howie of Troon: Your Lordships will recall from earlier debates that I am strongly in favour of flexibility. But I am wondering what will be the case if the union rules do not say anything about new members. Who then decides when a member is new or, indeed, if he is new? I am just seeking information; I am not attempting to be awkward. I hope that the Minister will help me.
Viscount Long: I can help the noble Lord because I think that a great deal of common sense has to go into the rules.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If I may say so, this seems to me a very simple point which the noble Viscount has not addressed. I agreed with almost all of what he said. But my noble friend Lord Howie gave a second example involving the one that I was going to take in the three points that I want to put in reply.
First, let us take the very simple matter—which I passed over because I thought that this was such a straightforward point that the Government would naturally think again about it and I therefore dealt with all for amendments together—of the class of members who, under subsection (2)(b), are:
"members who are in arrears in respect of any subscription or contribution due to the union".
Everybody knows—and the Government must know—that practices on arrears differ very much in different unions. In the craft unions there is at least a two-stage procedure. A member who is in arrears for a certain number of weeks will go out of compliance;

245
he will normally be unable to claim benefit. But it will take a number of other weeks before his membership lapses through arrears. Indeed, my noble friend was telling me that he believes there are some unions (and I thing so too) in which there are actually three stages. In the general unions it is more normal to find that lapse after a certain number of weeks causes lapse of membership.
It is no good appealing to common sense to give the answer in respect of any particular union as to what the phrase:
"in arrears in respect of any subscription"
means. There have been decades of practice which normally on this matterߞindeed, always on this matterߞhave been enshrined in the rules. Therefore, if you want to find out what, as a matter of common sense, in that union "in arrears" means, you must look at the rules, which, of course, have been defined in the light of custom and practice.
Secondly, it is said that this amendment is unnecessary because we can all decide it by common sense. If it were not such a festive post-dinner occasion I would call it slipshod legislation. In no way did the noble Viscount address himself to the question: why are the words "by virtue of the rules" included in some parts of subsections (3) and (4) especially, but not in subsection (2)? Indeed, I noted that the noble Viscount did not accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Howie that the matter was fully dealt with by Clause 2(I)(b), which says:
"all the members of which are excluded by the rules of the union".
With respect, the noble Viscount was right not to give that as the answer because that is the exclusion part, and that is the first hurdle. But the second hurdle still has to be crossed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, asked us not to leave it only to the rules. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I cited the case of 1952 and his own notable judgment, because even if one does leave it to the rules, the courts still have a control
246
because they must be rules which to a reasonable man can mean something within the area of the term in the Act. That, of course, is a final or, if you like, residual control by the courts. The noble and learned Lord said that we should leave it to the ordinary people. But, of course, it is not ordinary people who will decide this matter; this matter will be decided by an ordinary judge. The noble and learned Lord presided long enough in the Court of Appealߞwhere the odds were two to one on getting it rightߞto know that ordinary judges often get things wrong. They cannot be expected to get things right if they are not directed to the rules. One cannot go to the judge and say "Judge, here is a union which has very peculiar practices about arrears but you are not allowed to look at the rules, you must do it all by common sense". Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could do that in the Court of Appeal, but not all the ordinary judges can do it.
I am very disappointed at the Government's reply. These very simple matters are very important to trade unionists and to the administration of trade unions. A number of other amendments on these matters have been tabled, so if noble Lords think that they are to debate postal ballots immediately they had better have another think. These are the matters that will be dealt with on the ground by shop stewards, by people who devote their weekends and their evenings to administering the unions that keep industry running, along with managers on the other side of the table. They are entitled to better than this; they are entitled to an Act that makes sense; they are entitled to an Act that at least gives some kind of credence to their own rules dealing with the matters which are fundamental to the administration of their own unions.
In the light of the fact that I am quite confident that when the Government read Hansard they will consider the matter again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
9.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 13, after ("trade") insert (", profession, office, employment. grade, status. craft, calling").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment may I say that it is not an amendment with far-reaching consequences. but we think that the words in the Bill "trade or occupation" are inadequate to meet the needs of the present large conglomerate trade unions, and there is still a move towards larger trade unions as the smaller ones are absorbed. The categories in the amendment are a more realistic appraisal of the situation in the large conglomerate unions today, and I would ask the Minister whether he would consider, if he does not give a definitive answer tonight, looking at it and, if he feels sympathetic, to come back with something at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: Amendment No. 18 focuses on one particular restriction allowed for by these subsections; namely, that the electorate can be restricted by trade or occupation. In detail, the amendment seeks to extend this exemption so that trade unions could restrict seats on their executive not merely to members in a class determined by reference to trade or occupation but also to members in a class determined by reference to profession, office, employment, grade, status, craft, or calling.
I hope that I can be brief in relation to the amendmentߞand I thank the noble Lord for his succinct remarks when he moved the amendment. I can first assure the noble Lord that the great majority of the extra words which he wishes to add are covered already by the words "trade or occupation" which clearly have a very wide meaning. A "profession" would be covered by the term "occupation": a "craft" would be covered by "trade"; and a "calling" would be covered by one or other of these, As there is no sense in littering the Bill with synonyms. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that most of his amendment is simply not necessary. That leaves us only with office, grade and status, and I am bound to say that I had not thought to see the noble Lord's party so clearly associated with such elitist concepts.
Nevertheless, I take seriously the points that the noble Lord made, but I hope I have been able to explain to him that the additional words he seeks to add would be unnecessary. The noble Lord himself when introducing the amendment said that it was not of far-reaching dimensions, and I hope that he might be prepared to withdraw it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I am sorry that he does not accept the amendment. I do not believe that the two words in the Bill cover the wide spectrum of people involved in these large unions. Certainly nobody involved in what you could call a trade union could lightly assume that because they are a member of a trade union they are in fact carrying out a craft, because they are not.
A lot of the original craft unions were small and elitist, but as time has overtaken them and the industries they are involved in have grown in dimension, while still craft unions they have become
248
part of larger conglomerate unions. An outstanding example of this is my own union, the AUEW. I remember it was the AEU when I first joined and it was almost totally a craft union. One had to have a skilled craft to even join it, but as engineering developed and some of the crafts were broken down and it broadened out semi-skilled people started to join.
I can remember what was perhaps thought to be the biggest "fix" that ever took place in a union election during the war, when the AEU balloted on whether women ought to join the union. We could not find anybody who had voted for it, but nevertheless the vote was carried and that is how women came to join the AEU during the last war. I have no desire to press the amendment, but I hope that the Minister has not closed his mind to the few things that I have said. I still do not think that the words in the Bill are sufficient to cover the wide spectrum of people involved in some of the large conglomerate unions which now exist and will grow ever more conglomerate as time goes on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 18, after ("union") insert (", including any part of the union, whether or not that section is itself a trade union").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important matter that concerns the way in which the Bill permits trade unions to divide the membership into constituencies in arranging its direct elections to the national executive committee. Having said that the union may divide the membership by way of trade, occupation or geographical area, the Bill then permits the union to divide the members according to sections. I quote the Bill:
"a class which is by virtue of the rules of the union"
and here we have the rules put in expressly, so we are happy with thatߞ
"treated as a separate section within the union".
Anyone reading that would think that that is extremely reasonable and indeed very sensible; but in moving this amendment I also have to speak to Amendment No. 46 which deals with the definition of "section".
Amendment No. 46: Page 8. line 16, leave out ("which is itself a trade union").
The definition of "section" your Lordships will find in Clause (6) (1) which says:
"section, in relation to a trade union, includes any part of the union which is itself a trade union".
Therefore the union is confined, according to the Bill as it now stands, to sections within the union which are themselves a trade union. It is therefore necessary to consider very carefully what that means.
The definition of "trade union" in Section 28 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 tells us that a trade union is:
"an organisation (whether permanent or temporary) which eitherߞ(a) consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and is an organisation whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or employers' associations; or"ߞ
in effect it goes on to deal with federations.
We are looking to see whether a section within a union is itself an organisation with the principal purpose of regulating relations between workers and employers. Both legally and practically that is an extremely difficult matter. There are some unions with a federal structure where areasߞand less than areasߞappear clearly to be separate trade unions within that definition. The National Union of Mineworkers is the best known example. The national union, the area unions and some branches (such as the Arlton and Haydock Branch) are on the list of the certification officer as separate unions.
But even where there is not a federal structure to a union there may well be a section which through history and for other reasonsߞfor example, occupational reasonsߞis independent in its existence and which perhaps carries on bargaining separately with employers as well as being part of the national union. In the print unions one finds that phenomenon. One wonders whether the medical practitioners' union, which went into the Association of Scientific Technical and Managerial Staffs, was or is a separate union for the purposes of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister who will reply will answer that question.
This matter goes to the situation in regard to mergers. In speaking to a previous amendment, I submitted, with my noble friends that the tight bandageߞto use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, rather than straitjacket, the tight bandageߞof electoral practice now bound round the bodies of British trade unions if this becomes law, would inhibit amalgamations and mergers which, everyone would agree, would be desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that that was not the case.
I wish to re-state perhaps more clearly that the practice of separate sections, and indeed of indirect elections through separate sections in a broad sense of "section", is one of the essential features of various types of amalgamation and merger, and anyone concerned with the British labour movement and trade union movement knows that that is the case. Therefore by allowing the union to divide into constituencies by section only when that section is a separate trade union within the definition, the Bill is offering a trade union very little and it is confirming its impediment against amalgamations and mergers.
I must add two matters to that case. First, as a matter of law, it is extremely difficult to apply the definition of trade union to these internal sections of unions that do not have a federal structure. Anyone who has had to advise on or discuss this matter knows that that is the case. The most recent authority is the case of Cope v. Crossingham in 1909 at page 148 of the second volume of Chancery Division reports. It is a case which I am sure the noble Earl, with his remarks from a sedentary position, knows very well. With regard to a resolution passed by a branch to secede from a union, Lord Justice Buckley, who naturally looked at the rules, said at page 161:
"The rules are full of difficulties…There does not seem to be any machinery for becoming a member, except by joining a branch, but it is difficult to say that a man could not become a member by joining at the head office…As I read the rules, the branches are not separate unions."
In 1909 the Court of Appeal had great difficulty in knowing whether the branches of this union were separate unions for the purposes of the issue before it. Why should the Government leave this matter in such an obscure state? Partly, I submit, because they have not understood their own Bill. One cannot read the Committee stage in another place without realising that, again and again, explanations were given of this part of the Bill which I am sure noble Ministers in this place would not wish to preserve. For example, the Under-Secretary of State, on 17th January at column 458 of the Committee proceedings, said that,
"Any other section as defined in the union rule book can also be included so long as it is a section. It cannot be a random and haphazard grouping but if it is a section properly set up with officers and a constitution, certainly it need not necessarily be a part which is itself a trade union."
That is a direct contradiction to the Bill. On 17th January at column 465 of the Committee proceedings, he said much the same:
"The union rule book determines what is a section."
He then appealed at column 459 and later on to the case of Kirkham v. NATSOPA, a decision of the employment appeal tribunal, saying that he could define a section as,
"An organisation or unit having officers and membership from which it is possible to retire."
If the Government would like to put into the Bill the definition that the Under-Secretary of State gave, that would he a distinct improvement. I wonder whether there has been a slight mistake, that perhaps the briefs got mixed up and the thing that was rejected was put into the Bill and the thing that the Government meant to put into the Bill got into the brief of the Under-Secretary of State in another place. I believe that that may well be the case. I am confident that the Government cannot wish that the affairs of British trade unions in elections on this important matter be governed by the obscurities of the case of Cope v. Crossingham in 1909 in the Court of Appeal. I am confident that for once we shall hear that the Government are prepared to look at this matter again. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. He is very easy to listen to and one always enjoys his contributions. But perhaps on this occasion I could highlight the difficulty of having an academic looking after trade union affairs or speaking on behalf of trade unionists because they see problems where problems do not exist. On this issue it really is the noble Lord who has failed to understand the Bill. Clause 6(1) says that the word "section" includes any part of the union which is itself a trade union. It does not say that "section" means a section which is itself a trade union. The word "includes" is the key. Sections can be, or cannot be, trade unions. The definition of "section" includes both.
It is perfectly straightforward, but just in case there lingers any doubt in the mind of the noble Lord, perhaps I may explain briefly the effect of Clause 2(3)(c) as it stands. The effect of this provision is that where a union is composed of various sections which have a clearly separate identity under the union's rules, then it will remain perfectly lawful under the Bill for a union to apportion seats on its executive on any basis

