1179 Private Business 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1180 to leave out Clause 48-and, indeed, HOUSE OF COMMONS Clause 41. I have now discovered, as must be well Tuesday, 18th May, 1965 known, that the Committee is now dis­ cussing Clause 41, and that seems to give The House met at half-past rise to a rather peculiar situation. The Two o'clock Committee may come to a conclusion on this Clause, if it did not do so this morn­ PRAYERS ing, yet by order of the Chairman of Ways and Means we are having put down [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair] for consideration on Tuesday next some­ thing which, in another area of the House, PRIVATE BUSINESS may have been decided. I would be grate­ ful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, either HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL now or, if more convenient to you, later. Read the Third time and passed. Mr. Speaker : I should have to think about it. I appreciate the hon. Gentle­ PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords] man's difficulty, but I cannot help him, Read the Third time and passed, with because the time appointed for considera­ A me11dme11ts. tion of this adjourned debate is outside the realm of my responsibility. LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL [Lords] Mr. Hirst: I naturally appreciate that, Read the Third time a11d passed, with­ Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that one out Amelldment. cannot very easily question the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House and MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/WALLASEY) when he is in the Chair of the Commit­ ETC. BILL tee there is some Question before the [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Committee. I therefore do not know, in Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, my innocence-although I have been here sig11ified] a little time-how one goes about it, Bill read the Third time and passed. although I know that, privately, the Chair­ man of Ways and Means would be only BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL too willing to deal with the problem. As amended, considered ; to be read t/ze Mr. Speaker: I give the hon. Member Third time. this hope, that I observe that while the hon. Member is talking the Chairman of MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL Ways and Means is sitting here. But I Adjourned Debate on Question [29th cannot say anything about it. April], That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 48 of the Bill, further adjourned till ORAL ANSWERS TO Tuesday next. QUESTIONS Mr. Hirst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in a quandary, and seek CYPRUS enlightenment. Consideration of the Sovereign Base Areas Manchester Corporation Bill has now been adjourned till Tuesday next, and 1. Mr. Biggs-Davison asked •the Secre· it has been continuously so adjourned, tary of Srt.mte for Commonweatth but it had time allocated to it by the Relaitions whait proposals Her Majesty's Government have received from other Chairman of Ways and Means some time or ago. The matter was discussed, but that Governments, from it.be Uni,ted Na.tions discussion was not concluded. The de­ Organisaition, or i,ts mediator, to include bate was adjourned, and so it is that we the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus in a now have it on the Order Paper. There settlement of ithe island's problems. are various Amendments showing a de­ The Secretary of State for Common­ sire on the part of some hon. Members wealth Relations (Mr. ArthurBottomley) : that it be an instruction to the Committee None, Sir. 1181 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1182 Mr. Biggs-Davison : In view of rthe 4. Mrs. Renee Short asked the Secre- Gov-ernmern's determination rto hold tary of State for Commonwealth Rela­ Brirtish bases and ito defend our initerests tions what discussions the Minister of east of Suez, wiith nuclear and conven- State had during his recent visit to Malta tional forces, will rbhe right hon. Gentle- on the problems arising from the run­ man give a clear assurance that, in ~heir down of the dockyards. very proper zeal for peace-making, rthey Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I did not will not trade away Br1tish sovere~gn rights discuss any particular problem relating to in Cyprus? the Malta dockyard during my recent Mr. Bottomley : The question of visit to Malta. I visited the yard and sovereign rights in Cyprus remains as was much impressed by what had been hilthe1ito. The Government are under­ achieved by the Council of Administra­ taking a review of all defence require­ tion and the managing agents. ments. This will rtake some rtime and no station can be left out of tha,t con­ Mrs. Short : Is my hon. Friend aware sideration. that this is a very serious problem, par­ ticularly the unemployment of adult Mr. F. Noel-Baker: My right hon. workers expected through the rundown Friend will have seen the report by ithe of the dockyards? Will he do everything mediator, Mr. Galo Plaza, and •the sug­ he can to see that suitable alternative gestion thait the British sovereign bases employment is found? That does not and rtheir status would not be an obstacle mean alternative employment for girls to a final setrt:lement in Cyprus. If such leaving school who are cheap labour, but a settlement did depend upon some move alternative employmeµt for adult workers connected wi.th the bases, can my right so displaced. hon. Friend confirm rthait this is the position? Mr. Hughes: Her Majesty's Gov~rn­ ment are very conscious of what my hon. Mr. Bottomley : I have nothing further Friend has said. We are doing all we to add other rthan itihaitthe sovereign bases can to assist in finding alternative sources remain as a,t present. They are outside of employment. The independence the prerogartive of rthe Republic of Cyprus. settlement payment was a very generous one, £50 million over 10 years. There have been no discharges on redundancy MALTA grounds so far. The dockyard adminis­ Minister's Visit tration is trying to work out a system for retraining and redeployment to avoid 2. Mr. van Straubenzee asked ,the discharges on account of redundancy. Secretary of S1t:a1te for Commonwealtli Relations whait was the purpose of the Minister of Starte's visiJt to Malta on 9.th- 1 Uh April ; and whether he will make a AUSTRALIA AND NEW statement. ZEALAND The Minister of State, Commonwealth Minister's Visit Relations Office (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) : 3. Mr. Murray asked the Secretary of I refer ,tihe thon. Member ito my righrt hon. State for Commonwealth Relations if be Friend's reply ,to i!!he hon. Member for will make a statement about his recent Ha1itemprice (Mr. Wa,11)on 14th April. visit to Australia and New Zealand. Mr. van Straubenzee : I am obliged to Mr. Bottomley : I was invited by the the hon. Gentleman for thart reply, but Governments of Australia and New could he possibly add a liitrt:le to irt by Zealand to visit their countries, and I repo11ting whether in his judgment, arising gladly accepted. I warmly appreciated oUJt of his visit, the civilian dockyard is the very generous hospitality which was making progress in view of iats immense extended to me. During my visit to importance to the economy of Ma1ta? Australia I went to Canberra, Melbourne Mr. Hughes : There is another Question and Sydney. My programme, which was on the Order Paper about the civilian arranged by the Commonwealth and State dockyard. I shall be replying to that in Governments, enabled me to meet a few moments. Cabinet Ministers and Opposition leaders r'

1183 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1184 in Canberra, State Ministers in Victoria it was because the House was debating and New South Wales, and Australian a White Paper on steel itihait the Com­ business and financial and Trade Union monwealth was made to suffer, whereas leaders. My visit to New Zealand it was because the Opposition were not was unfortunately considerably shortened prepared to give a pair. because of pressure of House of Commons business. I was, however, able Mr. Heffer : Is my right hon. Friend to meet the Prime Minister and other aware that those of us on the Strasbourg Cabinet Ministers in Wellington. I was Delegation were also forced to return, also able to visit Malaysia, where I had although we, too, had pairs? This was talks with the Prime Minister and Cabinet the responsibility of the Tory Opposition. Ministers and with the Premier and This also caused a very bad impression Ministers of the State Government in amongst the nations in Europe. Singapore. Mr. Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentle­ 12. Mr. Evelyn King asked the Secre­ man aware that the inconvenience which tary of State for Commonwealth he suffered and the small extra expense Relations why he cut short his recent were matched by the inconvenience and I the much larger expense I suffered at official visit to Australia ; and what was the additional cost to public funds being recalled from Nairobi and forfeit­ caused by this change of plan. ing a trip to Mauritius? Could he not make representations to the Patronage Mr. Bottomley: I was able to carry Secretary to allow Ministers on overseas out my full programme in Australia as trips to remain paired with hon. Mem­ planned. I was, unfortunately, forced bers on this side who are also on visits to cut short my visit to New Zealand, overseas? but I was very glad that nevetheless I was able to meet and have talks with Mr. Bottomley : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in making repre­ the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. The extra cost involved in sentations to ensure that when pairs are the change of my original plans was £38 made to facilitate the movement of 10s. Ministers they are honoured. Mr. King: Having regard to the immense value of an official visit by the COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS Secretary of State to a great Dominion, he must have been informed before he World Population Problem started of what Government plans were. 5. Mr. William Hamilton asked the Did he not know that the steel debate Secretary of State for Commonwealth was to take place? Did not the Leader Relations if he will take steps to initiate of the House tell him? Are not Minis­ Commonwealth discussions on the world ters in communication one with another? population problem. Mr. Bottomley : Yes, I did. As is Mr. Cledwyn Hughes : No, Sir. The customary when Her Majesty's Ministers population problem is already being go on visits to Commonwealth countries, studied by a number of organisations to a pair was arranged. It was broken by which Commonwealth Governments the Opposition. belong. The General Assembly, the Hon. Members : Shame. Economic and Social Council and the Regional Economic Commissions of the Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentle­ United Nations have reviewed or are man aware that bis decision to cut short reviewing it. There is to be a wmld his visit to New Zealand created a very population conference in Belgrade later bad impression? Does not this show 1lhis year. Population problems will the stupidity of trying to force through also be discussed at the Colombo Plan a totally unwanted Measure with an Consultative Committee in November, inadequate mandate and an inadequate 1965. majority? Mr. Hamilton I am obliged to my hon. Mr. Bottomley : I am surprised at Friend for that Answer. Does he not t the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that agree that unless this problem is tackled 1185 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1186 the quite considerable aid we are now monwealth Governments are kept giving to the Commonwealth will be informed of our policies is satisfactory in largely jeopardised by the continued this as in other fields. increase in population? Will he give an assurance that the Government will take Mr. Marten : As the machinery is satis­ bold initiatives and make bold sugges­ factory, could the Minister tell the House tions undeterred by ithe pressures, fears what the Government's policy is towards and prejudices of quite vocal minorities? the Commonwealth as regards associa­ tion with the Common Market? Mr. Hughes : I can assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of this Mr. Hughes : My right hon. Friend the problem and are doing everything possible Prime Minister has made it clear on a to promote the point he has made. number of occasions that application for membership of the E.E.C. is not a live Sir C. Osborne : In view of the United issue at present. Nations estimate that world population at the end of this century will be between Mr. Sandys: Conversely, are the Com­ 6,000 million and 7,000 million and that monwealth countries keeping us closely the world food production programme will informed of their approaches to the Euro­ have to increase five-fold to give a reason­ pean Economic Community? able standard of living to that huge number, what instructions are the Govern­ Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir. ment to give to our representative at the Belgrade Conference on these two vital Commonwealth Immigration_ points? (Mission) Mr. Hughes : These are matters for my 1 1. Sir C. Osborne asked the Secretary right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. of State for Commonwealth Relations, in Mr. Fisher: Would the hon. Gentle­ view of the recent statement by the Gov­ man give the most encouragement he ernment of Barbados ,that there is no possibly can at this forthcoming confer­ evasion of the Commonwealth Immi­ ence to the question of encouraging family grMlts Act, and therefore no need for a planning in the Commonwealth, because visit from Lord Mounbatte,n, what other what the hon. Member for Fife, West Commonwealth Governments have made (Mr. William Hamilton) said is perfectly official I'epresentations to the same effect ; true, if we take one economic step for­ if he will cancel Lord Mountbatten's pro­ ward with the aid of British assistance posed visi,ts ; and if he will make a state­ and then one backwards because of rising men·t. population, that offsets the benefit of increased living standards? Mr. Cledwyn Hughes : The Mission on Commonwealth Immigration, led by Lord Mr. Hughes: We fully appreciate the Mountbatten, is not concerned solely importance of this matter. The point with evasion. As my right hon. Friend is that it is doubtful whether purely the Lord President of the Council stated Commonwealth discussions would help in on 23rd March, the Mission will consider what is going on ; it involves all and discuss with the Governments con­ Governments. cerned what new measures might be adopted, particularly in the country of Common Market and E.F.T.A. origin, to regulate the flow of immigrants to the United Kingdom, including the 10. Mr. Marten asked the Secretary of need to prevent evasion of our control. State for Commonwealth Relations No Commonwealth Government has whether he is satisfied with the machinery made any representation against a visit for keeping the Commonwealth informed by the Mission and I see no reason to I of Her Majesty's Government's policy make any change in the Mission's plans. I on the United Kingdom's relations with the European Free Trade Association and Sir C. Osborne : Why should the the Common Market ; and if he will make Commonwealth Governments accept the a statement. tiny number of immigrants into this country that will soon be inevitable Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Yes, Sir. The merely because Lord Mountbatten asks normal machinery through which Com- them to do so? i ( 1187 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1188 Mr. ·Hughes : I am sorry that the hon. "Diplomatic Corps "-instead of "Corps Gentleman is determined to inject the Dip1omatique "? rntmoSit iilil-wil:l :into tthis matter. This is a matter which needs sympathy and Mr. Hughes : There is a good deal in understanding and t:he Mission is part what the right hon. Gentleman says. This of an effort by the Government to solve must be a matter for diplomatic missions this difficult problem. themselves. Mr. James Johnson: Have the Govern­ Commonwealth Secretariat ment of Mauritius asked that Lord 17. Mr. Jackson asked the Secretary Mountbatten should go there? If so, of Staite for Commonwealth Relaitions what answer was given to Mauritius? what is the present position concerning Mr. Hughes : Perhaps my hon. Friend plans for the establishment of a Common­ would be good enough to table a Ques­ wealth Secretariat. tion to that effect to my right hon. Mr. Bottomley: Consultations with the Friend the Colonial Secretary. I have Heads of Commonwealth Governments not got the reply to that question. have been continuing and I hope that Sir C. Osborne : Is the Minister of final decisions on the establishment of a State aware that I utterly reject his false Commonwealth Secretariat will be taken accusation that I am trying to injeot ill­ at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' will into this matter, especially in view Meeting next month. of the fact that be and his hon. Friends Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. howled me down in the House when I Friend feel it likely that the Secretariat tried to put proposals on which they are will operate during the present conference, now acting? and is there now agreement on the name Mr. Hughes: Any reasonable proposi­ of the head of the Secretariat? tion the hon. Gentleman puts forward will Mr. Bottomley: There were several be considered. nominations. This is an important office and a decision has not yet been taken. Motor Cars (CD Plates) It is unlikely to be taken before the meet­ 16. Mr. Brian Harrison asked the ing of the Commonwealth Prime Secretary of State for Commonwealth Min.is,ters. Relations whether he will seek power Mr. Tilney: Is there any agreement to arrange for members of Common­ on the actual site from which the Sec­ wealth High Commissions to have distinc­ retariat will operate? tively-coloured CD nameplates on their cars. Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir- London. Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: No, Sir. CD Mr. Henry Clark : Will the right hon. plates have no official sanction in the Gentleman also make a statement on the United Kingdom. aims and objects of the Secretariat? A Secretariat without aims and objects is Mr. Harrison : Is not the Minister of likely to be more of a hindrance than a State aware that in some other Com­ help. monwealth countries there is a special plate for representatives of Common­ Mr. Bottomley : This is a matter for wealth High Commissions? It would be the Commonwealth Prime Ministers a desirable thing to draw attention to it jointly. No doubt they will make a here. statement in due course. Mr. Hughes : It is quite true that some ~; countries, both Commonwealth and foreign, issue separate plates incorporating RHODESIA the prefix " CD" with special list num­ Discussions bers, but many countries do not and there 6. Mr. William Hamilton asked the has been no strong pressure for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth practice in Britain to be changed. Relatiom if he will make a further state­ ~Mr. Sandys : Is it not time we spoke melllt on negotia,tions with Southern English and referred to it as " DC "- Rhodesia. • 1189 Oral Answers 18 'MAY 1965 Oral-Answers 1190 15. Mr. Ennals asked the Secretary of can do only a very limited amount of State for Commonwealrth Relations what progress through the diplomatic chan­ representations be has made to the Gov- nels. ernment of Rhodesia since the General Election there. Mr. Bottomley: As I have said, if I thought it useful to go out I would Mr. Bottomley: Our communications do so. Equally, if the Prime Minister of with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia Rhodesia thought it wise to come to remain confidential and I have nothing this country he probably would consider further to add to my right hon. Friend doing rtbat. the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mal,ton (Mr. 7. Mr. Murray asked the Secretary of Turton) on 29th April. Staite for Commonwealth Relations what representations have been made to him Mr. Hamilton : Is my right hon. Friend by Commonwealth countries on Her aware that many, if not all, of us on Majesty's Government's responsibilities this side of the House are singularly with regard to Southern Rhodesia. unimpressed by the results of the election which recently took place in Southern Mr. Bottomley : The British Govern­ Rhodesia, which can only deepen the ment naturally keep in close touch with gulf between the white and the coloured all other Commonwealth Governments population there? Can he give an assur­ on the question of rtbe future of Rhodesia. ance that Her Majesty's Government A number of communications has passed, have no objection to this problem being but these are of course confidentia\ , discussed at the forthcoming Common­ Mr. Murray: Would my right hon. wealth Prime Minister's Conference, or Friend care to say, although the papers do the Government regard it as a matter and communications are confidential, which must be solved exclusively between whether the Commonwealth Govern­ the respective two Governments? ments concerned have views which co­ Mr. Bottomley : The Commonwealrth incide with those of Her Majesty's Prime Ministers themselves recognised Government? that this is a matter for settlement be- Mr. Bottomley: The Commonwealth tween Her Majesty's Government Government's concerned agreed at last and the Rhodesian Government. year's Commonwealth Prime Minister's On the other hand, I can assure Conference to recognise that this is a my hon. Friend that I have no doubt ma,tter between Her Majesty's Govern­ at all that Commonwealth Prime Minis­ ment and the Rhodesian Government. ters at their forthcoming meeting will Nevertheless they are kept informed of want to know something about Rhodesia. what is happening and will continue to be so consulted. Mr. Ennals: After the election the Rhodesian Prime Minister said that he Mr. Fisher: In view of the great emo­ intended to intensify efforts for the tional impact of the Rhodesian problem, Colony's independence. Have there been especially on the African countries of new proposals, and does my right hon. the Commonwealth, would the right hon. Friend think irt would be fruitful if he Gentleman agree that we still have a were to pay a further visit to Salisbury? considerable public relations job to do in explaining to those African countries Mr. Bottomley: The talks, as my hon. what little power we have to influence Friend will appreciate, remain confiden­ events in Southern Rhodesia? tial. They are continuing. If I thought i,t was useful for me to go there to bring Mr. Bottomley: Yes, and I am grate~ ;1 about a satisfactory solution, I should not ful to the hon. Member because I know hesitate to do so. tha,t he recently paid a visit to Com­ monwealth countries in Africa and took M. Sandys : I welcome the statement the opportunity of doing just that. I by the Secretary of State thait talks are meet as often as I can the High Com­ -~ going on, but does the right hon. Gentle­ missioners and Ministers of African man realise the importance of having countries and discuss this problem with direct negotiations of some kind? One them. r -

1191· Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1192 last Government did and what the present INDIA AND PAKISTAN Government do. If we can in any way help eiither couilltry to bci.ng about a settle­ Dispute ment of this dispute, our services are 9. Mr. Hamling asked the Secretary of always available. State for Commonwealth Relations what Later- representations he has now made to the countries concerned about the frontier Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order. dispute between India and Pakistan. Was Question No. 13 called? 13. Mr. Dempsey asked the Secretary Mr. Speaker: Yes; it was answered of State for Commonwealth Relations with Question No. 9. I looked at the what consultations he has had with other hon. Gentleman, but in view of the Commonwealth countries with a view to Minister's Answer I thought that he was the improvement of relations between deliberately abstaining. India and Pakistan ; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Dempsey : I understood that Ques­ tion No. 14 was called with Question 14. Mr. Ennals asked the Secretary of No. 9, but I did not hear QuestJion No. State for Commonwealth Relations if he 13 called. will make a further statement concerning the progress of his negotiations with India Mr. Speaker: I can only hope that and Pakistan on the dispute in the Rann the Secretary of State will be able to of Kutch. support what I say. I had that impres­ Mr. Bottomley: Efforts to bring about sion. a settlement of this conflict are still con­ Mr. Bottomley : Yes ; Question No. tinuing. I am hopeful that they will 13 was answered with Question No. 9. soon be successful, but, in view of the delicacy of the situation, I would prefer Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back now. not to add anything at this stage to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the House on 5th May. RHODESIA AND ZAMBIA Mr. Ennals : Is my right hon. Friend Kariba Power and Railways aware how grateful we are to him and (Agreements) to his colleagues for mediating in this 18. Mr. Jackson asked the Secretary of dispute? Can he give any assurance to State for Commonwealth Relations the House that weapons which have been whether he is aware that the present supplied to either side by this country arrangement between Rhodesia and have not been used in this conflict? Zambia concerning the Kariba power and the use of the railways is protected by Mr. Bottomley: I have received no I, international agreement involving Great reports of British weapons of any kind Britain ; and what steps Her Majesty's being used in this conflict. Government will take to uphold this Mr. Biggs-Davison : Does not this dis­ agreement. pute arise from the ill-feeling between the Mr. Bottomley : The Higher Authori­ two countries which is caused by the long­ ties which control the Central African standing Kashmir dispute? Since Her Power Corporation and Rhodesia Rail­ Majesty's Government have, very rightly, ways were set up by virtue of Agree­ taken the initiative in attempting to help ments between the Southern and Northern to settle 1ihis problem of the Rann of Rhodesian Governments. Britain has Kutch, will they also consider doing what certain guarantor responsibilities in they can in the future to try to clear up respect of international loans to these the Kashmir disagreement? organisations. The question of any action ~· Mr. Bottomley : While recognising the to uphold the Agreements, if threatened, truth of what was contained in the earlier is hypothetical, and I would not there­ part of the hon. Gentleman's supplemen­ fore wish to comment on what could be tary question, I can only repeat what the done if unconstitutional action took place. - 1193" Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1194 · Mr. Jackson : Will my right hon. than what I read in a Sunday newspaper, Friend at any rate keep in mind the but the information that I have is that speech of President Kaunda recently when Mr. Stacey signed this document agreeing he commented on any possible threat to that perhaps he had not done the right these supplies from Rhodesia? thing in making representations to Sheikh Abdullah. Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. The speech has been noted not only by Her Majesty's Mr. Deedes: Whether or no there was Government but also by the Government a difference of opinion between Mr. of Rhodesia. Stacey and the officials, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) INDIA must be right in saying that British citizens have rights on these occasions Mr. Stacey which must be observed? 19. Sir G. de Freitas asked the Secre­ Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. and the tary of State for Commonwealth Relations rights were observed. As soon as the what representations have been made to High Commission and I knew about it, the Indian Government over the intended direct representations through the High deportation of Mr. Tom Stacey, a British Commissioner in Delhi were made. journalist. Mr. Bottomley : As soon as reports of the arrest of Mr. Stacey were received I COAL asked the British High Commissioner in Retail Trade Depots ~ New Delhi to make a most urgent report. He immediately made inquiries of the 20. Mr. Palmer asked the Minister of Government of India, and the Deputy Power if he will make a statement on High Commissioner in Madras arranged the Government's policy of sanction for for Mr.Stacey to be visited in Ootacamund capital expenditure in relation to the by a member of his staff. No representa­ rationalisation and concentration of tions have been made to the Government depots in order to make for the better of India about Mr. Stacey's deportation. organisation of the retail coal trade. Sir G. de Freitas : Whether Mr. Stacey The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick be right or wrong, is it not a fact that he Lee) : I understand that in the relatively was denied access to the British High few cases involving substantial outlay Commission and is not this most regrett­ on mechanisation, the depots are owned able? Whether representations were by the distributive trade or leased to the made or not, is it not a fact that Mr. National Coal Board. There is no Stacey thanked the British High Commis­ question of the Government having to sion for what it did? approve the capital expenditure. Mr. Bottomley : One has to recognise Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend that there was some apparent deliberate bear in mind that a number of years ago deceit on the part of Mr. Stacey. Since an expert committee reported on this then the Sunday Times and Mr. Stacey issue? Is he satisfied that any real pro­ have thanked the office and, in the case gress has been made since that time? of Mr. Stacey, the High Commissioner, as my hon. Friend has suggested. I do not Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. About 200 non­ ~ think that the Sunday Times or Mr. Stacey mechanised depots calling for very little has asked us to make any further repre­ or no capital expenditure have been sentations. established since then. I :".-fr.Ennals : May I ask whether Mr. Mr. Costain : Is the right hon. Gentle­ Stacey signed a statement that the Indian man satisfied that sufficient consultations version of the dispute was an accurate one take place with local planning authorities .] and whether there was any indication of before these depots are commenced? intimidation that forced him to sign it? ·~ Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir, I am. To take Mr. Bottomley : I have no reason to Bristol, for instance, the present plan is expect that there was intimidation, other that the city should be served by three 1195 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1196 mechanised depots, one operated by Co- powers in such cases. I have said that operative ltraders and ~he o.thers by local the hole is now, as I hope, completely distributors. filled in. If there are further repre­ sentations which my hon. Friend would Miss Quennell : Can the right hon. like to make, I shall be very pleased Gentleman indicate whether there is a to receive them. programme of rationalisation which is to be pursued and whether there is any Mr. Allason : Will the Minister erect means whereby hon. Members can obtain a notice saying, "Don't go down the a copy? mine, Daddy"? Mr. Lee : Perhaps the hon. Lady will give me notice of that. I could not say National Coal Board (Finance) offhand. 24. Mr. Peyton asked the Minister of Mr. McBride: Would my right hon. Power why, when the estimated repay­ Friend pay attention to the difficulties of ment by the National Coal Board in South Wales coal depots in view of the 1964-65 was £13 million, a net borrowing 18 per cent. degradation of coal as com­ of £29 million for that year took place ; pared with other places and the im­ and when he expects the borrowing possibility of securing mechanical powers of the Board to be exhausted. handling with particular reference to the depots in Swansea? Mr. Frederick Lee: As I informed the House on 12th April, 1965, the Board Mr .. Lee: We have set up tripartite was relieved of its obligation to make committees representing the railways, the a contribution of £10 million towards National Coal Board and the distributive fixed assets replacement in 1964-65. This trades and these function at national, sum was not, therefore, ' available to regional and local levels. finance investment and additional work­ ing capital was also required for other Mine Shaft, West Bowling purposes including the financing of stocks. There is no reason to expect that 22. Mr. George Craddock asked the the Board's borrowing requirements will Minister of Power if he is satisfied that exceed the existing statutory limits which the National Coal Board is dealing ade­ expire at the end of this year. Parlia­ quately with the mine shaft which nearly ment wiH be asked to fix fresh limits in engulfed Mr. Jonathan Bairstow in a the legislation which the Government garden in Challis Grove, West Bowling, will introduce before then. Bradford ; and if he will make a state­ ment. Mr. Peyton : Does not the Minister realise that his answer has not even be­ Mr. Frederick Lee: The National gun to explain the obvious discrepancy Coal Board has informed me that coal of figures which appears in the financial was worked under this area over 100 statement showing that, whereas the years ago but, although plans of the old Board was intending to repay £13 mil­ workings exist, they do not show a shaft lion, it in fact borrowed £29 million? on this site. The Board's liability under Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman Section 151 of the Mines and Quarries said explained this fact. Will he now do Act, 1954, has, therefore, not been estab­ so? lished, but it is nevertheless filling in the hole and the work should by now have Mr. Lee: The White Paper published been completed. by the previous Government in April, 1964 estimated that there would be a Mr. Craddock : Will my right hon. further repayment of £13 million in Friend follow this matter through and 1964-65. This was converted to an esti­ see that it reaches a satisfactory con­ mated net borrowing of £29 million in clusion, since obviously this accident the subsequent White Paper of March, could have led to very serious conse­ 1965. The actual net borrowing in quences? 1964-65 was £33 million. Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir, I understand that, Mr. Wainwright: Will my right hon. but the local authorities have certain Friend look at the whole finances of the 1197 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1198 National Coal Board, taking into con­ power the full opportunity which it de­ sideration its liability because of the serves on merits and not confine the pos­ price of imported coal being above the sibilities through a desire to meet the inland price and many other accounts for representations of the National Union of which the Board has been responsible? Mineworkers? Will he also bear in mind that the Board Mr. Lee : As the House knows, I have is entitled to greater benefits from this the greatest regard for the representations Government than ever the previous Gov­ of the National Union of Mineworkers, ernment intended to give? but I have no intention of inhibiting the Mr. Lee : Yes, but let us keep in mind development of nuclear power. that the actual net borrowing from the Mr. Ness Edwards : Will my right hon. Exchequer in 1964-65, as I said, was Friend, having regard to the tragic events £33 million, but the Board's accounts of yesterday, consider this as a matter of are expected to show a small surplus on great urgency? Will be bear in mind that revenue account. We should keep that if the can support a Bdtisih product in­ in mind when discussing its borrowing stead of an American one it will give powers. satisfaction even to the mining industry? Mr. Lee: I have rt.hose points very much in mind. Perhaps my right hon. Friend MINISTRY OF POWER will awaj,t my announcement nexit week. Nuclear Power Programme Sir H. Legge-Bourke: When the, .right 21. Mr. Peyton asked the Minister of hon. Gentleman makes his announcement, Power when he expects to make a state­ if as I hope he plumps for an advanced ment on the next phase of the nuclear gas-cooled reactor, will he make it clear power progra=e. whait the dollar saving will be in such a decision? 23. Mr. Ness Edwards asked the Min­ ister of Power what decision has been Mr. Lee : Perhaps rt.hehon. Member will made on the type of nuclear power reactor await the announcement. to be adopted in the future nuclear power Mr. Atkinson : Gan my right hon. programme ; and if be will make a state­ Friend say whaJt effect the activities of ment. the " Gnomes of Zurich " have had on 25. Sir H. Legge-Bourke asked the our inves,tment programme? Minister of Power when be expects to Mr. Lee : None wbail:ever, 0IS far as I receive the views of the Central Electricity know. Generating Board on the tenders for the Dungeness B nuclear power station. Sir C. Osborne : They saved the Government. Mr. Frederick Lee : I have just received the views of the Central Electricity Gen­ Sir T. Beamish: Will there be an-oppor­ erating Board and hope to make a state­ tuni,ty to debate the impo1itanit statement ment next week. which the right hon. Gentleman plans to make next week? Should there not be Mr. Peyton : Is the right hon. Gentle­ ample time neJGt week in view of :the man aware that bis long-awaited state­ excellent faot tbait the Steel Bill has been ment will attract a good deal of attention, dropped? particularly in view of the widespread suggestion that for the first time the costs Mr. Lee : Wbils,t denying emphatically of nuclear power stations will be below the la9t point made by the hon. Member, those of conventional stations? I must say that the question of whether we debate the maitter is one which he Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. I am very well rnigbrt: care ito address ito my right hon. aware of the interest in this and, as I Friend t,he Leader of the House. have said, I intend to make a statement on the whole question next week. New Houses (Gas Supplies) Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd : Will the Minister 26. Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the give us an undertaking that in deciding Minister of Power, in the development of his policy he will decide to give nuclear bis fuel policy, what action be proposes 1199 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1200 to ;take ito ensure ithalt rthe gas industry is tak)e up the opportuniJties which present given an equal oppo11tunirty ito compete themselves ,there. wiitih eleotriciJty when considering connec­ Sir H. Legge-Bourke : Will the right tiions to new housing development. hon. Gentleman say which industries he Mr. Frederick Lee: I am in touch w1th would regard as not being scientifically the chairmen of tthe Gas and Electricity based? Councils about oonneotion charges for Mr. Cousins : It would be e~tremely ~ new ihouses, but I have no staitement to difficult, but I have a responsibility for a make art: preselllt. number of defined indusrtries. , Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the right hon. Gendeman aware l1Jhalt in many new developments no facililties exist for gas NATIONAL FINANCE connection alt all? If we wan,t an effective Soft Drinks (Tax) fuel industry in ithis country, ought not the gas industry to be a:ble to compete wi,th 28. Mr. Pounder asked the Chancellor eleoitriciity on equal rterms? of the Exchequer what plans he has for tht abolition of Purchase Tax on soft Mr. Lee : Yes, buit on ithis issue, if I drinks. were ithe hon. Gentleman, I should not take it for granted 1:halt only one of these The Financial Secretary to the Trea­ induSltries is, as ~rt were, establishing i!ts sury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): For the posirtion. I am quiite determined ,tihalt we reasons given in the Budget speech, my get an answer ,to tllis problem, and I shall right hon. Friend was not able this year pursue rthe maititer as diligently as I can. to propose reductions in indirect taxation. Mr. Pounder : Does not the hon. and teamed Gentleman recall the observa­ TECHNOLOGY tion of his right hon. Friend a year ago, when in opposition, that he would reduce Science-based Industries, Northern the Purchase Tax on soft drinks? Wheri Ireland is this promise to be implemented? 27. Mr. Pounder asked rthe Minister of Mr. MacDermot: I do not recall the Technology whalt plans he has for estab­ remark, and I should like to see the lishing new soiellltifically-based industries in No.rithern Ireland. words. No doubt, my right hon. Friend will fook sympathetically on this industry The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank when he is able to consider reducing Cousins) : I have no such plans alt present. indirect taxation. If hon Members opposite had wamed my right hon. Friend Mr. Pounder : Will the right hon. a year ago of what the situation was Gentleman give us an idea when he will that he would meet when he took office, have plans for such industries, bearing in he would, no doubt, have had some mind the suitabiliity of No11thern Ireland? other things to say. Mr. Cousins: The whole problem of the diffi.cu1t and under-developed areas and the areas of high unemployment is NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY being considered both by the Depa:11tment ORGANISATION of Economic Affairs and ourselves, and Ql. Mr. Marten asked the Prime we hope ,to produce some information very Minister if he will make a statement quickly. about the future policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the North Atlantic Sir Knox Cunningham : Will tthe Minis­ ter bear in mind ilie excellent work of the Treaty Organisation. men and women who are available in The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold r . Ulster and tihe faot llhalt precision indus­ Wilson) : I have nothing to add to the tries do not require the transpo11t of heavy reply I gave on 13th May to a Question bulk raw materials? by my hon. Friend· the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). t. Mr. Cousins: Certainly; this will be the kind of information we hope to put Mr. Marten: As some of the Prime before industriaHsits to encourage them to Minister's hon. Friends later described ,..,.-- F -• ...,, .,,.. - .... _,'---.r-!\f CC/jf( - l..lj; ., 1..;·· ..F r'

1201 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1202 N.A.T.O. as a tottering structure, will the with leaders of European States on the right hon. Gentleman affirm the Govern­ Atlantic Nuclear Force. ment's intention to work for the unity of N .A.T.O. with our American. allies? The Prime Minister : As the House Second, does he see any chance of per­ knows, I had discussions about the suading the Russians to believe seriously Atlantic Nuclear Force with the Federal that N.A.T.O. is in fact a defensive German Chancellor during my visit to alliance? Third, in the event of the Bonn in March and with the Italian French trying to cause trouble in Prime Minister during my visit to Rome N.A.T.O., has he any plans to deal with last month, with the result that our pro­ '! that situation? posals are now under multilateral dis­ cussion in the Paris Working Group. , The Prime Minister : I dealt with all these points pretty fully in my speech to Mr. Hamling : Is my right hon. Friend the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council last aware that in his determination to pre­ week, which I commended to the hon. vent the proliferation of nuclear weapons Gentleman and his hon. Friends in the he will have the full support of these answer to the Question which I gave on benches? Thursday last. The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thank Mr. Maudling : As the focus of danger my hon. Friend. This, again, was a is moving to some extent from E urope to point which I dealt with at some length Asia, will the right hon. Gentleman lay in referring to the Atlantic Nuclear Force particular stress on the contribution which in my speech to N.A.T.O. last week. the N.A.T.O. countries can make in the Mr. Maudling : Has the Prime Minister problems of the East as well as Europe? any evidence to suggest that the proposal The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir ; the for an Atlantic Nuclear Force will be any right hon. Gentleman will find that I more acceptable to our European neigh­ made quite a strong point of the subject bours than the M.L.F. or that it will covered by his supplementary question. cause the Russian Government any less I dealt with it at some length, though, concern? perhaps, not so elegantly as the right hon. The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, in my speech to N.A.T.O. Gentleman will recall that, at the time last week. we came in, we were faced with a very Mr. Eldon Griffiths : Is the Prime detailed and short time-table for accept­ Minister aware that there is very con­ ance by this country of the M.L.F., and siderable regard for his statement made this was being strongly pressed both by during the N.A.T.O. Council meeting, Germany and by the United States. Since which found wide support, but is he aware his own Government never quite agreed that it causes confusion in the minds of on whether to support the M.L.F. or not, foreign visitors here if , while he is making I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman such statements with which the House is will thank us for getting them off the at one, some of his hon. Friends make hook by proposing a new scheme which diametrically opposite statements? avoided many of the difficulties for us and some of his hon. Friends on the The Prime Minister: I am grateful M.L.F. and which was directly related to the hon. Gentleman for what he says to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons about my speech. I do not think that in Europe. there is any confusion. The words I Mr. Maudling: My question was about used last week were quite clear and, I the reaction of Western Europe and think, had the support of the whole Russia. Will the Prime Minister answer? House. The Prime Minister : I thought that Germany was in Western Europe. ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE Germany, of course, was a country in Western Europe- there were others­ Q2. Mr. Hamling asked the Prime which was passionately keen on the Minister whether he will now make a M.L.F., and I have answered that point. ~ statement on the discussions he has had The Russians were completely opposed Vol. 712 u 1203 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral Answers 1204 to the M.L.F. because it seemed to them Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorney­ that it did involve proliferation and, to croft) not only lasted throughout the last use the jargon, a German finger on the two years of the previous Government but trigger. We have tried to persuade them continued into Opposition. -though, of course, I have not yet met Mr. Kosygin-that there is a very big difference between the A.N.F. and the MINISTERS (OVERSEAS M.L.F. because there will be built into VISITS) the A.N.F. treaty measures against the acquisition and spread of nuclear Q3. Mrs. Renee Short asked the Prime weapons, which was not the case with the Minister to what extent it is his policy to encourage Ministers to travel abroad M.L.F. on trade promotion missions. Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister tell us more about the American attitude Q7. Mr. Gower asked the Prime to the A.N.F.? Have they left it entirely Minister how many official overseas visits to the Europeans or are they, too, by Ministers during the present session of engaged in these consultations? Parliament have been connected primarily with promotion of overseas trade. The Prime Minister : They will be engaged in the consultations. It was clear The Prime Minister: Ministers have from our talks in December that they made 120 official visits abroad in the would like to bear more of the European present Session of Parliament ; it is not reaction to our proposals because, I possible to say how many of these visits think, there was a widespread feeling in have been primarily concerned with trade the past among some people in Europe promotion because all Ministers are that the M.L .F. was being forced upon encouraged to discuss trade matters when them. they travel overseas. Sir Alec Douglas-Home : Is it not the Mrs. Short : Is my right hon. Friend case, in considering the discussions the aware that we fully support this attitude right hon. Gentleman has had about the and would encourage Ministers to go A.N.F., that it has very few friends? Is abroad and look for new markets? When it not also the case that the right hon. they are going abroad, will they bear Gentleman is misleading people if be in mind that there is another part of suggests that the American proposal for Europe as well as the Common Market the M.L.F. would in any way have led and that the countries of Eastern Europe to the proliferation of nuclear weapons? and the Soviet Union are very fruitful The American proposal for the M.L.F. markets for consumer goods and heavy certainly meant that there would be no engineering goods? extra fingers on the trigger, and I think The Prime Minister : I think that per­ that the Prime Minister knows it. haps few Members have been more con­ The Prime Minister : My exact words cerned with Eastern Europe for the past about the A.N.F.-the right hon. Gentle­ 15 or 16 years than I have, and I remind man can look them up-were that there my hon. Friend that the very first were built-in provisions in the terms Ministerial visit overseas by a member requiring the signatories if they were non­ of this Government was paid by my nuclear Powers not to acquire nuolear right hon. Friend the President of the power and requiring existing nuclear Board of Trade to Moscow and Peking. Powers not to spread nuclear power Mr. Gower: Would not the right hon. further. Such provision was contained in Gentleman agree that, while Ministerial the proposal for the A.N.F. and not in contributions to the promotion of trade the proposal for the M.L.F. can be important, the best way to get The right hon. Gentleman says that the increased trade is to give the utmost A.N.F. proposal has few friends. I would encouragement to manufacturers and ex­ remind him that within a matter of three porters instead of inflicting them with or four weeks we had a united Govern­ punitive and penal taxation? ment in favour of the A.N.F . whereas the highly publicised dispute between the The Prime Minister : The hon. Gen­ right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. tleman will be aware that successive 1205 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Oral An swers 1206 Governments have found very great diffi­ The Prime Minister : The Government culty in finding a really watertight Hospitality Fund, as I said in my Reply, export incentive scheme which does not relates to overseas entertainment. It fall foul of international obligations. is not used for home entertainment. 1 His own Government tried hard to find hope the hon. Gentleman does not intend one but failed. We are trying hard to to pursue his argument to the point find one and we hope to succeed. I at which he would wish not to give do not underrate the difficulties of pro­ adequate entertainment to Common­ viding a scheme which will be really wealth and Foreign Prime Ministers effective and will be consistent with the visiting London. G.A.T.T.

ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY PAYMASTER-GENERAL FUND Q5. Mr. Robert Cooke asked the Prime Q4. Mr. Dodds-Parker asked the Minister whether he will appoint an Prime Minister what rules govern the addiJtional AssiSltJarnt Paymasiter-Generral, entertainment by him of official guests with a seat in the House of Commons. from overseas under the auspices of the Government Hospitality Fund. The Prime Minister : No, Sir. The Prime Minister : By long estab­ Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wigg. [Laughter.] lished practice, which I have not Mr. Cooke. changed, the Fund is restricted to the entertainment of distinguished visitors Mr. Robert Cooke: Good, Su. Will from overseas. the Prime Minister relieve himself of the Mr. Dodds-Parker : While continuing burden of marking all i!!he Paymaster­ to provide proper entertainment for over­ General's letters " First Lord of the seas customers, is the Prime Minister Trnasury "? Or does rthe Payma:ster­ proposing to apply to domestic cus­ General really work in No. 10 Downing tomers the same principle that is being Street? Does not the Prime Minister applied to the private sector? If lun­ realise how disappointing it is to get a cheon vouchers are good enough for letter stamped "First Lord of the the private goose should they not be Treasury " only to find that it is just good enough for the Government another evasion from tlle Payma:ster­ gander? General? The Prime Minister: The hon. Gen­ The Prime Minister : After a long wait tleman was in office and carried out a for that supplementary question, fol­ number of functions. I hope that he lowing your intervention, Mr. Speaker, did not call every Foreign Minister or it was rather disappointing. As I under­ Prime Minister a " customer ". There stand the question, I am asked, with has been no change in the rules or the the enthusiasm for additional Ministers practice. The hon. Gentleman will be of this Government that hon. Members interested to know that from 17th Octo­ opposite persist in showing, to appoint an ber, 1963, to 31st March, 1964, under addiltional Assis,t,ant Paymaster-Gener-al. the previous Government, there were However, the existing Assistant Pay­ 141 luncheons, dinners or receptions. master-Gener.at. Mr. V,etch, ~s a very In the same period of this year there well-known and distinguished public ser­ were 146. We have held pretty well to vant, who is known to right hon. Gentle­ the same figure. However, the number men opposite as well, and he has given of guests has been little smaller than every satisfaction. It is not necessary to the number entertained by the last duplicate his post either inside or out­ Government. side the House of Commons. Mr. Dodds-Parker: I asked the Prime Mr. Onslow : Arn the Paymas,ter­ Minister whether he proposed to cut General's duties so onerous as to pre­ back Government hospitality domesti­ vent him from undertaking the next party cally just as he is cutting back on the political broadcast on behalf of the private sector. Labour Party? Vol. 712 U2 1207 Oral Answers 18 MAY 1965 Government Papers 1208 The Prime Minister : That is not a tionally in respect of the individual matter which falls within Ministerial responsible for it. There is no difference responsibility. Party political broad­ at all between the two cases. casts are invariably handled by the party machines. Mr. William Clark : If the right hon. Gentleman will not restrict Government Mr. Boston : Does not my right hon. enteritainment will he consider restricting Friend think that, in view of the pro­ the entertainment carried on by national­ longed absences of the right hon. and ised industries? learned Gentleman who refers to him­ sal..fas .the " shadow " PaymaSJter-Geneml, The Prime Minister : I am not sure the Opposition is in need of an additional what the hon. Gentleman means by assisitanrt "shadow" Paymasiter-General? restricting entertainment by the Govern­ ment. I have just given the figures for entertainment by the Government Hos­ ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES piitality Fund under the previous Govern­ Q6. Mr. Fisher asked the Prime ment and trns one. The figures are very Minister whether, in view of Her Majesty's similar. If the hon. Gentleman wants to Government's decision to limit tax­ raise the question of entertainment by the chargeable entertainment expenses to nationalised industries he can do so at the foreign buyers, he will introduce legisla­ proper time. It does not arise now because tion to include for tax the £4,000 per i.t does not come out of money voted to annum of the Prime Minister's official the Prime Minister. salary which has hitherto been tax free. The Prime Minister: No, Sir. GOVERNMENT PAPERS Mr. Fisher : Wha,t is the difference in (SECURITY) principle between business and Govern­ ment entertainment? As the right hon. The following Question stood upon the Gentleman has a call on the Government Order Paper: Hospitality Fund for official enter,tain­ Ql3 . Mr. BRAINE: To ask the Prime ment of visitors from overseas, why should Minister what official investigation has not his extra £4,000 a year be subject to been carried out into the circumstances in tax like anyone else's expense account? which confidential Government papers The Prime Minister : First, I must were found in a public restaurant on 10th po:init out to the hon. Gentleman that May; and whether he will make a the["e is a difference between Govern­ statement. menil: and business. Perhaps what was The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold wrong in the past was that we _got too Wilson) : With permission, I will now much incursion by business into Govern­ answer Question No. Ql3. ment. Within minutes of this case coming to Seoond1y, rt:here Js no ohange in the light all the facts were reported to me. posiJtion thart: has prevarled for many And, as all the facts are known, no years, including the period when the hon. investigation is necessary. Gentleman himself was a member of the Government and did not feel djsposed to Mr. Braine: While making all allow­ raise the matter then. ance for human error, would not the Thirdly, the Lawrence Committee, Prime Minister agree that this was a appointed by the 1'ast Government, recom­ most unfortunate occurrence, coming so mended an increase in the amount and quickly after his lecture on security to we have rejected that advice. the House last week? Why should there not be a full inquiry? Are we to take Fourithly, rt:he difference between rtihis it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply a11owiance, which wa,s taken iby every that there is to be one law for his right successive Conserviative Minister ·as far hon. and hon. Friends and another for as I know, and il:hart: of a business those engaged in Government business? firm is simply thart: where a firm decides that enrt:ermainment is neces,sary The Prime Minister : No, Sir. That the value of ~hat entertaiinment is is a rather unworthy remark of the hon. paid for by the firm ; it is not taxed addi- Gentleman. As all the fa'cts are known 1209 Government Papers 18 MAY 1965 Government Papers 1210 to me, as I said, but may not be known in cases like this. Is it not a fact that to the House, perhaps I should say that strict instructions are enjoined on in this case the documents were picked Ministers when they take office about the up by a gentleman-a n officer and a handling of confidential Government gentleman. The House may wonder why papers in public places? Is it not also it took so long for him to hand them the case that but for my Question these over to the police. The fact is that he facts would not have been elicited from did not take them to the police. He the right hon. Gentleman? Is this not, took them to the Daily Express. therefore, a case for full investigation? Mr. ShinweJI: Would not my right The Prime Minister : I do not know hon. Friend agree that, instead of this about the hon. Gentleman's Question. As episode being regarded as unfortunate, I say, without waiting several months for it was somewhat discreditable on the the Prime Minister to make known even part of the person who found the docu­ the very minimal facts in a case of this ment to fail to hand them over to the kind, as happened a year or two ago in proprietor of the restaurant concerned? another case, I had a full investigation Is he aware that conduct of this kind is that evening and had all the available so discreditable that it ought to be repu­ facts, and now the House is in possession diated by every decent person? of them. The Prime Minister : Of course the While I agree with what the hon. situation was unfortunate and my right Gentleman said about human conduct, hon. Friend immediately made a state- and while I have said that action has . ment about it. What happened was that already been taken in that Department, the documents, which were not, I may as is general in others, to see that papers say, either secret or modern, although cannot be picked up in this way by certainly classified, were picked up acci­ accident, I still think that it is repre­ dently by him with other papers when hensible for someone I assume to be one he went to have a debate with the right of the hon. Gentleman's supporters to hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. regard this as a matter for talking to Iain Macleod). Because there were the Press for political purposes, as was people in the restaurant who were look­ clearly the case. ing at these documents, my right hon. If hon. Members opposite ask why I Friend, rightly or wrongly, put them out think that it is reprehensible, all I can of their sight and forgot to pick them say is that on the experience of the up again. That was the unfortunate part case I mentioned, when my right hon. about it. Friend took it to the then Prime Minister On the subject of the custodianship in secrecy and said nothing to the Press, of official documents, care has been our standards are different from theirs. taken since then to make sure that docu­ That is all. ments are not placed about in offices so that they can be picked up in this Mr. Braine: On a point of order. In way. view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, In answer to my right hon. Friend the especially his latter remarks, I beg leave Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), to give notice that I shall raise this two years ago my right hon Friend the matter on the Adjournment. Payma.9ter-Geneml oame into possession of some highly sensitive information Dame Irene Ward : On a point of about security. Instead of taking it to order. Whatever the merits or the Daily Express, or any other news­ demerits- [Interruption.] paper, he took it immediately and secretly to the then Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker: Order. Let there be the Press knew nothing of this until all silence when I am being addressed on the facts were made available by the then a point of order. I must be able to Prime Minister three months later. hear it. l Mr. Braine: I was careful to preface Dame Irene Ward : Whatever the my previous question by saying, " While merits or demerits of the case may be, ~ making all allowance for human error " is it not rather unusual in this House to Vol. 712 U3 1211 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1212 [DAME IRENE WARD.] attack someone who is not able to defend ORDERS OF THE DAY himself? Mr. Speaker : I have heard it done TRADE DISPUTES BILL before, but it does not raise a point of Not amended (in the Standing Commit­ order. tee), considered.

New Clause.-( MEANINGOF TRADE DISPUTE.) No such act as is referred to in section 1(1) of thls Act shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute if done for the purpose of compelling another person to join, or remain a member of, a trade union or an employers' association.- [Mr. Mitchell.] Brought up, and read the First time. 3.42 p.m. Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if with the new Clause we discussed Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert: "Sub ject to the provisions of thls section". Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 14, at end insert: Provided that no act done as aforesaid shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute if done for the purpose of com­ pelling another person to join, or remain a member of, a trade union or an employers' association. Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 14, at end insert: Provided that an act as aforesaid is not done with the sole intention of forcing another · person to become, to remain or to cease to be a member of a trade union. and Amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 20, at end insert: (3) An act done as aforesaid by a person shall not for the purposes of this Act be treated as an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute if it is done with the intention of inflicting injury on another because that other will not join or remain as a member of a trade union. If that proposition were accepted as convenient, I would call for a separa,te Division Amendment No. 6 if so desired. Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke) : I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Seoond time. I move the new Clause with some in­ dignation because of the way in which the Minister consistently refused through­ out the Commititee stage to accept any Amendment or new Clause. I ask the House to note the effect of the Bill if 1213 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1214 the Clause is not accepted. In other the Minister to discontinue making mis­ words, we have before us a Bill which leading suggestions that the Bill is only is rather negative in character, but if temporary. we turn it to the positive, we can see what I am a comparatively new Member of it allows to happen if the new Clause is the House, but I understood before I not accepted. At the same time, I should came here and since that it was one of like to consider what the short, sharp the duties of Members to act as trustees words at the bottom of the trade union and custodians of the liberty of the sub­ circular would say of the effect of the Bill jects, rights which we have inherited on trade union praotices, quite apart from from past generations. We have inherited the law. this duty over generations. In a nation If we turn it into the positive, the Bill with no written constitution, we are the says that an act done after the passing only people who can do this. Therefore, of the Bill shall be legal if it consists the onus is on us to look most carefully of a trade union official threatening that at any legislation which may impinge on a contract of employment will be broken, these liberties. If the Bill is passed in or threatening that he will induce some­ its present form we shall make it legal one else to break his contract, in order to compel someone to join an association to compel someone to join or remain a of which he disapproves. This is not member of a trade union against his will ; only bad trade unionism ; it is also an in brief, a licence to coercion, or a licence offence against the highest international to intimidation. standards as laid down by the United The short words which will, pre­ Nations. sumably, appear on the bottom of trade In the Declaration of Human Rights union circulars will be, " You may now which was proclaimed by the United use methods of coercion and intimida­ Nations Assembly in Paris on 10th tion to enforce a closed shop". This is December, 1945, Article 20, which was the principle with which we are dealing. signed by the British Government, and My hon. Friends and I are seeking to a Labour Government at that, specified rectify this situation. quite clearly: The Bill is, first, an attack on the " Everyone has the right to freedom of rights, freedom and liberty of the citizen. peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an associa­ Secondly, it is an encouragement to the tion." worst trade union practices which I should have thought the Minister would The Bill would allow somebody to be regard it as his duty to try to discourage. compelled to join an association. The right hon. Gentleman has excused It is one thing to ignore such inter­ the Bill by saying that it is only a tem­ national standards and declarations. It lporary Measure while he awaits the is a totally different thing to legislate findings of the Royal Commission. against them and in complete defiance I want to know how temporary, be- and contradiction of them. No doubt 1cause it appears that the Royal Com­ the Government have taken guidance on lmission is doing its work with all the this matter. In Committee, we pressed the dynamic speed and enthusiasm for Solicitor-General to guide us, but we were change exhibited by the trade union not successful. I assume that the Govern­ .movement and hon. Members opposite. ment must think that it is legal to act .If I am correctly informed, it is sitting againstcintemational declarations and regu­ :on half a day a week. At this rate, it lations. Nevertheless, it is totally morally \Willtake three years to complete its work. wrong to act against the signature of the il see the Minister nodding. I am glad to British Government. !have his confirmation. This Mother of Parliament is regarded After that, presumably, we will have by younger nations in many parts of the Minister's gestation period while he the world as an example. If we pass sits on the Bill and then a further period legislation in defiance of the United before legislation is introduced. It will, Nations Declarations, and if we legalise therefore, be at least five or six years coercion to join an association. whether before the temporary nature of the Bill a trade union or not, which might be is brought to an end. I therefore ask regarded in other pauts of the world Vol. 712 U4 1215 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1216 [MR. MITCHELL.] that no trade union principle can justify or as a political association, we shall set any trade union need condone "- a dangerous example, and we should or, I would add, any Minister of the not be surorised if others seek to follow Crown. The Minister is nodding. I it, with alf the ensuing troubles. If the am glad to see that he agrees with Sir new Clause were not accepted, the Bill Lincoln Evans, and with me, also. would encourage the worst trade union The central reason for the Bill is the practices. Rookes v. Barnard case. It is worth The Minister has said that he wants to briefly rehearsing the facts of that case. put the law back as he thought it was, Here was a man, Rookes, who had been but, with all due deference to him, he a member of his trade union, had fallen can never put trade union practice back out with it and was told by Barnard that as it was. Because of the Rookes v. the others would go on strike if he did Barnard case, and because of the not rejoin the union. Rookes refused. immense publicity which it has received, Barnard went to the employer and said, every trade unionist will know that there " Either you sack this man or we shall is this method of using coercion and come out on strike " ; and, to the intimidation, whereas before many of employer's shame, he sacked him. As I them did not know that it existed. We see it, in elementary justice, that man are, therefore, faced with a new situation was rightly able to secure damages. in which it is not possible for the