251
that its rules may provide as between the different sections within the union. The provision is thus a recognition of the fact that many unions maintain a constructive balance on their executives as between different sections of the union, and it also ensures that such arrangements need not be disturbed in any way by this Bill.
The flexibility of the provision in subsection (3)(c) is further enhanced by the definition of the word "section". 1 have already dealt with that definition, and so I shall not weary your Lordships' Committee by going over it again. But let me say in conclusion that I really believe that the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderbum, has put before us this evening are totally unnecessary. The Bill is perfectly clear and perfectly specific on those points. I am quite sure that when this Bill becomes an Act, and when it is being implemented by those self-same shop stewards on the shop floor to whom the noble Lord's noble friend referred a little earlier, it will be interpreted without anything like the difficulties which this evening the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has suggested to us might arise. I am quite sure that when he reads Hansard (as we all do) and when he studies what he has said and what I have said, he will find that the explanation is perfectly clear. I know that he is a very reasonable spokesman and therefore I am sure he will wish to withdraw the amendment without further argument.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord referred to the activities or the responsibilities of shop stewards under this Bill. I think he ought to be aware that under this part of the Bill the shop stewards, if they have any responsibilities. will have them taken from them.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to intervene at this stage hut, as a lawyer, may I say that the noble Lord the Minister said that he found it very easy to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, whereas it seems to me that he is in a state of complete unease because he did not answer any of the major points which the noble Lord made. I am speaking for myself on this matter, as I have not consulted my noble friendsߞI am glad that I have some support from the Government Front Benchߞand I would suggest that for the noble Lord to rely on the definition of "section" M this Bill is to misunderstand wholly the position.
As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was referring to those sections of a trade union which are not necessarily themselves a trade union but which are, as a matter of practice, involved in negotiations with employers. He made a very important point, and that was that we wish to get trade unions to merge. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said that unless this clause of the Bill is modified in relation to the definition of "class", it will produce difficulties in relation to mergers. If I may say so, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with all his experience of trademark law, will support me on this matter.
252
It leaves the position in rather a mess, and I should have thought that. in view of the major matters which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has raised, the noble Lord the Minister would like to take this back and think about it once more. That would be preferable to his making the kind of oration that he did and failing to deal with the specific points of objection to this subsection which the noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn, raised.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, as my name has been mentioned. may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but I was not aware that we were discussing trademark law. Much as I would wish to support him on every conceivable occasion, I must say that if "includes" means "includes", which I suppose it does, I cannot see the difficulty.
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall very quickly answer the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, because I sense the feeling of the Committee that there are other amendments which we are anxious to get on to and which are of major importanceߞ
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Gray of Contin:ߞbut let me not neglect the duty of a Minister to answer points. I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, albeit rather late in the proceedings. Nevertheless, I would reiterate to him that the word "section" covers both those parts of the union which are trade unions in their own right and those parts of the union which are not. I tried to make that as clear as I possibly could, and I reiterate it for the benefit of the noble Lord.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am in some difficulty. The noble Lord has said that, so let me briefly say a word. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and I apprehend that both he and I are in disagreement with the Minister about a very simple matter of construction. The Bill states in Clause 6:
"'section', in relation to a trade union, includes any part of the union which is itself a trade union".
Of course, the word "includes" is used, but what the noble Lord. Lord Gray of Contin, was saying to me was that that was the same as our amendment; namely, that a section was a section, whether or not that section was a separate trade union.
If that were the caseߞthe noble Lord has said it twice; no doubt he will say it three times, and what he says three times must be trueߞthere would be no point in having that definition clause, because it would mean that a section includes any part of the union which is itself a trade union, and includes any part of the union which is not itself a trade union. That is not what it says, and any court, given that, must make some sense of it. Even in this Government's legislation there must be some sense in this definition.
The noble Lord says that I raise this as an academic matter. I do not know when he last discussed it with shop stewards, but I discussed this very matter with shop stewards last week, because we were discussing this Bill and amalgamations. I said then what I say

253
now: that I believe it to be the better interpretation that this Bill restricts constituencies to an artificially narrow area of sections which are trade unions. There is no other possible interpretation of the definition on page 8. There is no other need for the definition.
It may be that it is only when noble Lords on the Liberal Benches get up and join us that the Government will really listen. That has happened, so will they listen and take this back? I ask the Minister whether he will take this hack and look at it again. It is to us, and to ordinary trade unionists, a very important matter indeed. We shall not withdraw the amendment, but we shall not divide on it. I shall ask my noble friends to negative it in the usual way, if the noble Lord the Minister will not take it away.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have always operated on the belief that if you take something away you take it away with the genuine intention of seeing whether you can change it. I do not believe that if I took this away I would come back with any different suggestion. Therefore, I would be misleading the Committee if I took it away, so I suggest that the noble Lord should negative this amendment.
On Question, amendment, negatived.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert ("and otherwise than by reason of an unintended mistake by those conducting a ballot which it is reasonable to excuse.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment spans some of the issues which have already been dealt with and runs over to later matters. However, it is convenient, very briefly, to take the point now. The amendment suggests that since the Bill provides that certain requirements have to be satisfied, an exception should be added that there should be no fault in the ballot where there is an unintended mistake which it is reasonable to excuse. Whether or not the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, introduced companies, or whether I did, I am sure he will not mind if I say that this amendment is based upon a parallel with company law. In Section 448 of the Companies Act 1948 there is a provision which permits, in any proceedings for negligence or default or breach of duty, an officer of the company to be excused if it appears to the court that he acted honestly and reasonably and that in all the circumstances of the case he ought to be excused wholly or partly from liability. This is a much shorter version, and the drafting ought perhaps to be expanded.
We say that having reached the point where quite serious demands are made upon union machinery, whether or not they have Government money-you cannot cure everything in organisations merely by putting funds in—
The Earl of Gowrie: Hear, hear!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful for the noble Earl's agreement. This is a matter of human relationships. Unions, we say, faced with all the
254
tripwires in Clause 2 of this measure, are hound to make mistakes. Already people are lining up to bring actions. We all know who they are. We know, too, that available registers of members in some unions are not, with the best will in the world, easy to maintain, especially where the workforce is mobile, as in the construction industry. Even in a union like the AUEW, there is the recent famous statement of Sir John Boyd in which he said:
"We rely on 2,558 branch secretaries to advise the executive council in their fortnightly movement reports of deaths, transfers, resignations and expulsions. If they fail, then certain inadequacies are inevitable. Twice a year all secretaries are provided with an updated voting register, and attention is drawn to the names and addresses of members whose ballot papers are returned undelivered. To have a register of 805,350 voters out of a membership of 1 million is a wonderful achievement".
I doubt whether the Government would deny that that is so. However, in such a situation it is inevitable that honest mistakes are made. Indeed, on a number of occasions in another place, as on 24th November, the Minister of State appeared to say that an honest mistake on the part of a union would not give rise to liability. It is no answer to this point to say that the court may have a discretion. The court's discretion comes later in regard to enforcement. In this amendment we say that if there is an unintended mistake and it is reasonable to excuse it, there should be no liability in the first instance for failure to bind the tight bandage of electoral procedure so tight as Clause 2 would have it. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, will agree that we have already discussed this matter in some detail under Amendment No. 13. It revolves around the difference between opportunity to vote and entitlement to vote. Therefore, I shall try to deal with it fairly briefly. I can best do so by describing just exactly what the Bill's provisions on entitlement to vote are.
Subsections (I) to (4) of Clause 2 provide for one of the essential democratic requirements in any election. This is the basic principle of one man, one vote. But at the same time the Bill allows unions to continue to operate sensible restrictions on entitlement to vote where these do not conflict with the Bill's basic democratic requirements. Thus, Clause 2 provides for two kinds of exception to the one man, one vote principle in order to accommodate acceptable current practice in trade unions.
The first exception is provided by subsections (1) and (2) together, which allow certain groups of members to be excluded from all elections to the governing body, if that is what the union's rules provide. The second exception is provided by subsections (3) and (4), which deal with the practice which is very widespread in the union movement of allocating seats on trade union governing bodies on a regional, occupational, trade group or sectional basis, the electorate for such seats being in general the members in the particular region, occupation or section concerned. Subsection (3) allows such arrangements to continue subject to the safeguards in subsection (4).
We shall shortly be discussing the Government's amendments to subsections (6) and (7) of this clause. That will provide an opportunity to discuss the Bill's provisions on the opportunity to vote. However, I hope that on the basis of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Howie of Troon: There is one small point which the noble Lord the Minister has not dealt with. While we all agree with his comments about entitlement to vote and opportunity to vote, we must realise that a ballot goes a little further than that. The ballot is not really finished until after the votes have been collected and counted. It is quite possible that at these later stages, with which the noble Lord did not deal, there could be an honest mistake made. It is honest mistakes that we are talking about. The point of this amendment is to protect people who have made an honest mistake which did not materially affect the final result. The Minister's explanation did not cover the points I made, and in fairness he should undertake to look at this point again; but I will not ask him to take up more time by replying now.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I do not agree with the Minister that this matter is dealt with by Amendment No. 13, which has really become Amendment No. 22, which we are about to debate, when the Government insert their new subsection (6). But if the Minister invites me to return to this point in that context, I shall be happy to do so. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (6) and insertߞ
("(6) Every person who is entitled to vote at the election shall be allowed to vote without interference and have a fair and convenient opportunity to vote. Such elections shall he held by postal ballot, with the voting papers being sent to all members recorded as being eligible to vote in the latest available central register of membership. Responsibility for the surveillance of the distribution, return and counting of voting papers shall be in the hands of an independent body.")
The noble Lord said: In moving the humble Address after the Speech from the Throne, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, applauded the inclusion of a ballot Bill in the Government's programme and pointed out that the need for the ballot was the result of the enfranchisement of working men who claimed themselves to be fearful of pressure from their employers as to how they cast their votes. I am of course referring not to my noble friend Lord De La Warr but to the bearer of that title during the parliamentary Session of 1872. During the debate on that ballot Bill in another place. a Member there pointed out that working men were fearful not only of their employers bringing pressure upon them but also of pressure from officials of their trade unions. So what we are discussing has a long historyߞ1872 to 1984.
I refer to these events not merely to show how long
256
a history there is of attempts to safeguard the integrity of elections, but also to make the point that this amendment is trying (as the Bill in general is doing) not to impose some alien device upon unwilling trade unionists but to meet as best one can a demand that has come to noble Lords from many trade unionists themselves, who believe that their right to vote freelyߞtheir opportunity, if one likesߞis curtailed by aspects of the present system in certain unions and that they would not (and this is the reason for the amendment) be sufficiently safeguarded by the proposals in the Bill itself.
The case for the superiority of postal ballots over other forms of ballot was made in general terms in a notable speech by my noble friend Lady Cox, who would have been moving this amendment had she not been overseas today. I do not wish at this late hour (a late hour not of my choosing) to cover the same ground again. In that speech I may remind noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, quoted the views of the retiring general secretary of the EETPU, Mr. Frank Chapple, and I in turn should like to quote his successor elect, Mr. Eric Hammond, who in a speech earlier this month said:
"No other union has experienced the anguish and humiliation which my union suffered as a consequence of the communist ballot riggers who once controlled our affairs … we turned out the communist fraudsters and introduced postal voting with ballot papers sent direct to the members. We regard our system as the only genuine fool-proof method."
As other passages in the same speech by Mr. Hammond show, he is no follower of the Conservative Party and no admirer of the present Government. But I think that the experience which he has had in the service of his union should give added weight from a different political quarter to the strong support for postal ballots which has come, as was referred to by my noble friend Lady Cox, from the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists and from the Organisation of Trade Unionists which is linked with the Social Democratic Party.
If for a moment only I may speak in the direction of my noble friends, I would say that I find it quite extraordinary that on a matter of this kind the Conservative Party, which has devoted great energy to building up the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists, should not have regard to its expressed views on a matter which is of more direct concern to them than to any other members of the Conservative Party. The chairman of the party, in another capacity, as has been pointed out today, gave some very unsatisfactory replies to the suggestions that postal ballots should become the norm. He may find his position as chairman a little difficult when he comes to plead with the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists to put its full weight behind the party in any elections that may be coming.
I would not suggest. in moving this amendment, that there is only one way by which members of any organizationߞtrade union or whateverߞcan safely and democratically elect its officials. Indeed, if, as I hope, the Government accept the principle of this amendment, they should be able at a later stage to introduce a more elaborate version which would make special arrangements to fit in with the needs of particular unions, where the circumstances of the