Minis­ ter to put the law and the practice The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. back in the position that it was. I should Gunter) : To get the record straight, it have thought that the Minister, being should be appreciated that Mr. Rookes responsible for industrial relations, was a firm believer in the closed shop would seek to frame the law as it ought until he had a row with his union. to be and not as he thought it was. Mr. Mitchell : What Mr. Rookes 3.45 p.m. believed or did not believe has nothing We expect a Minister of Labour in this to do with the point of the Clause. Mr. Government to lean towards the trade Barnard was the man who went to the unions. We can even understand him employer and said, " Sack this man, or doing a deal with the trade unions, as else . . . " What will be done if this he appears to have done on this legislat>ion is passed is to legalise other occasion, although it seems rather fool­ Barnards throughout the country to do ish to cast away the trump card at the the same thing. time that the Royal Commission was Mr. Gunter indicated dissent. beginning its inquiries. When the right hon. Gentleman has something which Mr. Mitchell : I am glad to see the the trade unions wanted and which he Minister shaking his bead. I hope that could have used as a bargaining counter, when he winds up this debate he will he throws it clean out of the pack. I explain why what I have said is incorrect. have a horrible suspicion that this legis­ As far as I can see, the whole purpose lation will be, not temporary, but so of this legislation is to make it possible permanent that the trade unions will and legal for Bamards to go up and down never give it up. the country doing just that. Because of However, what we do not expect the the publicity which has been given, that Minister to do is to encourage trade is exactly what will happen. This legisla­ union practices which he knows are tion is a licence to Barnards or other I thoroughly bad and which many of his trade union shop stewards to go out and excellent colleagues in the trade union misuse their power in an endeavour to movement have condemned. May I give force the closed shop. one example? Sir Lincoln Evans, who I should not like it to be thought that was General Secretary of the Iron and what happened in the highly publicised Siteel Trades Confederation, sa~d : Rookes v. Barnard case is the sole " . . . such is the logic of the closed shop example, because this sort of thing that a man expelled from his union-which in itself may be quite justified-can then be happens in every hon. Member's con­ prevented from following his trade because stituency from time to time. In my c_on­ he has no union card, a piece of injustice stituency there is an example of which, ,r---,,.,...... ,,. ~ .....,. .... • l 1217 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1218 I feel, the House should know, because plain from the remark which the hon. this is exactly the sort of situation which Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) will be recreated many times if the new has just made. Oause is not accepted. If I may offer the Minister as my ally As in the case of Rookes, the man in in this matter by recalling what be him­ question was a trade unionist. He had self wrote in the Sunday Times of 7th 22 years' continuous membership of his March, the right hon. Gentleman said: union. He then refused to go out on an " ... above all, we have proved in our history unofficial strike. As a result, the local that we can embrace changes-politica l, econo­ branch of his union fined him £5. He mic and technological-w ithout jeopardising was so furious that he resigned from the foundations of a free society. This is be­ cause we have shown a greater sense of toler­ union membership. The shop steward ance"- went t<;>the employer of my con~tituent I repeat " tolerance "­ and said, " If you do not take this man out of this department, or sack him, we " towards one another, in terms of class, re­ ligion and politics, than possibly any other shall not continue to work and a strike country in the world. If as a nation we can will be on your hands" . The employer come to terms with the changes sweeping took the man out and put him into other around us and maintain this foundation of tol­ erance, then I think we shall have proved once work, where he was not able to use the again our claim to leadership in the world." professional qualifications and the high degree of skill which he had acquired I concur very much with what the Min­ by long training in his previous duties. ister then said. I hope that this afternoon We have, therefore, a situation in which he will show a little of that tolerance of a man is earning less than he otherwise which be spoke by accepting the Clause. could and he is unable to follow bis highly I know that the Minister will wind up skilled profession because of the action in that jovial and reassuring manner of of, in effect, another Barnard going to an his, that attractive Welsh lilt which so employer and threatening him. This is mesmerises the Left wing in politics, but precisely what will happen repeatedly in this matter we are bound to judge him, throughout the country if the Minister not by his manner or his words, but by ~ does not accept the new Clause. his action. If he rejects the Clause, he We live in an age when tolerance is will have shown his contempt for free­ one of the things most needed in in­ dom of the individual and for the best dustrial relations. There are eight million trade union practices. It is with those trade unionists in this country. Does the thoughts in mind that I put forward the Minister really suggest that the founda­ new Clause. tion of the great trade union movement Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery) : I will be rocked to the core if its members are not entitled to intimidate, chase and support the new Clause. The hon. Mem­ badger into their ranks a few unfortunates ber for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) quoted who do not wish to be trade unionists? from a foreword to a small book which I Can be not show a little tolerance towards have read the words of Sir Lincoln Evans these people? Cannot they attract their on the closed shop. I can do better than that by quoting the words of the Minister membership by their ability, by the things on Second Reading, when he said: they do and by attracting rather than " It is true, and I say it openly, and I have driving and compelling? Is not this the said it in public before, that the closed shop way in which the trade union movement, has sometimes been used to cause unnecessary which throughout its history has fought hardship to individuals. There are cases where for the weak against the strong, should be a man has been driven out of his job because he has quarrelled with his local union branch. viewing this problem? There are cases where a man has suffered be­ cause he has genuine conscientious objections Mr. Arthur Pa!mer (Bristol, Central): to joining a union. I condemn it. The trade I have difficulty in following the hon. union movement has a great and inspiring Member's logic about coercion. Would history, and a vital contribution to make to our he compel trade unionists to work with modem society, and it ought to be above vic­ timisation of this kind."-[OFF TCIAL REPORT, non-trade unionists? 16th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 1019.) Mr. Mitchell : The remark which I was They were bold words, with which I making is particularly apt to the ques­ entirely agreed, as I said at the time and tion. The need for tolerance is more than I still do, in an extremely enlightened ... - r 1219 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1220 [MR. HoosoN.] allowed to practise in our courts. All speech from a Minister of the Crown. that is required is that he must have Nevertheless, we must see whether the the professional qualifications necessary Minister's words are matched by his to practise, which is a di.fferenrt: actions. consideration. I fully appreciate the reasons advanced As I was saying before I was by the Minister on Second Reading for interrupted, I cannot understand why the the presentation of the Bill at this stage. Minister is unable to accept Amendment The implication was that he needed to No. 6. I can understand that the trade enlist the full co-operation of the trade union official needs to be reassured. J union movement in the inquiry which was accept that in the legitimate pursuit of to be conducted by the Royal Commis­ his work, when he is negotiating with ao sion. As I said on Second Reading, 1 employer, he needs to be reassured that consider it to be of vital importance to he will not be involved in damages later the country that a thorough investigation because of something that he said, par• of all trade union practices should be con­ ticularly if it is a matter of distinguishing ducted by a detached Royal Commission between a threat to strike and a strike representative of all sides. itself. Furthermore, I accept that in a small I do not see why the Minister cannot Bill of this nature it is impossible to deal accept the new Clause or Amendmenl with all the anomalies that arise in the No. 6, which, J think he agrees, is much trade union movement and that they can­ narrower than Amendments Nos. 1 and not be dealt with piecemeal. Neverthe­ 10. Amendment No. 6 says: less, as I said on Second Reading, " Provided that an act as aforesaid is not although we accept that principle, we done with the sole intention of forcing another person to become, to remain or to cease to need to be reassured that the Bill or be a member of a trade union." what it contains not only will not be used, but cannot be used, as an instru­ As I said, the Minister, in some very ment to prevent people from having helpful correspondence in connection legitimate recourse to the courts for relief with Amendment No. 10, pointed out when they are either forced to join a that my suggested Amendment did not union, forced to remain a member of a deal with a man who might be forced union, or-and I accept what the Minister to cease to be a member of a trade union. suggested in a private letter to me, as Amendment No. 6 deals with that there was obviously an omission in my point, and I have limited it by including proposed Amendment- forced unreason­ the phrase, " . . . the sole intention of forcing another ably to leave a union. person to become, to remain or to cease to Judging by what the Minister said be a member of a trade union." during the Second Reading debate, I The least token whioh the Minister can think that he accepts all these things. give of his sincerity is to accept that Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): Amendment, which is the narrowest pos­ Would the hon. and learned Gentleman sible one. He can go very much further, agree that members of the legal profes­ by accepting the new Oause, but I have sion should be allowed to leave the legal drafted Amendment No. 6 in this way organisations and carry on their jobs so that he can accept it. If he does, it without any hindrance? will be interpreted widely on both sides of the House as a real gesture of the Hon. Members: Answer. sincerity of the Minister and of the Government. 4.0 p.m. Mr. Hooson : The trouble with some Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they call The crux of the matter is what the hon. for an answer, and then do not sit in and learned Gentleman would do if mem­ silence to wait for it. As the right hon. bers of an industry refused to work with and learned Attorney-General will be someone. Would he compel unionists to able to confirm, a member of the Bar is work with a non-unionist? I have allowed oo practise even :tJhough ihe is some experience of this. If 50 people not a member of the Bar Association as in a department refused to work with suoh, or ia member of a circuirt. He i:s one man, on the ground that that man 1221 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1222 was not carrying out his rightful duties, when in operation, would not cover a he was not a member of the organisa­ case such as Rookes v. Barnard, and tion which had fought and worked for Lord Citrine, in what is now regarded as· him, would the hon. and learned Gentle­ a standard work, expressed the same man compel those 50 people to work? opinion. It is erroneous to suggest that all that the Bill does is to take us back Mr. Hooson : The hon. Gentleman is to 1906. putting forward the classic argument in If that is what the Bill seeks to do, favour of the closed shop. He has talked is it right that we should go back 49 about the " rightful duty " of a man. He years? Is this another sign of the dyna­ regards it as the duty of a man to be mic, forward-looking views held by the a member of a trade union. I do not Government? Surely we must not look accept that it is the duty of any man to back 49 years? Surely we must consider be a member of a trade union. He can present conditions? please himself whether be is or not. Mr. Ernest Armstrong (Durham, What I am suggesting is that because of the Minister's condemnation of the North-West): In fact, :iit is 59 years. closed shop during the Second Reading Mr. Mawby : I am grateful to the hon. debate, which was a stronger and more Gentleman. That shows how difficult forceful quotation than any other that some of us find it to do mental arith­ we have beard or read about during the metic- [/ nterrupti on.] course of the Committee stage of the Bill, he should accept Amendment No. Mr. Speaker: Order. Interrupting 6 at least. This is the narrowest possible from a seated posture is disorderly. At Amendment, iand if it were accepted both that moment five hon. Members were sides of the House would be reassured of perpetrating the crime. We must do the Government's sincerity. It will be a better than that. If hon. Members can­ long time before trade union legislation not contain themselves, they will have to ~ results from the inquiry to be conducted go away. by the Royal Commission. Much as I Mr. Mawby: I was saying that the 1 sympathise with the Minister, I must correction made by the hon. Gentleman tell him that if he refuses to accept shows that some of us find it difficult to Amendment No. 6 my hon. Friends and do mental arithmetic while on our feet. I intend to vote against the Third Read­ Whether it is 49 years, or 59 years, surely ! ing of the Bill. I beg to move, Amend­ we ought to be looking at the problem ment No. 6. as it exists now, rather than as it did Mr. Speaker : The suggestion was that in 1906. l this Amendment should be discussed with When one looks back, one can per­ the new Clause, and, of course, if required haps see some justification for giving this ~ I shall call the hon. and learned Member right of exemption from the law as it I to move it in due course. applied to an ordinary citizen. This is what the Bill seeks to do. It seeks to ! Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes): During the extend the exemptions from the normal Second Reading debate the hon. and application of the law. If a person does learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. something which is likely to damage Hooson) made his position quite clear another citizen, that person has the right with regard to the Bill, and I a m glad to a civil remedy in the courts. The Bill that he has maintained it today. We seeks to widen the exemptions enjoyed must make certain that the words which by certain people so that they can, with we have suggested in the new Clause are impunity, commit acts which, if they inserted in the Bill. committed them as individuals, would It has been said- and this is the main make them liable to actions in the civil excuse for it- thart: the Bill itakes us courts by the person damaged. This is back to what the law was from 1906 all that we are dealing with in the Bill. onwards. I do not believe that that is It is, therefore, surely right that we true, because when the original Act was should ask ourselves whether it is just passed the Lord Chancellor of the day t hat a person- and the Bill does not expressed it as his opinion that the Act, define a person as a trade union official 1223 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1224 [MR. MAWBY.] Members opposite. If, in a factory, 100 !Or officer---can issue a threa,t to an per cent. trade unionism has been 1employer, saying, "If you do not sack obtained by some organisation, and one 1this man all the members of my union rotten apple tries to destroy it, what will 'Will immediately withdraw their labour"? the hon. member do? ifhis is obviously a great threat to the employer. He then has to consider Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member says \Whether he should face the prospect of a that we have not begun to understand the strike or sack the offending person. problem. I musit repeait- although 1it is becoming itedious~thait I know something Up to this point nothing has hap­ abouit ,t!hetrade union movemeDJt and have ,pened that is really wrong. A group of held various offices in trade unions. I am ;men have decided that they do not like not completely ignoraDJt of the circum­ the colour of a person's eyes, or have stances thait exisit in ttie normal workshop. said, "He has not joined our association'' I am not a lawyer, bUJt as I understand it - in other words, " We do not consider the circumstances that he puts forward that he is fulfilling his obligations as we would escape under the present law. The think he should, and we refuse to work Rookes v. Barnard case was a different with him." There is nothing to prevent one from rthait which the hon. Member has any group of persons from taking that jusit ci,ted. The orther imponta!lllt point is line. But if one of their number then thait the people have rto strike in breach goes to the employer and says, " We of coDJtracit. refuse to work with ithis man. You must give him a job where he works on his Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, SoUJth) : own," or, "Un less you sack this man The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. we shall not only refuse to work with Mawby) must know tlhait in ithe Rookes v. him, but we shall withdraw our labour," Barnard case iit was it:he union which was the Bill, if passed without any of these trying to act consitiituitionally and Rookes Amendments, will put the man who is who was rtrying not rto. sacked as a result of that threat in the position of having lost his job and being Mr. Mawby: I am not giving any sup­ without any civil remedy-with no way port to Rookes as a person. I am trying of placing the matter before an indepen­ to make centain thait