257
workforce make postal ballots difficult to provide (as we dealt with earlier today) for indirect elections where these seem more appropriate and are already the practice in certain unions.
What my noble friends and I seek in putting down this amendment wish, as my noble friend Lady Cox sought on the Second Reading, is simply to establish the principle that direct postal ballots should be the norm and departures from this norm should have to be justified. The reason for this arises from the nature of the current, and possibly future, contests for office in trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who has a certain capacity for verbal acrobatics, managed to turn this issue upside down when dealing with an earlier amendment. He said that the Bill threatensߞand no doubt he would agree that if it were amended, it would still so threatenߞto politicise trade union elections. The truth is that the elections are politicised. That is the reason both for the Bill and for the amendment which we are now putting forward. Where you have in any form of electionߞand it can equally be applied to the reforms in parliamentary elections in the last century to which I have already referred-organised parties striving to achieve power in an important and powerful organisation, you cannot always rely on self-restraint. Otherwise, how would one occasionally seeߞmore than occasionally, perhapsߞevidence of a fact that the elected executive or whatever it may be appears to indulge in actions which are somewhat removed from the impression that one has of its general membership?
Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee may occasionally have dealings with officers of local government over rates or planning or whatever it may be. I wonder if they have ever come into the office of a local government officer and found it difficult to attract his attention because his head is buried in the Morning Star. Yet that union has itself given financial support to that newspaper. Mr. Hammond and Mr. Chapple have talked about the communists; and that, of course, was the occasion for the famous fight which led to the establishment of their present electoral system. But we know that since that successful battle, which is now many years ago, another movementߞcall it Trotskyist or Militant; it takes more than one guiseߞhas also gone to work to capture trade unions through the exploitation of the possibilities afforded by their electoral system.
Noble Lords on the other side of the Committee, at any rate, should be able to recognise many of these tactics since they are the same ones which have been adopted in order to remove from their constituencies and remove from their candidacies friends of theirs in another place. And there is no greater authority on the ability to do this than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
Why not, then, workplace ballots? May I again quote Mr. Chapple? He says that workplace ballots are too easily open to the intimidation of the voters, to the improper use of discarded ballot papers, to phoney returns and to a variety of other illicit behaviour. The Government's apparent case for preferring workplace ballots to postal ballots is that they produce a higher turnout. Turnout is obviously an important feature of any electoral system. But it is not the only important feature, otherwise we shall all have to salute the turnout achieved in the Soviet Unionߞ99.5 per cent!
A splendid turnout, but it still does not give us total confidence in the method by which citizens of the Soviet Union elect their representatives.
The other reason which apparently moves the Government is that it is difficult to keep proper recordsߞand clearly proper central records are required if you have a postal ballot. The noble Lord opposite quoted that the AUEW has managed to produce a register which certainly incorporates a vast majority of its members. The EEPTU keeps up to date and claims successfully to keep up to date a register which enables it to have a central postal vote. The important thing, after all, is not the number of votes cast but the fact that the votes that are cast are cast by the people in whose names they are cast and by no one else.
In the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, declared:
"There really cannot he any case for control of trade union rules for elections based upon malpractice".ߞ[Official Report, 15/5/84; col. 1340.]
I know that the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord McCarthy have a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil pact where trade unions are concerned; and I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is associated with them, as a man who speaks no evil.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord is making some rather oblique assertions and accusations. Would he substantiate them? Finally, would he get on to the amendment on the Marshalled List?
Lord Beloff: I am about to substantiate them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: It is about time.
Lord Beloff: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, saysߞand has said more than onceߞthat we cannot proceed to legislate about malpractice because there is no evidence that this ever occurs. I can only suggest that he is so busy with the Geneva conventions and with the commentaries by other learned lawyers upon those conventions that, unlike the rest of us, he does not read the daily newspapers. Otherwise, he would know, for instance, that in the great city of Bristol. the Transport and General Workers' Union has had to order an inquiry because of allegations of malpractices in the very important election which is going on for the general secretary of that union.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Is the noble Lord saying that those malpractices are proved, or is the matter sub judice? Is that evidence?
Lord Beloff: I did not say that those malpractices are proved.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord would rather smear.
Lord Beloff: Nor is it a smear.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Of course it is.
Lord Beloff: I said that responsible trade unionists obviously think that there are matters which deserve investigation. I say no more, and I say no less.
Lord Dean of Beswick: You are smearing people. Give the facts.
Lord McCarthy: Where is the evidence? There is no evidence.
Lord Beloff: The evidence which the noble Lord seeks would be evidence which has been tested in a court. There are, alas, a great many examples of things which are unjust and which are not brought to court for reasons with which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is very familiar. One is the cost of litigation, with which his profession is perhaps concerned, and the other and more important one is that if it is done by a member of an association he may find that he loses his status among his friends and his colleagues, and may even lose his job.
However, I take what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, says seriously. I thought therefore that I ought to look more closely at examples of trade union election procedure. I have been studying in some detail the election just held by the Civil and Public Services Association, whose high turn-out in previous years is one of the things quoted in favour of work-place ballots. though that turn-out has dropped, as noble Lords will know, very markedly recently.
It is clear if one looks at the procedures of a union of that kind that the mental image of work-place ballots based upon the practice of the National Union of Mineworkers, with a limited number of workplacesߞthe number of mines in the countryߞand the regular pattern of work, really cannot possibly apply to a union whose workers are scattered all over the country in innumerable work-places, sometimes in ver), small groups. Therefore, in the organisation of work-place ballots, enormous powers are put in the hands of local officials. They issue the ballot papers. I must say I should not like to have to fill in a ballot paper of that length: it makes some Californian ballot papers look relatively simple. They collect them. They are the interpreters of whether or not the ballot paper has been filled in correctly. They are the people responsible for counting them and they are the people responsible in the branches for returning the totals to the central organisation.
Already, and not for the first time, there are complaintsߞI do not say they are proved complaints, I say there are complaintsߞthat here and there, in one place and another, satisfactory opportunities for voting at times convenient to the individual worker have not been provided. Furthermore, despite the month which the union's rules allow for the election, 82 branches sent their papers in late; 20 branches sent in papers which were spoiled and 112 branches sent in no papers at all. In other words, there are clearly quite a considerable number of members of that unionߞwhich the Government regard in some respects as a model for its workplace ballotsߞwho have not cast a vote. Therefore it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is presuming too much on the Committee when he says that under no circumstances, in no possible way, could there be any cavil at the practice of any union in respect of any election.
I come to the end. The Government have now introduced two amendments which I understand were
260
meant to deal with the criticisms of their scheme and with the case for postal ballots, which had been made by my noble friend Lady Cox. I regret to tell the Ministers that they do not satisfy the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists; they do not meet the criticisms of the EETPU. and they do not satisfy either myself (which does not matter very much) or those who have put their names to this amendment with me. I fear that these amendments do not bear the marks of ministerial inventiveness but clearly are the work of some civil servant whose idea of a hotly contested election is the annual ballot for the committee of the Athenaeum.
What the Government appear to be doing in these amendments is to thrust on either the trade unionists or the courts the burden of making certain that malpractices do not occur. First, the burden will he on the individual trade unionist, who is going to show his distrust of his colleagues, his shop stewards and his branch officials, by asking for a ballot paper. That is not a very inviting prospect, especially in any organisation which claims loyalty from its members. Secondly, it is to ask the courts or to enable the courts to intervene to enforce a postal ballot if complaints against the conduct of another form of election are upheld.
The curious point seems to me that the Government, in the second amendment, give away their entire case on practicability. If postal ballots become practicable because a court has ordered them, why should they not be practicable from the beginning and included in the Bill? There are not many subjects upon which I find myself in total agreement with noble Lords opposite, but I may say that on the question that the courts should be brought in as little as possible in the conduct of both industrial relations and the internal affairs of trade unions, I agree with them. The important point in legislation is that it should be self-enforcing by the people it is intended to benefit.
I therefore very respectfully ask the Minister to suggest to his noble friend that, in view of the strong support from quarters with which he should feel an instinctive sympathy in his own party and in other parties as well, he should think again and come back with a suggestion. That is a suggestion not necessarily in the terms of any particular amendment but a suggestion which would make postal ballots sent to the individual's home the normal method by which the governing bodies of trade unions are elected. I beg to move.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Marsh: This is a very special night. That is demonstrated by the number of noble Lords attending the debate at this late hour. I shall seek to be as brief as possible. It is special because this is a very unusual situation. Tonight, the Government will be going through the "Not-Content" Lobby arm in arm with the Labour members of the Opposition. One could almost stop there and say that there must be something wrong with the Government's position. As a result, they will almost certainly, of course, defeat the amendment. They have very efficient Whips. The amendment, I suspect, is gone.
They will defeat an amendment that is a simple amendment. All that it seeks to do is to provide

261
ordinary lay members of trade unions with the protection of secrecy when they indulge in a ballot on what could he a highly controversial matter. For that, the Government Whips, with their skill and dedication to duty, will do what they can. As they walk through those Lobbies, for the first time, the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, will have around their shoulders the friendly and protecting arm of Ministers opposite. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, have a greater appreciation of the occasion than I expect noble Lords opposite to have.
Of course, the Government will have other supporters tonight, much further to the Left than most noble Lords on the Labour Benches. The Socialist Workers' Party would also be opposed to the amendment; the Militant Tendency would support the Government in their opposition to this amendment; Mr. Arthur Scargill and the Morning Star ߞall of them support the stand which the Government take tonight on this amendment, not just in passing but as something they see to fight against, as some sort of threat. Their supporters and their colleagues who will march with them in this battle-one can understand totally their view. I have no issue against them at all. They have always been against the principle of compulsory ballots. If you are against the principle of compulsory ballots, it is perfectly logical to be against anything that makes the compulsory ballot more effective in its intentions. There is a perfectly sensible and a perfectly respectable argument against the concept of compulsory ballots. Noble Lords opposite have put those arguments. They are arguments that I do not accept, but they are perfectly respectable arguments.
I cannot begin to understand how anyone can support the principle of compulsory ballots but deny those concerned the right to cast their votes without the fear of intimidation or ballot rigging. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on a number of occasions this afternoonߞhe did so in his very first contributionߞhas poured scorn on the idea of ballot rigging within the trade union movement. It is a loveable and innocent characteristic. It is something that we appreciate. It has a charm about it. Only an academic could believe it.
Lord Underhill: Or an organiser.
Lord Marsh: My noble friends should not push the line too far. I am sorry; I should say that noble Lords on the Labour Benches should not push the line too far. I have been, as they will know, a full-time union official for nine years.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Unpaid.
Lord Marsh: I played an active role in the Labour Party when the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was its very successful leading apparatchik. Do not tell me that political parties and trade unions do not indulge in a little gentle massaging and manipulation of ballots. That is a degree of naivety that I will accept from some noble Lordsߞ
Lord Underhill: We have had innuendoes. I know a lot about the Militant Tendency movement, but we
262
have had smears and innuendoes of which the Militant Tendency would be proud. We ought to have definite facts, and not smears of that kind.
Lord Marsh: I do not want to digress, and I was hoping not to be controversial in this. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has the credit for being the person who exposed the ballot rigging and the manipulation involving Militant Tendency within the Labour Party. He was responsible for that, and it was a very honourable achievement, and a very important one so far as this country is concerned. He knows far more about it than I do.
I shall come to the amendment; I was diverted against my wishes. Ballot rigging has been widespread for generations in trade unions, and all sides have been involved in it. The widespread corruption which was exposed in the ETU 20 years ago, and to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred at the very beginning of the day, was not the result of a lack of ballots. Many unions have had ballots and a widespread structure of balloting. It was about the manipulation by the union of its members by misusing the balloting procedures which the ETU had. Ballots, of themselves, do not prevent corruption within the management of trade unions; it is the way in which they are conducted that matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, mentioned allegations relating to the election of the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. That immediately brought some noble Lords to their feet. They said he did not have evidence, that it was innuendo, that there was no evidence of it. Of course, one cannot conceivably mention these things as facts, because they are not facts, they are not proven; indeed, the evidence has not been heard. So I shall not make any allegation at all. I shall simply inform the Committee of what the charge is in the elections for the general secretaryship of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The vote is carried out by those eligible presenting their union card. When it is franked "GS", that demonstrates that they have cast the vote in the general secretary's ballot. The only thing that people are suggesting-they may be wrong; I do not know: it does not necessarily prove anything at allߞis that the allegations of vote rigging were made after a number of members found their cards had been stamped when, in fact, they had not voted. I would not draw any conclusions at all from that.
Then there is the questionߞit was mentioned in passingߞof the election for the general secretaryship of the National Union of Mineworkers, which took place quite recently. Again, I make it very clear that I do not draw any conclusions at all. I simply quote the argument which Mr. John Walsh, who was the unsuccessful candidate, has placed in writing, and about which he is prepared to go to the High Court. Mr. Walsh is asking why the polling station closed early at Kellingley Pit, in his home territory of North Yorkshire, depriving some miners of the right to vote; why the figures for unused ballot papersߞan essential part of the counting procedureߞhave not been issued; why there was, as was said, an abnormally high percentage of spoiled ballot papers; namely, 3,935. Mr. Walsh was defeated by 3,615 votes. Several well-informed leaks after the closure of ballots, which noble

263
Lords read about in their newspapers, demonstrated, after the victory for Mr. Heathfield, that a number of people had access to the ballot papers.
Those are the charges. They may be totally wrong. It may be something which does not happen and has never happened. and that, left with that degree of power, we are all perfectly all right. Obviously this is the view of Her Majesty's Government. The fact is that workplace ballots are not, and cannot be, secure from interference: and, more important, they cannot be secret. They cannot be secret because men and women who have worked together, day in and day out for years on end, are bound to be aware of the views of their workmates on major matters affecting their working lives.
Think for a moment of the present miners' strike. Day after day, very brave men, some of them a small minority in their community, fight their way to work. with the aid of the police, through the screaming, fighting ranks of Mr. Scargill's storm-troopers. Some time in the not too distant future the strike will be over and in many pits those self same thugs who we see each night will be back in charge of the local union branch. Among their other duties they will have the task of ensuring fair play in the ballots that follow. They will supervise the balloting procedures. They will not easily forget or forgive those who challenged their authority. Those pits will not be happy places for those who so long defied that mob. Many of us will admire their determination, but very few of us will envy the situation in which they find themselves when they go back down those pits again.
There is nothing hypothetical about this. It is not an academic exercise. It is the real world for many thousands of trade unionists at present. Yet in that situation we are told by the Government that it would be wrong to allow them to vote in the security of their own homes, secure in the knowledge that no one can possibly know how they voted, becauseߞand this is the crucial pointߞno one will know whether or not they did vote. That is the difference. When a man votes at the pithead you do not have to see the ballot paper, you know his views. With a postal ballot no one will know whether they have voted at all.
I ask the noble Lords to consider tonight whether the bully-boys who we see every night on our television screens would be more likely to support the amendment or to oppose it. I regret to say that I have no doubt whatever that the militants would be in the Lobby with the Government and with the Opposition. I have no doubt that if compulsory ballots are conducted at the workplace and under the supervision of worker activists, we shall have constructed an instrument of coercion and intimidation. That will not just be wrong: that will be shameful.
Lord McCarthy: I want to address myselfߞif I canߞto the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The only thing that I want to say about the noble Lord, Lord Marsh,is that I thank him for his concern about us as we go (if we do) marching through the Lobby with the Government. But the noble Lord should know how we feel. After all, in his time he must have been through every Lobby that there is. So do not worry about us all that much: we shall survive. I would
264
rather turn to the argumentߞif it can be called an argumentߞwhich has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
I do not think that the noble Lord was present earlierߞalthough he may have beenߞwhen we were discussing with the noble Earl the question of Part 1 and Clause 1 of the Bill. I was trying to get the noble Earl to tell me what it was that justified the Government in singling out trade unions and saying that they must have direct elections and under no other system could they operate, and what it was about trade unions that did not exist in clubs, in companies, in professional associations or in Parliament itself. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was present or not. However, it is quite clear that he is using the same argument. Once again we are being told that we must have somethingߞin this case a postal ballotߞimposed upon trade unions which is not imposed upon clubs, companies and professional associations. A compulsory postal ballot is something which we do not have in a general electionߞ
Lord Howie of Troon: Will my noble friend give way? My noble friend has mentioned professional associations twice. He is quite right in saying that postal ballots are not imposed upon them. But the great majority of professional institutions, such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, to which I belong, use postal ballots and always have done so, and they use them perfectly sensibly. Therefore, will my noble friend stop saying that?
Lord McCarthy: I would not accept that the great majority do so, but it is perfectly true that some do so. The point is that the law does not insist that they do so: that is the issue. Nor does the law insist that it happens in general elections or in local elections. You cannot get a compulsory postal ballot: you cannot even get the postal ballot on demand in general electionsߞeither you have to be ill or you have to be abroad. You cannot get it even when you are on holiday. But in the trade unions the amendment says, yes. Trade unions are not like clubs, companies. Parliament or professional associations: they, and they alone, are so corrupt that you can get a decent election in a trade union only if you have a compulsory postal ballot! That is the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is in line with the Government, because they also believe that unions are very peculiar things.
One would expect there to be some justification for singling out trade unions in this way. With respect, one would expect that one would get some evidence. We say that there has been no evidence to justify the charge, and no evidence to justify the amendment. Indeed, the Government say that. The Minister of State in the Standing Committee on 31st January 1984, at col. 899, said in reply to a question by Mr. Mikardo:
"The hon. Gentleman must be reminded that the Bill is not concerned primarily to avoid malpractices in trade unions. Its primary concern is to ensure that trade unions provide a democratic framework in which their members, who are often too weak to defend themselves individually, are given the right to control their own unions".
In other words, the Minister of State is not suggesting that he can prove malpractice on a scale to justify his