1233 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1234 they had this power. Everybody else felt was no hasty, irresponsible, tearing-up of that they had the power. It is the inten­ trade union agreements, invoking strikes tion of the Bill to restore the trade unions or forcing the reluctant employer to agree to the position which most people under­ to a particular provision. It was part of stood existed before Rookes v. Barnard. the negotiations undertaken over a long But did we see this gross abuse of power time and one which many trade unions, in spreading throughout the length and their own diverse ways, seek to achieve breadth of the land? Did we see 9 mil­ in their respective places of employment. lion organised trade unionists sheltering 4.45 p.m. behind the law as it was then understood, and seeking to bring in the other millions We have heard from hon. Gentlemen of unorganised people? opposite that they have trade union experience. Like many other hon. Mem­ Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member must bers on this side of the House, I have surely have heard the comment which I had a lifetime's experience of the trade made on this point. One may put the law unions. In my union, we never went for back to what an obscure part of it was the closed shop ; we went for I 00 per thought to be before, but one can never cent. trade union membership. When put trade union practice back. This has hon. Gentlemen opposite produce these been highlighted by the Rookes v. Bar­ gross distortions of the facts as they are nard case in the law courts, the discus­ today, we must recognise that nearly a sions in the House and by this new legis­ third of the organised workpeople of this lation to make legal what I see as a weak­ country are employed by employers who ness in the old law. One cannot put that have undertaken to honour 100 per cent. advertisement away. One cannot tell the membership. No one has said, in the trade unionists to forget it ; they know it House of Commons or elsewhere, that and they know that they can do this if when large and important industrial they so wish. This would make it pos­ organisations come to agreements with sible for future Barnards to do the same trade unions that only members of thing again. I hope that the hon. Member unions shall be employed, this is a is not suggesting that Mr. Barnard's activi­ complete negation of the United Nations ties are those with which he would agree, Declaration of Human Rights. I have or which he would approve of or en­ never heard that before. courage. When I hear the hon. Member for Mr. Horner : It is most unwise to Basingstoke say that if this Mother of prophesy anywhere and especially so in Parliaments agrees to the Bill all sorts this place, but I make a prophecy. I say of dire consequences may follow through­ that when the Bill has passed through out the world in other Parliaments which its concluding stages, the practice of the look to our example, I would remind him trade unions will be the same as before. that even in the Commonwealth-in New The practice of the trade unions is to Zealand-membership of trade unions is establish solid, well-founded organisation obligatory under the law. No one sug­ in every workplace. This was the prac­ gests that in New Zealand the right of tice of the trade union whose activity has the individual is somehow destroyed or given rise to so much discussion in this that this is tyranny. place and elsewhere. Indeed, the practice When we first considered the facts of of the Draughtsmen's and Allied Tech­ Rookes v. Barnard in the House, we had · nicians' Association was so highly a very complicated and involved debate. successful that in this particular place of As a new Member at that time, I found employment there was a contract between it difficult to follow. Some of the con­ the employer and the draughtsmen, that tributions from the other side this after­ the place should be regarded as one in noon have made the confusion even worse which the employer employed only confounded. members of the association. The Bill is overdue. Those of us who It took the association many years to read reports of proceedings in the courts reach a position in which, by agreement yesterday will be very concerned at the between the union and the employer, this position of some shop stewards who have should be written into the conditions of been caught up-even while the Bill is employment at the place of work. There still going through the House- in the 1235 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1236 [MR. HORNER.] small new Clause. However, neither wide ramifications of the outcome of the size of the Bill nor the Clause make Rookes v. Barnard. This small Bill, either unimportant. which is overdue, is intended to restore The gulf between the two sides may to the trade unions dispensations-they not be as wide as some hon. Gentlemen were not privileges or rights-which the opposite imagine, or as some of my law, as it was understood, allowed trade hon. Friends have implied. But I sub­ unions and trade unionists to enjoy under mit to all hon. Members that there is certain conditions. It restores those a narrow margin in which there is a condi,tions. It does nothing more. possibility of a serious injustice, even When the hon. Member for Totnes if it is only to a very few people. l advises us that one can withdraw labour, was not at all surorised to hear the but must not go on strike or that one hon. and learned Member for Mont­ can go to the employer and say that one gomery (Mr. Hooson) support this view will pack up work, but that one must not on behalf of his party, because, using threaten him- and it was suggested at one the word " liberal " with a small " 1 ", stage that one should pop into the I should have thought that the Clause employer's office and leave a postcard but was full of the best of that liberalism not have any discussion on the issue to which both of the major parties have because discussion might be dangerous­ in the past owed a great deal and from one is creaiting a ridiculous situation. which both sides of the House have Tmde unionists were placed in such a derived a considerable amount. situation following the Rookes v. Barnard case. The Bill tries to put the matter right. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) explained the Into our discussion have come some purposes of the Clause with commend­ considerations, to which we have been able clarity and the hon. and learnea obliged to listen, from hon. Gentlemen Member for Montgomery explained the opposite suggesting that there are some object of the Amendment standing in sinister motives behind the Bill. One his name with similar clarity. If the hon. Gentleman opposite went so far as Minister has doubts about accepting my to suggest that there had been a sort of hon. Friend's Amendment, he shoula bargain done with the trade unions. To find it very easy to accept the one in introduce such a monstrous caricature of the name of the hon. and learned Mem­ the trade union movement does nothing ber for Montgomery, limited, as it is, to but a disservice to our discussion and I refute such statements. " . . . an act . . . not done with the sole intention of forcing another person to become, Rookes v. Barnard was not a dispute to remain, or to cease to be a member of a about the closed shop, but a case which trade union." arose following the action of a trade I imagine that the hon. and learned union which thought at the time that it Member would not insist on that wording was acting legally as a trade union in and would be prepared to include a enforcing the adherence of a contract with trade association. The principle is its employer. It is because there were stated in very simple terms. certain deficiencies in the law as then interpreted that the Bill is being intro­ I frankly admit to the hon. Gentle­ duced. I hope that the House will not man opposite that a difficult situation agree to a new Clause which seeks to might arise for a large number of em­ introduce matters which are entireJy ployees-members of a trade union-if foreign to the main purpose of the Bill they had in their works or shop one and which, as presented and supported by person who refused to undertake the hon. Gentlemen opposite, maligns the ordinary duties of membership of a trade union movement trade union. My hon. Friends and I acknowledge that the situation could Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry): The on many occasions be difficult in the hon. Member for Oldbury ana extreme, requiring very careful negotia­ Halesowen (Mr. Horner) said on a num­ tion. But can it be said that the incon­ ber of occasions that this is a small Bill. venience which can be experienced by It may be small in size, but I can equally the majority can be compared with the well respond by saying that this is a terrible results which may befall the 1237 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1238 poor individual if he is not only drummed the firsit to fight passionately for the out of his place of employment but if, rights of minorities of this kind and to as in a minority of cases, he is deprived ensure that, by a modest adjustment of of the opportunity of working in his this importlhllt Bill, we can somehow, not own trade? neoessarily in the terms of the Amend­ I do not believe that hon. Gentlemen ment, provide some protection for persons opposite have really considered the pos­ of that kind and others who, for some sibility of a new kind of tyranny. Many reason, have fallen out with the majority people are willing to acknowledge that in of their fellow workers. the past the tyranny was in the opposite 5.0 p.m. direction. Far too often there has been a minority of unworthy employers who I am just as much in favour of 100 have had a bad record in relation to the per cent. trade union membership in any recogni.tion of the proper fooctions of industry as the hon. Member opposite, trade unionisrts. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, but I believe that 100 per cent. member­ bear."] Hon Gentlemen opposite need ship should be attained by the efficacy not make the case for me. There has of that trade union in fighting for the been evidence, however, to show that the causes of its members. Once that figure great rights which have been rightly won has been attained, I do not think that a by the trade unions in the last century union should say, "Having got this figure, and in the early part of this are now, in we shall now retain it by compulsion." the minority of cases, being perverted to Rather should it say, "We will retain the savage detriment of a minority of 100 per cent. membership by the efficacy people. of our organisation and the functions we perform for our members." My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned certain groups of religious Mr. Palmer: I take what the hon. bodies- and hon. Gentlemen opposite Member says on that aspect. It is far must be familiar with them-which, for better that trade unions should try to reasons . of their own peculiar faiths, feel bring people in by their propaganda and that they cannot undertake the duties their good work-one volunteer is worth which we regard as quite normal. Is it 10 pressed men-but, believing in a free right or proper in a free democracy that society as I do, would the hon. Gentleman there should be any sanction at all in any compel trade unionists to work with non­ law which would permit those men being trade unionists? drummed owt of an industry solely be­ cause the other trade unionists can tell Mr. Gower: Not at all. If they the employer, "We will not work be­ wished to give up their employment they cause there are one or two people here should be free to do so and seek employ­ who will not undertake the duties of ment elsewhere, or remain, if they so pre­ trade unionship because their religious ferred ; but they should not be able to say faith does not permiit them to do so "? to an employer. "U nless you throw this poor fellow out of this shop, we will with­ Mr. J. Idwal Jones (Wrexham) : Would hold our labour." the hon. Gentleman care to say which religious bodies forbid their members to Mr. Wilkins: According to the hon. become trade unionists? Gentleman's argument, the individual concerned in this case was a paragon of Mr. Gower : There are one or two. There is, for example, a body which is virtue and all his colleagues were the wicked uncles, but that is not so. I should known popularly as tihe Plymouth Brethren, and which has a large member­ like to read a statement on how this ship in most industrial cities. I am no arose. Referring to members of advocate for those particular groups, but D.A.T.A., it says: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrex­ " Our members were transferred from a number of out-buildings to accommoda­ ham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones), who comes tion"-- from Wales, which has often been the ground where we have had to fight for Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley­ minorities, as well as the Minister and Davenport (Knutsford) : On a point of the Attorney-General, who also come order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in from the same country, will be some of order-- 1239 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report I 240 Mr. Wilkins: The hon. and gallant The hon. Member for Oldsbury and Member has just come in. Halesowen (Mr. Homer), who has had a long and distinguished career in the Sir W. Bromley-Davenport : I do not trade union movement, asked, " Has this care if I have just come in-- happened?" The answer is, "Yes, it has Mr. Deputy-Speaker : Order. I hope happened." It has happened in an that the hon. and gallant Member who appalling way in a few cases. It has hap­ is addressing me on a point of order will pened in a terrible way, which has made not be so discourteous to himself as to me, and I am sure, the hon. Member interrupt his own point of order. On the ashamed. Individuals who have done point of order addressed to me by the hon. nothing frightfully wrong have been and gallant Gentleman, I would say that drummed out not only from their indi­ the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. vidual workshops, but out of a whole Wilkins) is intervening by courtesy of skilled industry. If these cases are so the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), few, is that any reason for our not con­ and when he is out of order I will tell templating giving those individuals some him so. protection? Is the very fact that these cases are rare any reason for our omit­ Mr. Wilkins : And I am obliged to the ting them from our legislation? hon. Member for his courtesy in giving way. There are many cases, and this is The right hon. Gentleman the Minister one, in which the individual is obviously and the right hon. and learned Gentle­ in the wrong, and the hon. Member for man the Attorney-General have know­ Barry (Mr. Gower) and his hon. Friends ledge not only of the trade union move­ are trying to defend a position which is ment, but of these minority cases which indefensible. they have met in the Principality, and at which the hon. and learned Member Mr. Gower : The hon. Member mis­ for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) hinted understands me completely. I am not but did not describe in detail. For those now discussing ariy particular case. That reasons, I hope that they will consider does not arise in what I say. I am dis­ our proposals with great sympathy, and cussing the Bill and this new Clause, and try to include, if not the exact wording the possibilities that arise if this proposal of the Clause as set out on the Notice is left out or is included. If the Clause Paper, something that will give the pro­ is included, the worst that can happen tection which we desire. is that, in a very small minority of cases, a body of men will feel in a particular Mr. Winterbottom: I have heard of job that they cannot endure the behaviour synthetic indignation but I have never of an individual and will say to the em­ until today heard it carried to such ployer, "We resent this." They will extremes, and I should now like to call then be entitled to do as they will, but attention to the realities of the new the only thing they should not be entitled Clause and all its implications. I have to do is to say to the employer, "Unless been a full-time trade union officer for you drum this one man out, we will many years and I know that one of the withhold all our labour." greatest pro blems in organising trade unionists has always been that of 100 Mr. Palmer : In practice, it is the same per cent. trade union membership. When thing. faced with the problem of the one black Mr. Gower : This would not be an in­ sheep in the fold, I have had to advance tolerable position for these men. We the argument to an employer that if such are only talking of a small number of a person has the right to refuse to join individuals- sometimes misguided indi­ a trade union the rest of the men who viduals ; perhaps only a few individuals are trade unionists have an equal free­ in the country, and I believe that the dom to refuse to work with him. House should legislate as much for a There is always this difficulty about small number of individuals of that kind where freedom starts and finishes, and as for one of the vast and powerful majori­ where one draws the line of demarcation. ties. If this is not provided for in the I know that freedom is not licence to do Bill there could be this marginal hard­ exactly as we wish, and I know that ship. liberty is not liberty that is unrestrained. 