265
own Bill. We are not saying that there are not malpractices in trade unions. There are malpractices in every voluntary organisation. There is not a bowls club, a tennis club or a golf club in the country which does not have malpractices. Of course, there are malpractices.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Onslow: Is the noble Lord really saying that the Transport and General Workers' Union, the electrical trades union and the mineworkers' union are of the same importance as the West Clandon Village Legion or the Merrow Golf Club?— because, if so, he underestimates both the unions and the Merrow Golf Club!
Lord McCarthy: The answer to that is, no, I am not saying that; and if the noble Earl had listened he would have known that. I am glad that I have struck home. All these insults can be made about trade unions and there is no reaction at all. I should have mentioned cricket clubs; I will say it again: malpractices exist in cricket clubs. Of course there are malpractices, but for the most part they are insignificant and for the most part they do not affect the result. Very often they are simply the result of people not carrying out precisely what is said in the rules, because they can think of a rather easier way of doing something.
One of the great problems which I have over trade unions— and I think to some extent my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has— is that trade unions will not read their rule books. They believe what what stands to reason must be in the rule book, and therefore, without carefully reading their rule books, they will go about their business doing things which they think ought to be done and which they ought to be able to do. But if they find themselves in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, he will say that that is contrary to the rules and it is a malpractice. These are relatively innocent things and they exist in all voluntary organisations.
I am not saying that they do not exist in trade unions. Why should I? I am not even saying that within trade unions there are not examples of the kinds of things which, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, were such a scandal and such a disgrace in the case of the ETU. Nevertheless, we must say that we have had no case of the size and scandal of the ETU since the middle 1950s.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Nothing like it.
Lord McCarthy: Nothing like it. We can be quite certain that, if we had, we should have read all about it in all the newspapers. So we are not saying that there are not malpractices; we are saying that the degree of malpractice that exists in voluntary organisations exists in trade unions; that by and large they are no worse than anywhere else; and that what exists does not justify what is being proposed in this amendment and does not justify what is being proposed in the Bill.
Lord Hooson: Is not the noble Lord taking a long time to say that though we are all against sin we should not be dogmatic about it?
10.40 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: That is partly because I am being interrupted, but I shall try to get on. One argument which might be made for having postal ballots would be that it would lead to greater participation; but the ground has already been given up by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He has already admitted that the evidence indicates that the greater degree of participation is caused by a mix of systems. That is what the Undy book indicates. If you have a mix of systems you can have workshop ballots when you can get them, when the employer will co-operate, or you may have postal ballots, or you may have people simply voting in the branches, or shop stewards taking round the voting boxes.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McCarthy: I know that every time people hear the words "shop stewards" they suspect something. The evidence indicates that the best way to get the highest degree of participation is to have a mixed system, and that if you have postal ballots in many unions— in, for example, unions with high rates of turnover— the result will be relatively low levels of participation. The other side do not mind that. They have given that away, and so they bring forward their amendment.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will answer me about the words used in the amendment. He seemed to be saying in his speech that the amendment really only meant that postal ballots would be the normal way of doings things, so that abnormal unions in abnormal situations would not have to have postal ballots. I do not see that in the amendment. What the amendment says is that everybody would have postal ballots. If he does not mean that then he should put something different in his amendment.
Then the amendment says that election shall be held on the basis of a "central register of membership". I hope the noble lord will take it from me that in fact there are many unions which do not have a central register of membership. Far from being in the position of having a recorded central membership register, there is not one. Is there going to be some coercive power in the Bill— and where is it going to be?— to force unions that do not have central membership registers to get them?
The main reason why they do not have central membership registers is because they have found that they can make their registers much more accurate if they do not centralise them. If you centralise them they tend to get out of date, and so the unions keep their registers in the regions or in the areas. If the noble Lord wants a central membership register, in many unions I am afraid that the register will be even more out of date than it would be if he had the register in the regions. If that is what he is saying, then he should tell us.
In the second line of the amendment it says:
"the election shall be allowed to vote"—
that is to say the elector—
"without interference".
I want to know without interference from whom? I take it from where the amendment has come that the

267
noble Lord is really thinking about interference from shop stewards. Naturally. But it might be interference from the employer. What is the mechanism in the amendment by which this interference from the employer is going to be repulsed? What are the sanctions? It seems to me that this amendment is not only unnecessary and unjustified but is extremely badly drafted as well.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that he forgot to mention immunity from the law. It is a civil proceedings order, so you cannot compare it with a club, or a professional association.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McCarthy: I always thought we had some immunity from law in this House, and I always thought that companies had immunity from law. If the noble Viscount is saying that one is like a trade union if one has immunity from law, many people would come in.
Lord Denning: I ask your Lordships to support this amendment. The opening words of it are quite unexceptionable:
"Every person who is entitled to vote at the election shall be allowed to vote without interference and have a fair and convenient opportunity to vote.'
The whole question is: how is that to be afforded? Is it to be by a postal ballot or by a workplace ballot? As to a postal ballot, it is virtually unchallengeable. There should be a central register of members for all unions if they are to conduct their business properly, to know about subscriptions, arrears of subscriptions, expulsions, membership, and the like. If they are in the regions, let them all be gathered together as one central register of membership, so that there is no difficulty in conducting a postal ballot. It will be in secret, without interference in any way. It is a truly democratic method of election.
What is the alternative?— it is the workplace ballot. We have heard all the difficulties of ballot rigging, and the like: but I suggest that on this Bill and in any Bill, such a ballot can be challenged before the courts by any person— every person has a right to vote and see the number of matters that can be decided by the judge on any application to declare the ballot unlawful, without any interference or constraint. How can that be challenged? Any one of those men who were impeded in going to work will be able to challenge it in any way, such as not receiving a voting paper, and time after time so far as is reasonably practicable he should "have a fair and convenient opportunity to vote". "So far as is reasonably practical"— I can imagine case after case being brought by individuals before the judge and saying "This was not fair. I did not have an opportunity. I did not have the proper time."
This system of ballot can be challenged time after time by the judge. He has the most difficult questions of fact and of law to decide. but without interference or constraint, whether it is fair and reasonable, whether it is "so far as is reasonably practical"— time after time a workplace ballot can be challenged and will be
268
challenged before the judge. He will be in great difficulty about it on points of fact and law. There will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the decision on the validity of the workplace ballot will not survive or will not be decided for months and months. The objection which I would take to the workplace ballot is that it can be challenged and will be challenged in the courts on most occasions. It is quite right that every person has a right to vote. He will be able to challenge it before the court and there will be virtually no certainty whatever that the ballot will be lawful.
No, the only safe, unchallengeable form of ballot is the postal ballot, and that is why I suggest to your Lordships that it is very proper to accept this amendment, at least in principle.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I intend to intervene only very briefly in this debate because I think I am probably in a very small minority on the Back-Benches on this side of the Committee. While I have the greatest respect for and sympathy with the intentions of my noble friends who have moved this amendment, I do not believe that it is the most practical way to solve the problems that they wish to solve. I very much prefer the amendment which my noble friend the Minister will move later. The amendment of my noble friend the Minister gives a reasonable opportunity to vote by post, and this will produce a mixed system, which others speakers have said is preferable.
There are several points which I would wish to bring to the notice of the supporters of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff. First, I thought that he and, with respect, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, skated very lightly over the difficulties of producing an effective, up-to-date central register of a large, nation-wide trade union. It is by the nature of it bound to be out of date. There is no way— even, I suspect, if one knows the vagaries of computers— by which even modern technology can produce a fully up-to-date central register in a very large trade union. But there is, I think, a much more important point. I fully understand the desire of my noble friends to avoid the kind of rigged ballot which produces unrepresentative, and in many cases extreme militant, officers and officials of a trade union, but what I think they have not taken into account is that many unions which have provision for workplace ballots do produce results which are unrigged and which are effective, and if postal balloting is compulsorily put in place of this then more problems will be created than solved.
Let us take, for example, the case of the National Union of Mineworkers, about which at this moment I can perhaps talk more freely than my noble friend the Minister might wish to speak. I have never heard it suggested, for example, that Mr. Arthur Scargill was elected president of the National Union of Mineworkers through any form of ballot-rigging, suppression, intimidation or what you will. I would say, with respect to his opponents, that he was elected because he had been a popular and effective regional leader, that he was by far the most competent, popular and obvious man for the job, and that none of his challengers appeared to match up to him. If I recall correctly, he was elected through pithead ballots with

269
a turnout of something like 80 per cent. With the best will in the world, nobody is going to tell me that a compulsory postal ballot on that occasion would have produced an 80 per cent. response. It would not have done: it would have produced something like a 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. response.
Now let us suppose that this amendment were carried and the Government inserted in the Bill a provision for compulsory postal ballots. Are they then going to go to the National Union of Mineworkers and say, "You have a system which produces an 80 per cent. turnout in a ballot which has not been challenged: we are going to substitute for it one that produces a 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. turnout, and this is in the name of freedom and democracy for the individual"? I think myself that they would get a pretty dusty answer. If this matter were taken to the courts or to the members of the National Union of Mineworkers, or even to the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists, I do not believe that the response would be very friendly. It seems to me that this is the wrong way to go about it. I believe that now, at last, the Government— and I think it was overdue that they did— have got the right answer. I hope the Committee will prefer it to this amendment.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I understand the position of the Opposition as far as this amendment is concerned. I think that their position is entirely logical. They are opposed to this Bill in every aspect, as they were opposed to the last trade union Bill in every aspect, and the one before that as well. Therefore their position, if I may say so, can be described as very clearly defined indeed.
But what of the Government? They say that proper elections must take place for trade union executives, and they have brought this Bill forward. Indeed, it has been made absolutely clear that the Government had, in their view, a mandate for it. I think, if I may say so, that is clearly true. But they have, in introducing the Bill, proposed a system of voting which is almost by definition going to fail. They have in fact— it has been made quite clear— decided to oppose the one system of voting (by secret postal ballot, sent to a trade union member's home address) which can be guaranteed to work effectively.
This, as has been pointed out, was the system of voting which was introduced by the Electrical Trades Union after the great ballot-rigging scandal of 1961. They now have a computerised central list of members and they do not find it an intolerable burden, as has been made clear, and all ballot papers are issued on the basis of that central, national list.
It is worth referring, in the context of the Electrical Trades Union, to the views of Mr. Frank Chapple on the Government's proposals, for a very obvious reason. With the greatest personal courage, it has to be said, together with Mr. Cannon and Mr. Byrne, he exposed the Communist Party's conspiracy against his own trade union. He knows, on the basis of personal experience, how the ballot riggers operate, and he has said the following about the Government's proposals which we are considering at the moment. We have been reminded of the remark by the noble Lord, Lord
270
Beloff. Perhaps I may summarise it as follows:
"Workplace ballots are too easily open to intimidation of the voters, to improper use of discarded ballot papers, to phoney returns and a variety of other illicit behaviour.'
That is the view of a trade union leader who has had most direct experience of illicit behaviour in trade union elections in this country.
What is the Government's answer to that and to the concern which has been expressed by many Conservative Members of another place to Conservative trade unionists and to members of my own party? They have, I think, given two answers and we have heard some suggestion of this in the speech we have just listened to from the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon.
First, it is said that it would be far too complicated, far too difficult. But the electricians have succeeded in creating just this computerised national list which makes it possible to hold free and honest trade union elections. I find it extremely difficult to understand why, if this can be done in one major trade union in this country, it is quite impossible for it to be done in the remainder of the trade union movement.
Of course, the electricians' union is undoubtedly an efficient one; it is an efficiently administered organisation. But why should trade union members put up with possible malpractice so far as union elections are concerned, simply on the grounds that their own unions are not as efficiently organised as the electricians' union?
Secondly, it is said that workplace ballots sometimes produce higher turnouts. The noble Lord, Lord Maude, said that just a few moments ago. I would immediately concede that in the case of Mr. Scargill, on the basis of the majority he had, he was undoubtedly honestly elected. It would be an absurdity to say that every trade union election is subject to malpractices of this kind. It would be a grotesque overstatement and I do not suggest it for a moment.
But what of the general secretaryship of the same trade union, where it was known there was going to be a much more finely balanced result than was the case when Mr. Scargill stood for election? As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, a few moments ago, there have been the most direct allegations made by the opponent of Mr. Heath field, Mr. John Walsh, and we have been reminded of the character of the allegations: why a polling station in one case closed suspiciously early; why the figures for unused ballot papers— an essential part of the procedure— have not been issued; and why there was an abnormally high percentage of spoiled ballot papers.
I do not for a moment suggest today that I have clear evidence that there has been gross malpractice in the case of that election. That would be an overstatement. But I would say just this. The sort of practices described in this election, and in other trade union elections, are exactly the kind of malpractices which were alleged year after year in the case of the electrical trades union and were vehemently denied at the time. It took five years of dedicated work by a small group of trade unionists, who were prepared to brave the most tremendous pressure that was brought upon them, to demonstrate that all those allegations were entirely justified.

271
I do not want to go through a whole list of other trade union elections. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the Transport and General Workers' Union general secretary's election which is taking place at the moment. Again, serious allegations are being made. All I would say to the House is this. Here are two of the key jobs in the British trade union movement, the general secretaryship of the National Union of Mineworkers and the general secretaryship of the Transport and General Workers' Union. They are two of the key figures on the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and in both cases serious allegations have been made by trade unionists— not by the media, but by members of their own trade unions— that malpractices have taken place. I could give a number of other examples. I shall not go through the Civil and Public Servants where, again, suggestions of this character have been made.
What is the Government's answer to charges of this character? What do they say should be done, all this being so? We are told that the members concerned can go to the courts, and. of course, they can. But what we are asking individual trade unionists to do, if we reject the approach which is contained in this amendment, is to be a series of village Hampdens, as the Sunday Times put it: to take the whole onus and responsibility on their own shoulders, to go to the courts as individuals against the entire power of some of the largest trade unions in this country.
What about intimidation, which we all know perfectly well takes place in a number of trade unions? What sort of pressure can be brought to bear on honourable men of this character when they suspect that grossly improper practices are taking place? In 1961, when these allegations were being made, I was the personal assistant to the leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Gaitskell, and I remember at that time very clearly the degree of pressure that was brought upon some of the plaintiffs in that action to withdraw their case, because of the damage it was doing to the reputation of the British trade union movement. This pressure did not come from ballot riggers. It came from people who were genuinely worried about the damage that publicity of this sort was doing to the reputation of the trade union movement in this country. All I would say to the Committee is that it should recognise the kind of problems which will be faced in the future by men and women who believe that in their own trade unions improper practices of these kinds are taking place.
Finally, it is necessary for the Committee to recognise the possible scale of actions of this kind if members of trade unions are forced into the sort of position that Mr. Byrne, Mr. Chapple and Mr. Cannon were in 1961. I shall quote very briefly from the publication The ETU Trial which was presented by Mr. C. H. Rolph, with a preface by Mr. John Freeman, after this case had come to trial and the judge had formed a view and given his judgment. This demonstrates the kind of problem that faces individual members of trade unions if they are considering litigation of this kind. I am summarising basically the final speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord
272
Gardiner, who appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs in that case.
"After a visit to a Judge in Chambers"—
he said—
the Defence was delivered, consisting in the main of a general denial. Obviously everything depended on 'discovery' (i.e. on the production by the Defendants of the very evidence that would convict them). The Defendants' solicitors had shown the Plaintiffs' solicitors a 'vast stack' of about 30,000 documents and said 'look at anything you like'. And Mr. Haxell"—
who was the principal defendant in the case—
"had told them that the required documents, contained in parcels or envelopes as dispatched from the branches of the ETU, were 'estimated to number hundreds of thousands'. Informal discovery went on, my Lord, right up to the eve of trial, and the problem for the Plaintiffs was to know what on earth to look at and what on earth to ask for… This has been an exceptionally difficult and messy case. A hundred and fifty-four witnesses have been called. Three hundred and two exhibits have been put in— of which even now I have no Copies of a hundred and twenty-nine".
That is the kind of problem which faces honest men in the trade union movement when they want to challenge a trade union election. I wonder how many there are in the British trade union movement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to oppose the amendment. I do not wish to use flowery language, or to use such words as "smear" or "innuendo". Nor do I wish to pray in aid what has happened in any place that I have read about in newspapers. I wish to use the simple credential that I have been a trade unionist all my life. I continue to be a member of a trade union. Many of the trade unions which have been referred to by name are the large trade unions which have attracted some publicity over these matters throughout the years. I am a member of a small union, the National Association of Co-operative Officials. My first trade union was the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers, subsequently the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, with which I still have an association. I confess that I am not so activist a trade unionist as I should like to be; but even my limited experience is probably greater than that of some of those who speak with great eloquence about what is wrong with our trade union movement. I do not say that with disrespect.
The amendment which has been tabled and to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has spoken, has one simple proposition: no "ifs" or "buts-, no norms, no exceptions. Such elections shall be held by postal ballot. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, went to great pains in moving this amendment to stress— I took it down— that elections would be the norm. He went on to point out that there would be exceptions. There are no exceptions here. The argument we have is that contained in his amendment and in the Minister's amendment. It centres on whether or not we are going to say to the whole of the trade union movement, in one fell swoop, "In future, there will be only one way in which you may continue to run your elections".
A great many safeguards have already been written into the Bill, and much has been said about the subject of secrecy, intimidation, et cetera. Account has already been taken of many of those aspects, and the point I wish to deal with now concerns the inflexibility and inconsistency of what has been said by the

273
Government and by the Government's supporters hitherto.
I should like to plead in aid a letter sent to the Minister by a body named the Council of Managerial, Professional and Allied Staffs. Its membership comprises the British Association of Colliery Management, the British Air Line Pilots' Association (a union which has won some notoriety because one of its former activists is the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry), the Engineers' and Managers' Association, the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, the Health Visitors' Association, and the National Association of Co-operative Officials— my own organisation. They wrote to the Secretary of State on 9th December as follows:
"Like the Trades Union Congress to which all of us are affiliates, we believe the Bill to be misconceived. Nevertheless, it is clearly going to be enacted and so it should be amended where it is clearly defective. A major fault in the Bill in our opinion is the intention to lay down a single method of election of members to trade union principal executive committees. We believe it is dangerous for Government to seek to determine the internal arrangements of voluntary bodies to this extent. The proposed method is itself open to serious objection in that in any circumstances it will make principal executive committees more remote from their memberships and certainly less accountable. We say this while being entirely confident that the internal democratic procedures of our own associations, in which secret ballots play a significant part, will stand scrutiny by anyone".
The point I want to make is that there is no method under the sun that can be watertight. Quite frankly, the postal ballot has a great deal of merit, but, as has been pointed out, it has also some demerits. Your Lordships will have to consider which is preferable.
When dealing with this matter in paragraph 18 of their Green Paper, the Government said:
"The Government is conscious that any legislation must take into account the wide variety and complexity of existing electoral arrangements".
What on earth is wrong with that? I regret to say that noble Lords opposite who support this amendment will, if they press it, continue to stay in line with much of what this Government have done hitherto in taking the view that there is only one way of dealing with the situation.
My limited experience of the trade union movement tells me that there is a great deal that needs to be put right. The trade union movement collectively is aware of that and is taking its own steps. But what this amendment seeks to achieve is absolutely colossal and it would, in my view, be counter-productive. Surely our purpose is to produce legislation that is workable; legislation that is credible and which has at least a chance of getting off the ground. I believe this amendment would fail in those respects, and that is why I shall oppose it.
11.14 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his very thoughtful speech. We know very well that we are hearing from a trade unionist of great respectability and great expertise. We on this side of the Committee realise that many of us have not had the experiences which the noble Lord and some of his colleagues have had of trade union ballots.
Nevertheless, I should now like to refer, as I had intended to do all along, to the point first made by my
274
noble friend Lord Maude, when he declared his lack of agreement with this amendment. The first point he took up was the difficulty of getting members on the register. You do not have to be a trade unionist to know about getting people on to registers these days. Twenty years ago it must have been very difficult, indeed for Mr. Chapple, using a computer which, I should think, might have been half the size of your Lordships' House, to get all his members on to the register. Today, we all know perfectly well that we can do it on a computer not much bigger than the Dispatch Box, and it is a totally new and advanced technique.
I have said that I know nothing about getting trade unionists on to computers, but I think one might as well speak from one's experience. 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, but as the years have gone on it has ceased to be a miracle, it has ceased even to be a challenge; it has become the norm to use these modern techniques to register one's subscribers, one's members or whatever it may be.
Let me go on from that very mildly technical point to suggest to your Lordships that when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, says there is just this one thing in this amendment, there are more points. There is reference to the latest available register of members, and that is what I want to centre on, because I have felt for years that it was as monstrous as it was ridiculous that huge unions should take all the power that they enjoy and in many cases not feel it was necessary, or perhaps not feel it desirable, to know the names and addresses of their members. I remember that in my own company, when there were local problems, branch secretaries used to come to my general managers and say, "Please do you mind telling us the names of our members?" I thought this was crazy, but it happened again and again.
So arising out of the postal ballot is the need to do something that surely is in itself an absolute essential for great power bodies: to know who their members are and where they live, even if it might mean that a great union were to find it suddenly finished up with 250.000 fewer members than it had quoted, and its card vote was thereby reduced. So in supporting this amendment with a quiet passion I want to draw attention to the fundamental mechanics that lie behind it implementation.
To move on, I spent some time last week talking to a man who had for many years been an industrial wrecker, and had worked for the Socialist Workers' Party. He has now, I suppose, in common parlance, turned gamekeeper. He has become an industrial consultant. He took me through all the things that he, as a wrecker, had done to manipulate elections. Many of them have already been mentioned, so I do not want to dwell upon them. There were the activists who collected tilled-in forms and, as he did, put hundreds of them down the lavatory, who ensured that known moderates did not always receive their papers. As to collecting— and this is one that we know well: discarded and unused ballot papers were filled in; papers were sent late. None of this is new to us, but it