1241 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1242 I know, too, that the freedom of the Mr. Horner: Would not my hon. Friend majority is something that is seemingly not agree that in the trade union move­ sometimes forgotten by the minority for ment branches have come up against whom the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. the difficulty of a Plymouth Brother Gower) so eloquently pleads. and have got over the difficulty through a mutual agreement that the Plymouth An hon. Gentleman opposite accepted Brother should make a contribution each the right of men to withdraw their week to an agreed charity, a contribu­ labour, and not to work with a non­ tion equal to that of the trade union unionist. Then the hon. Member said, fee ? " But, you know, there comes a point where, in effect, there is a threat made Mr. Winterbottom: I was not dealing to the employer." This new Clause with the position of Plymouth Brethren goes beyond anything in the nature of a in a trade union, but vis-a-vis hon. Mem­ threat to an employer. It is challenging bers opposite. It is true that in almost the right even to withdraw labour. [HON. every trade union in the country, when MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it is ; faced with this rather difficult position read it again. The Clause says: about the conscience of a person who " No such act . . . shall, for the purposes belongs to a religious sect such as the of this Act, be treated as done in contempla­ Plymouth Brethren- there are one or two tion or furtherance of a trade dispute if done other rather peculiarly-named sects-a n for the purpose of compelling another person to join," arrangement is made whereby the person concerned makes a donation in terms of It is usual, before this issue comes to compensation and that meets the situa­ the withdrawing of labour, to have tion. The Government should resist the approached that person previously and new Clause. to have used all the persuasive powers of a trade union official or branch secre­ 5.15 p.m. tary to persuade him to see the error Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton): Is of his ways and to accept collective the hon. Member seriously telling the responsibility for the trade union agree­ House that the consciences of the vast ment upon which his wages are majority of men working in a factory formulated. are salved by one man making a con­ tribution to a charitable institution equal This new Clause, interpreted in the to the union subscription? way I have suggested, would prevent any withdrawal of labour in terms of free­ Mr. Winterbottom : Not at all. It is dom of a body of men because one in done by an agreement and is quite a the firm at which they work refused to oornmon thing in the movement. It join the trade union. We have had \fulfils the need and meets the special specious arguments from hon. Members circumstances of religious conscience in -opposite. They have been cloaked in such a way as to warrant the trade union suggestions that this is only a minor saying that it has 100 per cent. member­ Clause and something which protects a ship. small minority. What about those who One of -the main issues that ,the country have a religious conscience in this has to face in coming months and years matter? When it is asked, who are is the need for co-operation by employers these people, the only organisation we and trade unions for the productive capa­ hear about is the Plymouth Brethren. city of the country in order to solve its economic problems. Those problems will Those who talk about the Plymouth not be solved unless on trade union Brethren will not allow them to enter issues such as this there is the utmost the solemn archives of the Civil Service, consultation and the utmost understanding where some documents are concerned, between those who represent employers because of those men's religious beliefa. and those who represent em ployees. It Before approving of a new Clause such is not a question of using threats. In as this, we have to face the fact that an my experience of the trade union move­ employer has given the right to work to ment, sometimes arguing when one black a person who is not prepared to accept sheep would not come into the fold, I a ll the obligations which those who work have not found it necessary to threaten there do accept. an employer. I have never known an 1243 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1244 [MR. WINTERBOTTOM.] points he made. The argument we beard occasion when threats have been used time and again in Standing Committee to an employer. Usually, it has been a was that for the trade unions to be free case of trying to find how to persuade in the work they are doing they must be the man to come within the framework entirely above or outwith the law, and of the trade union movement. that the law must not in any way protect If, included in the Bill, this new Clause individuals against the activities of trade would give liberty, oh, yes, but licence unions. It must be appreciated that the as well. It would give licence to many new Clause is designed not to take away people who, perhaps, do not think that the powers of trade unions in any way, a trade union organiser has done all but to try to hold on to a few of the that is necessary in terms of satisfaction, powers of individuals which remain. The sometimes not realising all the difficul­ Bill deprives individuals of certain rights. ties of negotia,tion through which the By the new Clause we seek to limit the trade union organiser has had to go. They amount which is taken away. may then feel that they could withdraw The proceedings in Standing Committee from the trade union because they have were notable for the fact that few hon. not had satisfaction. The new Clause is Members on the Government side partici­ a wrecking Clause. It was designed in pated. The same tendency was noted the Central Office of the Conservative earlier today. It was only when my right Party. hon. Friend the Member for Grantham Mr. Gower: Nonsense. (Mr. Godber) intervened on this subject that hon. Members opposite chose to Mr. Winterbottom: Oh, yes, and it was speak. This only confirms what I have designed specifically, and slowly but believed from the start, namely, that hon. surely, to undermine the real under­ Members opposite are ashamed of the standing which is rapidly growing be­ Bill because they know it to be wrong. tween employers and employees in trade I cannot understand why they are not union organisaitions on industrial pro­ prepared to accept reasonable Amend­ duction, which is essential to the well­ ments. being of the country. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Gentle­ Halesowen (Mr. Horner) made three man agree that the Amendmeillt spoken points on the arguments advanced by my to by the hon. and learned Member for hon. Friends. I shall deal with them in Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was certainly some detail. The hon. Gentleman said not prepared in the Conservative Central that there was no question of this matter Office? arising in his union because it operated 100 per cent. trade union membership Mr. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentle­ and not the closed shop. The hon. man should have been a fisherman. The Gentleman accused us of confusion, but red herrings that he can draw across the it was difficult for us to appreciate the trail are remarkable. I am not talking full significance of this point since the about anything to which the hon. and right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Bellenger) had, prior to that, said that in Hooson) has put his name. I am talking his opinion there was no difference at all abourt the new Clause. This is what I between 100 per cent. union membership condemn. I want the House to recog­ and the closed shop. More significantly, nise all the dangers which would be in­ the hon. Gentleman said that all that the volved in accepting it. Bill was doing, which was what the Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Amendment was trying to prevent, was Cathcart): I want, first, to comfort the restoring the law to the position in which hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright.side it was before Rookes v. Barnard. (Mr. Winterbottom). I assure him that A study of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the new Clause was not prepared at the our proceedings in Standing Committee Conservative Central Office. It was shows that there was no question of this thought up over four cups of black coffee being simply a restoration of the legal only 100 yards from this spot. I disagree posiition to what it was before Rookes v. with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Barnard. A new immunity has been I disagree with the more fundamental created for people engaged in trade 1245 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1246 unions ; not just for unions, but for he was making. I was pointing out that, groups within unions. I do not ask whereas the hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Gentleman to accept my word we were creatring confusion, I was a for this. I ask him to read Lord Reid's little confused by the point he had made speech on the matter, in which it was in contradiction of his right hon. Friend. made qu_ite ~lear that_ this was a new The new Clause is concerned with the case ansmg m new circum.~ta_nces, and use of intimidation to impose the closed to read the bo?k by_ Lord Citrme. , ~ot_h shop. I am justified in saying that hon. sources_ make. it qmte clear that tnis is Members opposite were ashamed of it a new 1mmumty. and do not like the Bill, in view of the The hon. Gentleman's third point words of the Minister who presented the was that this was simply restoring the Bill to Standing Committee. The Minister privileges of trade unions. Let us be said this on this very Amendment: clear what the Bill deals with and what " My conscience is very clear. I am against the new Clause is concerned about. It the closed shop."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, Stan.ding is not concerned with the rights of trade Committee A ; 30th March, 1965, c. 185.] unions. It is concerned with the rights What could be clearer than that? Des­ of groups of people. It is concerned with pite that, the Bill will make it legal for the one question of intimidation. Is it unions or groups of people within unions, right, or is it wrong, that intimidation or even groups of people without unions should be used for certain purposes? The engaged in an industrial dispute, to use new Clause is designed to prevent intimi­ intimidation to try to influence someone dation being used to impose the policy to join a trade union. The question of of the closed shop. an individual being hurt must not be over­ looked. It is unbelievable that a Minister Mr. Homer : I am sure that I should can, on the one hand, be opposed to the be prevented by the Chair from going closed shop and yet, on the other hand, over the full argument on these three introduce a Bill making it legal for people points, but the hon. Gentleman must to use intimidation for that very purpose. appreciate that those of us on this side with experience in the trade union move­ Mr. Gunter : Is the hon. Gentleman ment understand the substantial distinc­ suggeslling that the Bill makes the closed tion between operating a closed shop and shop legal? the achievement of 100 per cent. trade union membership. The closed shop Mr. Taylor: I was simply suggesting, means that a person cannot enter into a as I think that the Minister will accept, trade or profession unless he is in a that the Bill makes it legal for individuals, union. One hundred per cent. union for groups, or for a union to use intimida­ membership is a contract of agreement tion to force others to join a trade between employer and trade union that union. That is clear. This is the argu­ in a particular factory, on the basis of ment which was adduced in Committee. established organisation, membership of The Bill makes it legal for people to do a trade union is a condition of employ­ that. [HON. MEMBERS: " No. "] It does ment. Three points arose. On the other it by removing the rights of the people so two po,ints-- affected to sue for damages or to sue for some restoration of their own rights. Mr. Deputy-Speaker : Order. I think this is stretching an intervention too far. Mr. Gunter: There is a general impres­ sion that the Bill legalises the closed shop. Mr. Taylor : I am sorry if I allowed It does nothing of the sort. It does not the hon. Gentleman to believe that I was attempt it. That will be the burden of not aware of the full difference between my answer later. 100 per cent. trade union membership and the closed shop. I tried to g,ive the Mr. Taylor : I never used those words, impression that I was aware of it. I because it is legal to have it at the appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has present time. What I said was that the long experience of dealing with trade Bill legalises the use of intimidation to unions. I spent five years in the Clyde secure that end. There have been closed shipyards before I came to the House, so shops for many years. _ There will be I am not entirely unaware of the point closed shops for many years to come. 1247 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1248 [MR. TAYLOR.] Hon. Members opposite have constantly What the Bill now does is to make it legal spoken in praise of the United Nations to use intimidation for that very purpose. and have accused us of not carrying ou,t We should consider a question which some of that organisation's resolutions, has not been considered at length so far. buJt:here they are supporting a Bill which Why do people not wish to join a trade is contrary to the Declaraition of Human union? Why is it necessary to use intimi­ Rights. It is strange tha,t individuals who dation? From my own experience, there have spoken a great deal against any tend to be five groups of people. There kind of racial intolerance should speak of are, first, those with deep-rooted, con­ a situation where 50 men find it repugnant scientious or religious objections to join­ to work with a man who is not a member ing a trade union. Do we think it is right of a trade union. This seems to me to allow a union or groups of people the objectionable and unreasonable. power to use intimidation to force people Here is a Bill which is not put for­ to join a union against their deep-rooted, ward with enthusiasm by t,he Government. conscientious or religious objections? I It is being put forward as an entirely do not think anyone could seriously object ionable and evil package-deal in accept that, but that is what will be per­ whioh the giving is all on one side a111d mitted if the Bill is not amended. v.:e have no guarantee that there will be any giving on the other. It might be 5.30 p.m. supported as a good bargain in that we The second group, and this is becoming are to have a Royal Commission and more and more worrying, consists of the we must have something out of it, but increasingly frequent cases of individuals how can we believe that the Government who disagree with their unions. They will have the enthusiasm and courage to are expelled and find that their group implement any recommendation by the within the shop goes on strike to force Royal Commission when they have not a man out of the union and then says to the courage to resist pressure to bring in the employer, "This man is no longer a a Bill of this nature which does nothing union member and mus>t be sacked." else but legalise intimidaition? They refuse him the right to rejoin after he has been expelled. This is not a The Bill provides a new immunity when hypothetical case. Such cases are often that is not called for. There has been a mentioned. I have one in my constitu­ change of balance iri industry and those ency to which I referred in detail in in industry who need special protection Committee, as hon. Members will see if and who are afforded little if any are they are interested. There are more and those individuals who disagree with the more cases of people being deprived of majority, in some cases for good reasons. the right to work because of the use of The Bill unamended will make it legal intimidation of this sort. for groups, perhaps irresponsibly led, to break contracts and to pursue a vendetta The right to work is something which against individuals and impose discipline the Labour Party has talked about a great to a degree which is repugnant in a deal in the past. J,t was regarded as a modern democratic society. This will be sacred right, but if on the one hand we done under the guise that the Bill is de­ insist on a closed shop and on the other signed to proteot individuals, and this hand we deprive an individual of the will be entirely wrong. right to join a union, how can we talk about the right to work? There are those Two general arguments were put for­ who disagree with their unions and leave. ward in Committee against amendment Here a little persuasion, understanding of the Bill. The first was that it was and tolerance could deal with the situa­ all very well to put forward a proposal tion without using intimidation. There such as thart: embodied in this new Clause, but what about cases of individuals who are also the lazy people and those who are prevented from joining a union be­ are not prepared to accept their respon­ cause the employers will not acoept union sibilities, but let us remember that there members? It should be the basic right are those as well who have a deep-rooted of every individual to join a union if he objection to joining a union. Let us so desires, but this applies not only to preserve some proteotion in the law for employers who do not accept union mem­ them. bers but also to irresponsible unions 1249 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1250 which expel peopl,e for reasons which are basic principle with which we are con­ not justified. If we are to make it legal cerned in the Bill. In the situation with to have a closed shop imposed in this which we are concerned here the position way by intimidation, we must give every affecting my own trade union, the person a right to be a member of a union. Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' The second argument put forward was Association, which was concerned in the thait it was essential to have this Bill to Rookes v. Barnard case and the three remove the confusion in the law. It was men, Rookes, Barnard and Fistal, there suggested that we should be simply re­ has been an agreement for over 16 years storing the law to what it was before between B.O.A.C. and the union that they the Rookes v. Barnard case, bl.lit: this is would arrange their industrial relation­ not so. I have explained bow I thought ships through the national joint nego­ that the law was quite clear before that, tiating machinery. but even if we accept that we should try The union had a very good record of to change the law to cover the situation service and gradually through the efforts of the Rookes v. Barnard case, it should of members, including Mr. Rookes, a 100 be clear beyond a shadow of doubt that per cent. membership was achieved. In the Bill goes further than Rookes v. that situation the people concerned went Barnard and covers much wider activities to the management and their 100 per cent. than those referred to in that case. membership was agreed. The general I conclude with what I regard as a secretary, Mr. George Doughty, said that good quotation. It reads : when 100 per cent. membership was "The age of automation could be an age secured by individual voluntary action when the individual is trampled on and power B.O.A.C. is dangerously concentrated. Change must be this was notified to through the humanised to protect the weak." established procedure and the Corpora­ This is what we are asking for now. This tion agreed that it would take no action good and significant quotation for today which would prejudice that position. If comes from the 1964 Liberal Party mani­ Mr. Rookes had remained inside the festo. It is good that we should have a office, the agreement between the mem­ Popular Front on this occasion. Let us bership, who included Mr. Rookes him­ hope that on that basis we can persuade self at one time, and the company would the Government to accept the new Clause. have been invalidated. Hon. Members opposite are, therefore, suggesting that the Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark): As many agreement between the union and the firm of my hon. Friends have said this after­ should have been broken by Mr. Rookes noon, one would think that there was being allowed to stay. something sinister in the Bill, whereas it only sets out to restore the position to Of course, if Rookes had been a man what we thought it was before the Rookes with conscientious religious objections to v. Barnard case. Contrary to the allega­ trade unions, if he would never touch tion made by the hon. Member for Glas­ them with a barge pole and objected to gow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), having to join a union, one might have there is nothing here which would give been more sympathetic to him and the greater privileges to the trade union move­ cause which hon. Members opposite are ment. We only hope to restore to it the promoting. But, in fact, Rookes was one rights which it thought it had prior to of the most enthusiastic union members. that case. One would think from the As new people came into the office on speeches of hon. Members opposite that joining the firm, he made it clear that all the Bill said specifically that all workers the people there were members of the bad to belong to trade unions and there­ trade union, that they were quite satisfied by perpetuate a closed shop. In fact the with the union's way of representing their Bill says nothing of the sort, and it is