275
was, for me, an experience to hear it coming from somebody who had actually done it. I can see nothing in this legislation that is going to stop abuses of this kind.
I think it would be quite improper to go into amendments that are yet to come to see whether there is anything in them which helps fill these gaps. That we will do when the time comes. The fact of the matter is this. When there are any intermediaries in a ballot, and those intermediaries— and I do not say that this is always the case— are people who are highly trained in subversion (and there are many of them), then the manipulations cannot be stopped other than by postal means. So my conclusion is that this Government, with their magnificent intentions, are missing a golden opportunity for which masses of people in the country and many, many trade unionists will be slow to forgive them. That is why I support this amendment so strongly.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment, the effect of which is to proscribe all workplace ballots and foist mandatory postal ballots upon the trade unions. It was wholly disingenuous of my noble friend Lord Belloff to suggest that this was— I took it down— "just a question of postal ballots being the norm, departures to be justified". If you look at the amendment, it is mandatory. It is "shall", without qualification. It was wholly disingenuous. I would ask this. Is this amendment truly necessary, in the light of the general encouragement given by the Government set of amendments, to resort to postal ballots? Noble friends on these Benches behind me may, of course, think otherwise. But can it be appropriate, I would ask your Lordships' Committee and my noble friends with me in these Benches in particular, that your Lordships' Committee should endorse what is nothing other than a woeful declaration of fundamental distrust in the trade union movement as a whole?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is what it comes to. It is a fundamental declaration of mistrust that the trade union movement is able to order the management of its own internal affairs on balloting. And would your Lordships not also consider that the backlash of justifiable resentment to such an over-interventionist approach would not only sterilise the effect of this amendment but could also work a very great mischief? And on the question of workability, is this amendment truly workable?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Is it generally workable in that sense by all trade unionists today? Noble Lords say, yes, but we have heard from many of those experienced in the running of trades unions that, without the central register, this simply could not be worked. How could it, if one looks at the matter objectively? Some unions are able to work it, but the question is, according to this amendment, could it be applied generally to all trades unions today and work? I suggest that the answer is certainly, no.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby— does my noble friend wish to speak?
Lord Mottistone: I am just suggesting that my noble friend does not know about the latest computers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend. Computers or not— and I do know a little bit about them— is there really any certain advantage to be gained? One has to look at this. If the answer to any one of these single questions is, no— and I suggest that the answer to all of these questions is, no— then as of today this amendment cannot but serve as a bludgeon. No political party in office, or one with any serious pretentions to office, could afford to embark upon such a course.
Has due account been taken of the fact that very few unions today could conduct full postal ballots, having regard to the absence of these central records of addresses and the state of the register? Has any thought been given to the unions which have a predominantly itinerant membership? Has due account been taken of the administrative and financial burdens? Unless, as is apparent from the reported cases, there is independent supervision at all stages, postal ballots are still wide open to malpractice and manipulation. Until such an independent authority is set up, and until the registers are not only properly kept but kept up to date with computers, the proposals in this amendment are plainly premature.
Furthermore, according to such information as is available, on average it would appear today that there is a far higher turn-out for the work-place ballots than for postal ballots— a fact apparently recognised by my noble friend Lord Beloff, but in fact—
Lord Beloff: Will the noble Lord give way? I did not recognise that fact. I do not believe it to be a fact.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Let Hansard speak for itself. Certainly the reference to Soviet Union turnouts could surely not have made any valuable contribution to this matter.
This amendment lies in irreconcilable conflict with the spirit of the Bill in all its parts, which leaves a measure of self-regulation to trades unions; it conflicts with the concept of flexibility which permeates the Bill; and it lies in fundamental conflict with the set of Government amendments which are designed to encourage but not command the postal ballots.
In conclusion, in this irreconcilable conflict, ought we not to spread some bales of straw in the street of deliberation to try to muffle the drums of dissension, so that we may tread perhaps a little warily and avoid the man-trap of the over-interventionist approach, which so often— "Rubbish", I hear my noble friend say. Fair enough. Any noble Lord is entitled to his view; but I would seriously suggest that an over-interventionist approach leads to confrontation and that this savours of an over-interventionist approach.
But there is a middle way between the irreconcilables. It is perfectly plain that one day everything will have to be put on computers. That time has not yet arrived. I suggest it would be sensible to use the material in this debate so that thought might be given

277
as to how the records could be better kept. But at this time and as we debate this tonight this amendment is plainly premature and wholly unworkable.
11.31 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: I must congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Beloff, who moved this amendment, on the elegant and persuasive way in which he argued the case for postal ballots.
I want to say in terms that there is no difference between the noble Lord and the Government on the value and desirability of postal ballots in union elections. As the Committee will have seen from the amendments we ourselves have put down on this subject, and as my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon reminded us in a brief and equally elegant speech, the supporters of this amendment are in a very real sense pushing at an open door. The Government wish to do everything practicable to ensure the spread of postal balloting.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who I am sorry cannot be here today, my noble friend Lord Beloff and other supporters of this amendment, we believe that postal ballots are the best safeguard against intimidation and malpractice. Like them, we believe that wherever possible the union member should be allowed to cast his vote away from the distractions and pressures of the workplace. The amendments I shall be moving later in our proceedings are designed specifically to provide for postal voting in situations where intimidation is feared or malpractice has been proved. They are also designed to act as a powerful incentive for unions at large to move to a system of postal ballots. That is an objective we share with the noble Lords who have put forward this amendment.
Where we differ in terms of this amendment is, that all elections required by Part I must be conducted by post. May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that we believe in postal ballots and in the workplace ballots. We do not, however, believe that it would he right to require unions to conduct elections by post in all circumstances.
With the permission of the Committee, I should like in just a few moments— and I am aware of the lateness of the hour— to turn to the detail of those amendments because I believe that they are very pertinent. However, before I do so, can I remind the Committee of the basic problems the legislation is designed to tackle. At the moment most union elections are conducted, not at the workplace, but by a system of voting at branch meetings. It is not the case that we are seeking to reform a system of workplace balloting. Most unions have not yet progressed as far as workplace balloting. Many unions do not have any form of individual ballot at all; in some, votes are taken by a show of hands with no attempt to secure secrecy.
Furthermore, most unions still operate voting systems which effectively deny the opportunity to vote to everyone except the dedicated activist who is prepared to sit through hours of ideological debates late at night— I sometimes know how they feel!—in a union office miles from any member's place of work before a vote is taken. It is this sort of voting system
278
which produces the polls of 2 per cent. and even less in elections in ASTMS, for example. Of course the pitiful number of votes actually cast is usually masked by the use of the block vote. If 10 members actually vote, however small the majority, the result may be recorded in hundreds or even thousands of votes. As if by magic these ghostly forms of absent members tramp through an imaginary division lobby, no one out of step and everyone with but one thought in mind. With that sleight of hand, the actual result of the voting is distorted and the absence of any genuine test concealed. All this type of abuse will be swept away by the Bill.
But the Bill also has a positive purpose. It wants to bring union members with it. It wants to create the conditions in which there will be far greater voluntary participation in, and concern about, union elections. I want to make this point as clearly and as strongly as I can. I believe that the most urgent need and the most immediate and important task for this legislation is to raise the level of participation in union elections. Union leaders will be brought under democratic control only if more union members are able and willing to exercise their right to vote. It is vital that we do not overlook that simple point. Of course, it is important to guard against intimidation and malpractice, and that is what our amendments are designed to do. But it is the sheer difficulty and inconvenience of casting a vote which keeps the vast majority of union members away from the polls at the present time, not usually intimidation.
This Bill will establish the basic democratic principles of voting in secret; voting by the use of a ballot paper; and voting without interference or constraint. It provides for one man one vote. It ensures that every union member can vote without direct cost to himself, and in a way which is convenient to him. These are simple and minimum requirements, and the really remarkable thing, it seems to me. is that this Bill will guarantee them for the first time. That is a measure of the transformation the Bill will require trade unions to make in their electoral arrangements. That is precisely why noble Lords opposite, whose party is financed by the union high command, oppose it. In practical terms, the Bill means that unions are compelled to move from branch meetings, the antiquated way of electing the union executive, to individual postal or (and that is the important word) workplace ballots.
The issue between my noble friend Lord Beloff and myself is simply this. Are postal ballots or workplace ballots more likely to maximise the number of votes cast? Should the one, so to say, cancel out the other? I believe that even leaving aside the perhaps rather special case of the miners' union, with its turnout of 80 per cent. or more in pithead ballots— my noble friend Lord Maude talked about that— the evidence at present rather tends to favour the workplace ballot. For instance, even in the recent CPSA election the turnout was over 30 per cent. That is substantially higher than the average turnout in postal ballots, which rarely, if ever, exceeds 30 per cent., although I believe that it will in time. In the case of one major union, for the presidential election at the Royal College of Nursing in 1982 the turnout was just 11 per cent.

279
Surely, the important thing is the Bill's move away from the branch meeting to a mixed economy, so to say, of the workplace and the postal ballot. But in spite of the emphasis that I am giving to this, it is not the principal case that I seek to argue in connection with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff. We are not concerned with the merits of the two systems in the abstract. We are concerned, so to say, with a dynamic rather than a static situation; a situation in which unions are now being required by law to make a fundamental change in their electoral procedures, where they are being required to change from the present discredited system of branch-based voting to a more democratic system.
My noble friend's amendment would provide that all elections required by Part I must be conducted by post and that the distribution, return and counting of the voting papers must be carried out by an independent body. There must. it seems to me, be a real risk that this legislation could become a dead letter if the leaders of the trades unions (who, unlike their members, are already implacably opposed to it) could turn to their members and claim, however falsely, that it simply was not possible for them to do all the complicated things that the legislation required— compiling a central list of names and addresses, and the rest. The truth is that the leaders will do everything they can to frustrate this legislation and frustrate their members' evident wish to make use of the rights that it provides. I say, in all seriousness, that we have a duty not to furnish them with the arguments they are seeking. We must not give them an easy target.
The opponents of this legislation, and of greater democracy in trade unions, have a vested interest in proving that industrial relations cannot be reformed by law and that trade union legislation is bound to be ineffective. So far, over five years, we have proved them wrong. And one reason we have proved them wrong is that none of the three Bills we put before Parliament since 1979 has been too prescriptive.We have not created new institutions which the trade unions can boycott. I believe that that is a risk my noble friend's amendment runs. We have avoided remedies and procedures which employers and union members are unwilling to use. We have not purported overnight to abolish practices which we know can be eliminated only over time. That is why our legislation has worked and that is why it is disliked so much by a certain kind of trade union leader. In their eyes, our legislation has not lived up to the received wisdom of the 1970s. So far it has confounded the expectations of the so-called voluntarists, who glibly argue that the law has no place in industrial relations, except, of course, to reinforce the power of union leaders. And to those who doubt that the 1980 and 1982 Acts have worked, I would say, "Look at the decline of the closed shop; ask the National Graphical Association, the Post Office Engineering Union and the National Union of Journalists whether the law is impotent". In each case, those unions have been forced to call off unlawful industrial action as a direct result of recourse to the law. That is a vindication of what we have called the step-by-step approach to industrial relations reform that we have followed since 1979 and which has been
280
consistently supported in your Lordships' House and in another place.
My noble friend wishes to take a giant leap. I sympathise with his aims, but I want to prepare the ground for them. What would be the reaction of those trade union leaders to this amendment if it were to reach the statute book? In the first place, I believe they would welcome the notion of an "independent body" responsible for
"the surveillance of the distribution, return and counting of voting papers".
Clearly, no existing organisation could possibly take this on. It would be well beyond the capacity of, for example, the Electoral Reform Society, which does no more than count the votes sent to it by a few trade unions. It does not send out voting papers, keep registers of voters, or supervise in any way the actual process of voting. To do all those things, and to do them for 400 trade unions, is possible, but it would be a formidable task. Therefore, we are talking of a new body, created by the Government, with powers to compel and to investigate.
That is the kind of body trade unions leaders know and understand. There is the focus for their opposition. There is the external, Government-created organisation to which they can say, "No". It would be so much easier than saying, "No" to their own members: and it would be so much easier to mobilise opposition within the trade unions themselves if the legislation had an interfering, bureaucratic face and a nose to be bloodied by an ostentatious campaign of non-co-operation.
In short, this amendment would give the trade unions the very opportunity that we have denied them since 1979— the opportunity to convince their members that what we are asking of them is excessive and unreasonable. It would take us straight back to the situation of 1971 when trade unions were able to persuade their members to boycott an entire Act of Parliament— in my judgment, a wholly reasonable one— and all the institutions created under it.
Therefore, I have no doubt that the trade union leaders who are so bitterly opposed to this legislation would prefer the approach of this amendment to the approach that we have taken in the Bill as a whole. They would far rather take on some quango, whatever its powers, than to seek to deny their members a right to a postal vote as the Government are proposing in their amendment. There can be no justification for any trade union refusing a postal vote in an election to any of its members who ask for one. We do not see why a union member should be required to apply for a postal vote again before each election, and I have an amendment to that effect later.
Trade unions will not be able to use the excuse that they do not know their members' addresses or that they lack the administrative capacity to discover their addresses. This amendment will mean that any union member whose union does not yet operate a fully postal ballot will be able to secure a postal vote as of right. It is not the Bill's only safeguard against intimidation, as I shall also be moving an amendment to make it explicitly unlawful for a union or its member or officials to interfere in any way with the right to vote. And there are other specific safeguards

281
for secrecy and for entitlement to vote already in the Bill.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, we recognise that a right to an individual postal vote is not enough by itself. That is why I shall also be moving an amendment to Clause 3 to give the High Court a discretionary power, on complaint, to order a union to hold a fully postal ballot if a workplace ballot has failed to meet the democratic tests set down in this Bill. This means that if voting takes place at the workplace but the union fails to make proper provision for secrecy or fails to guarantee a free and fair opportunity to vote, or fails in some other way to protect democratic rights, the High Court will be able to say, "Enough is enough: a workplace ballot is clearly not satisfactory in this case: hold a postal ballot". In other words, trade unions will know that if they operate anything less than a fully postal ballot they will need to be doubly sure that their members can vote freely and effectively. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, regarding the issue of intimidation, that if you want freedom under the law, you have sometimes to stand up to it. I have every confidence that union members will and do.
I have spoken at some length on this issue because it is a very important one and I know the deep feelings that it arouses on all sides of the Committee. I hope that I have said enough to make clear how much we share the objective of my noble friend and others who have put their name to his amendment. The difference between us is one of timing and method, not of purpose. But the issue of timing in this region of human life is a critical one.
The amendments that I shall be moving to this clause and to Clause 3 will I believe be a powerful incentive to the general use of postal ballots as well as providing further specific protection against intimidation or malpractice. I hope therefore in the light of what I have said that my noble friend will not press his amendment, because I have to say that, after the most careful consideration, the Government have concluded that it would not be wise at this time to be quite as prescriptive or to go quite so far as he proposes.
Lord Beloff: Before I answer the eloquent and persuasive speech of the noble Earl, I should like to reply to one serious point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I think one or two other noble Lords regarding the mandatory drafting of this amendment. I should like to make it plain that this is not inconsistent with the views which I earlier expressed about other forms of voting. It would be extremely difficult for Back-Bench Peers, without the resources which the Government have, to draft the kind of elaborate amendment expressing the kind of exceptions that might be made, the delays that might be necessary in order to allow the compilation of registers, and the various other practical points that rightly arise. That seems to me to be a matter for government.
The point of this amendment was to try to persuade the Government to say that they would in fact come back with a more elaborate amendment making such exceptions as might be thought proper to this
282
operation, delaying it perhaps, and so forth. It was only for that reason that we thought the Committee would prefer to be confronted with something quite simple and quite straightforward, upon which I think we have conducted a useful and valuable debate.
However, I am afraid that I am unable to be persuaded by the remarks of the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment, because it does not seem to me that he has gone far enough to assure those of us who hold the views which my noble friends and I do, that something of this kind will be produced at a later stage. The new argument, or relatively new argument, which he put forward with great eloquence, was that, in order to make the amendment ultimately effective, we would need an outside independent body to supervise these procedures. When it comes to the amendments of the noble Earl himself— to the Government amendments— I think that many of us would be inclined to suggest that their procedures would also require some outside monitoring, otherwise, as has been said, the burden on both individual unionists and the courts will he too great. Therefore, I do not think that the argument about requiring a new quango, if one wishes to use that word, is an argument which only holds in respect of the amendment.
I would have been more persuaded by the argument for a step at a time; for the leaders of those trade unions, other than those who are asking for this amendment, coming to some kind of agreement and acceptance, if there had been some indication in the course of this evening, or indeed earlier, from those who claim to be the spokesmen of the unions, that, though they did not like this particular device, they were generally with the Government in wishing to see progress from a branch to workplace ballot. But we have had no indication of any friendliness towards any aspect of this Bill from any speaker from the Opposition Benches, and in that I think they probably represent those on their side of the Committee who have not spoken.
There is a real division of principle, and in spite of what my noble friend Lord Maude said I have been fortified by the request from the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists to divide the Committee on this amendment in order to make their position clear. Therefore, I am afraid that I am obliged to proceed with the amendment.
11.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85: Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Amherst, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Attlee, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Aylestone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Bauer, L.

Craigton, L.

Beloff, L. (Teller)

Crathorne, L.

Boardman, L.

Croft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cromartie, E.

283

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De La Warr, E. (Teller)

De L'Isle, V.

Norfolk, D.

Denning, L.

Onslow, E.

Dulverton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Perth, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Portland, D.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Quinton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Reigate, L.

Glanusk, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Roberthall, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rochester, L.

Hankey, L.

Rodney, L. St.

Hanworth, V.

Davids, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Savile, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sherfield, L.

Howard of Henderskelf, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stamp, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swarm, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Lauderdale, E,

Thorneycroft, L.

Lawrence, L.

Tordoff, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Tranmire, L.

Vaizey, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Vickers, B.

Marsh, L.

Winstanley, L.

Monson, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

John Mackie, L.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

McCarthy, L.

Caithness, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

MacLehose of Beech, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L

Chelwood, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molson, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mulley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Colwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rochdale, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Shackleton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Sharpies, B.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Eccles, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E.

Forester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Trumpington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Underhill, L.

284

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hanson, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Westbury, L.

White, B.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Home of the Hirsel. L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
12 midnight
Lord Denham: I think it is probably generally agreed that we should end the Committee stage for today now. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute past midnight.

  MR. IAN MACGREGOR: PAYMENTS
  MR. IAN MACGREGOR: PAYMENTS