interests, and that they expected new­ quite consistent with the Trade Disputes comers to join. Act, 1906, which was also non-specific This continued until a situation de­ on that point. veloped in which Mr. Rookes fell out The situation in the Rookes v. Barnard with his colleagues. He wanted to take case was not one where the closed shop unconstitutional action, unlike his col­ was the basic principle. That case dealt leagues who wanted to keep to the estab­ with the right to strike and that is the lished procedure, and he fell foul of his 1251 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1252 [MR. BISHOP.] quite a large amount of freedom for friends. The difficulties developed until those who want ito go elsewhere. In the he decided to resign membership towards distributive trades 90 per cent. of workers the end of 1955. are not in closed shops, so that people have the right to go elsewhere if they The position has been made clear on object to trade union membership. several occasions. U one wants to have an impartial comment on the situation, 5.45 p.m. one need only turn to what Sir Miles When hon. Members opposite talk Thomas, the then chairman of B.O.A.C. about the right and freedom of individuals had to say about it. He said that to go to any firm they wish, they should "Rooke s was in good standing as a member understand that there are other factors of the appropriate trade union concerned with which stop people going to certain firms the British Overseas A1rways Corporation drawing office in which he worked. That and industries. For instance, many office was 100 per cent. union organised. Mr. people do not go into certain firms to Rookes then protested over some union work not because of closed shops, but matter." because of pom working conditions. Sir Miles Thomas, who has not got a Hon. Members opposite have not tabled Labour Party membership card, went on Amendments demanding that all em­ to say: ployers shall have good working condi­ " He failed to get the union to dance to his tions and pay adequate wages in order tune and then took the initiative by resigning to attract people to go to work for his membership. This caused tensions and he them. If they did, we should under­ was formally suspended on 13th January, 1956, to enable talks between B.O.A.C. management stand tba,t they were tabled with greater and the union to take place in a calm atmo­ sincerity than some of the Amendments sphere. He stayed adamant in his attitude, which have been put before us. and was subsequently dismissed." Hon. Members opposite should under­ Then Sir Miles says: stand that those who belong to trade "If Mr. Rookes thinks that in a democratic unions and who believe that people should industrial system a whole organisation serving the public can be brought to its knees at the be organised in our industrial society have initiative of one dissatisfied lone wolf, he is the right to expect that, if they pay their entitled to his opinion, but must accept any levies and if they take a democratic part consequences." in running their union, in association Thait seems to me to cast a rather with their employers, acceptance of different light on the situation, coming rights also entails responsibilities. It from Sir Miles Thomas who in this case mu.st be realised that the machine of is rather more of an impartial observer. society cicks over far more efficiently He has made the position clear. and with greater harmony if employers have an understanding with trade unions As I have said, the issue in the Rookes and each knows where the other stands. v. Barnard case was not the principle of the closed shop. The principle involved On the other hand, if people do not was the right to strike. Nowadays, more join trade unions- they have the right to and more employers, in agreement with refuse if they wish- they are not trade unions, are accepting a closed shop. organised and they are not represented. The closed shop today affects about 3¾ One can expect hon. Members opposite, million workpeople. One in six of our in such a situation, to say that they do working force, or two in five of all not mind people not being represented trade union members, are employed in because, as we all know who have firms where there is an agreed closed experience in the trade union movement shop. and in industry, agreements are made If one wishes to look to the alternative between employers and trade unions and opportunities available to those who do those who are not members of trade not want to join trade unions, one has unions are not represented in any way only to realise that 26 per cent. of the whatever. labour force in manufacturing industries This question goes beyond the trade are in closed shops, so there are roughly unions and industry. As my hon. Friends 74 per cent. of places available to those have pointed out, there are closed shops who have objections. In transport, 22 per in other callings, in the legal profession, cent. work in closed shops, so there is for instance. 1253 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1254 Mr. John Page (Harrow, West): Was have the right to be one under the the hon. Gentleman referring only to Charter of the United Nations. wage negotiations when he said that the individual was not represented if he was Sir Tatton Brinton (Kidderminster): not a member of a union? Surely, be Will the hon. Gentleman distinguish can represent himself? between professional qualifications re­ quired before one is allowed to practise Mr. Bishop: One can only reply to certain employments and professions and that intervention that those who are not the question of belonging or not belong­ organised are not really represented. It ing to a professional association? Pro­ is nonsense to suggest that a company vided that a doctor has the necessary employing thousands of work people can professional qualifications, without which have its manager sitting down all day he is not allowed by law to practise, he seeing individuals who come into his is not bound to join the British Medical office to press for better conditions, to Association or even-I think it is called make representations about better wages, -the Socialist Medical Association. and so on. The firm is bound to ne!!o­ Mr. Bishop : I appreciate that it is tiate with and recognise the larger tri'de most desirable that people should have unions. professional qualifications and maintain When I say "bound ", I realise that standards in practice. I suppose that there are many firms which have primitive there is no reason why, if one has the ideas about industrial relations, which do requisite professional experience and not even recognise trade unions. It is qualifications, one should not start other possible for individuals to be members of bodies to represent one in the same way. trade unions, having freedom to do so, But, of course, this is outlawed because and yet to find that their employers do the law lays down quite clearly in many not recognise the unions in any way. ways what bodies shall be representative There is no objection to this from the of people practising in a profession and benches opposite, of course, because their to what bodies one should belong if membership without recognition makes one wishes to practise. no impact or demand on the employer. I am one, like many of my colleagues, I was making the point that there are who would not say that the closed shop other callings in which people have to should be a dogmatic principle in all join a body in order to engage in a trade circumstances. I would certainly make or profession. The legal profession is a allowance for those who have a sincere closed shop. In 1957, Mr. Justice religious objection. Indeed, we have Harman. as he then was, said : provided for circumstances whereby those who object sincerely are able to " It is not for English lawyers to dislike or distrust the principle of the closed shop for remain in a firm outside a union by they are all members of a society which itself making a certain contribution. lives and thrives on this principle." But many of us who have served in Similar allegations can be applied to industry know all too well that many the pharmaceutical industry and to the of those who do not join a union have medical profession. A man cannot prac­ no sincere objections except that they tise as a jockey unless he is approved do not want to fork out the contributions. by the stewards of the Jockey Club. They are, in fact, riding on the backs I understand that the three stewards or of their colleagues. Yet some of the the Jockey Club would prevent any hon. keenest trade unionists are, in effect, the Member opposite from practising as a non-union members because in wage jockey even if he wished to do so. negotiations they are the first to go to There may be other grounds for stop­ the shop steward and ask what progress ping someone from being a jockey ; is being made. However, when they get outside they deplore the way in which no doubt, one's size and weight are union demands are so excessive as to relevant factors. But I can well imagine put up the cost of living. In the same hon. Members opposite getting rather hot way, they approach union officials to see under the collar and saying that there what they are doing about getting better should not be any limitations at all and, conditions and so keep them on their if a man wants to be a jockey, he should toes. r -·

1255 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1256 [MR. BISHOP.] is also limited to mat,ters ansmg from The fact remains that if people expect breach of contract. Lt is well to remem­ certain rights in our industrial society ber the limitation. Having said that, I they should be prepared to face the would add that the significance of the responsibility involved. I believe that Amendments is not only in what they the Clause is unnecessary. The Bill would do, although that would be valu­ gives all the freedom desirable. It seeks, able and I hope that the right hon. Gentle­ in effect, no greater rights or freedoms man will still accept at least one. The or privileges than those thought to be major significance would come from the in the 1906 Act. That is the position indication to the Royal Commission of we want to restore. the feelings of this House. We should resist the Amendment in This is why I believe that the right order to allow the Bill to proceed as it hon. Gentleman has made a grave is until the Royal Commission is able, mistake, al1though I repeat my hope that later, to look at the whole position again in hcr.s wisdom, he will accept at least and bring forward the fruits of a com­ one Amendment. Whatever position the prehensive review. The Amendment is House takes up in this case, ~t will be intended to restrict the unions to the giving an indication to t:he Royal Com­ position which existed before the 1906 miSSlion of the way in which the majority Act. It would put the clock back indus­ of the House feels that things should trially over 60 years. be done. On Second Reading, the Minis­ ter made a point that he repeated many Mr. Godber: If the hon. Member for times upstairs- that be was merely seek­ Newark (Mr. Bishop) will forgive me, I ing to put back the law to what it was will not follow him in what appear to thought that the 1906 Act really meant. be some criticisms of certain professions My hon. and learned Friends, who have -the legal profession in particular-and far greater experience of the law than I, of jockeys and the rest. I know that have pointed out that they do not think the Minister will wish to spring to the that this was rhe effect of Section 3 of the defence of the legal profession when he 1906 Act. replies. In doing so, he will be fortified Perhaps I may recall the origins of the by the Attorney-General. We have had Bill. The desire to have this Measure a fairly full discussion on this important originated before the last election in a series of Amendments dealing with genuine fear, which I have always thought matters which were first raised on mistaken, on the part of a number of Second Reading and subsequently dis­ union leaders that, whatever the issues cussed at some length upstairs. It is a of the Rookes v. Barnard case and what­ matter on which there are fairly strong ever i,ts individual application to the feelings on both sides of the House. union officials or others concerned, the Today we have heard my hon. Friend implications of the judgment were such the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. tha,t union officials carrying out normal Mitchell) and others putting additional day-,to-day work might be put in danger points about the freedom of the indi­ as a result of the judgment. That was the vidual, about which we on this side feel gravaman of the oharge. I never felt able deeply. We have heard equally sincere to accept that the situation was as serious comments from hon. Members opposite as sugges,ted. I always indicated that I who feel that the.re are such strong felt there was a degree of confusion, arguments for a 100 per cent. closed shop. however. I never put it higher than that. I understand the argumelllts but do not In seeking to amend the law, if one accept them and I ga.ther from the Minis­ accepts the arguments of those union ter, from what he has said previously, leaders, surely all one needs to do is that he does not go along with some of to amend it in such a way as to cover the comments either. Burt this takes us the position of those officials seeking to rather wide of the Bill. I want to return carry out day-to-day functions, such as to the reasons for it and what it seems wage negotiations. Had the Government to do. done that, they would have fully given We must not read too much into the the assistance sought by the unions and Bill. As I see· it, it is very limited. It deals which would have enabled the Royal solely with the tort of intimidation and Commission to proceed with its duties in

-- 1257 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1258 what the right hon. Gentleman described The Liberal Party in Amendment No. 1 as an amicable atmosphere, one of and Amendment No. IO has pu,t forward co-operation. a fairly wide Amendment and a rather If he had followed this course, the narrower Amendment, No. 6, to deal with right hon. Gentleman would fully have the situation. If the Minister were able to discharged his duty and his need. But, accept even the narrower Amendment, of course, as we pointed out upstairs, that would do something to show that he the Bill goes substantially further. How­ apprecia,tes the feelings on this matter ever, the right hon. Gentleman decided and that he does not want it to be seen not to go as far as the T.U.C. wanted. that he is not concerned about the risk Its original proposal was substantially of intimidation taking place in these more sweeping than the Bill. It would circumstances. have given wider immunity than is now I do not want to enter the greait debate proposed. Thus, the Minister himself has about the 100 per cent. union shop, the reached the judgment that it is not neces­ closed shop, as many people call it. I note sary to go as far as the T.U.C. asked. the distinction which is drawn between The argument upstairs was that if he the two, but people generally talk about acknowledges that it is unnecessary to the closed shop because it is an easier make a sweeping change, surely there is phrase to use. We are grateful to the no particular justice or value in stopping hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen at the point at which he is stopping (Mr. Horner) for the clear distinction when it is shown to him that the Bill which he drew between the two. could harm individuals. I do not propose to go into the matter 6.0 p.m. in detail, because I agree with the Minis­ ~ One can exaggerate the Bill's effect. ter that it is an issue which the Royal I I have indicated that it has a limited Commission will want fully to consider. application to intimidation and breach of I am saying that it would be much wiser contract, so that even if it reached the for the House to accept one of the Amend­ Statute Book amended as we wish, it ments and so to let the Royal Commis, could not be pretended that the Bill siion see that all the Minister is doing in would get rid of the danger of intimida­ this legislation is providing what he tion, because if that were to occur after deems to be the necessary safeguard termination of the contract in the normal and security for the trade union way, the Bill would not operate. official in the ordinary carrying out of What I am asking is why, if the his duties against any risk arising from Minister has decided to reduce the degree the Rookes v. Barnard judgment, and of immunity, he should not go further that in his present wording he is not, as and cover this issue on which there have iit now seems, leaning over backwards to been strong feelings on this side of the assist those who show a degree of House, reinforced again today by the intolerance in these matters, a degree of hon. and learned Member for Mont­ ill/tolerance which he does not want aillY gomery (Mr. Hooson) on behalf of the more than I do. Liberal Party, who made a strong plea Hon. Members grow to learn a degree on Second Reading on this very matter of tolerance for one another. We may and who, I understand, has said that his not agree with one another very much. party will vote against the Bill on Third bu.t we have to live with one another and Reading if these Amendments are not I do not think that hon. Members oppo­ passed. I am glad to hear that, because site have ever threatened to withdraw the main opposition party all along has their labour from the House because they felt that this was a serious weakness in did not like hon. Members on the Oppo­ the Bill. We have urged these considera­ sition Front Bench, for instance. I am tions throughout and I am glad to have not referring to any of the present the support of the Liberal Party on this occupants, of course, but we have none issue. of us ever gone to those lengths. Nor There are different ways in which these have Her Majesty's present Ministers ever Amendments seek to make the alteration suggested that they should go on strike wruch we would like to see. Personally, because they did not like myself or any I prefer that suggested in the new Clause. of my hon. Friends. We have learnt r---s, ~ Report Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 1260 I [MR. GooBER.] I wish that I were as certain about tolerance for each other. But many of these matters as some hon. Members the arguments on these issues have arisen opposite are. I wish that I could be as from a basic illltolerance which, while I dogmatic as they are about the nature can understand it aind one knows that it of these problems. I was chided by the is genera,ted when many men work hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) in together, is something which we have to that as a child of Welsh nonconformity try to dispel. When I am told that 50 or I should be more than mindful of minori­ 250 men cannot work in the same shop ties. lJt is :true ithart we diseSltablished ,the as one other man because they disagree Church in Wales on that basis, entirely w11!h him, I regard that as a degree of in the pursuit of the rights of minorities. intolerance which at the least is extremely I hope that all of us on both sides unfortunate and at worst can be s·hameful of the House will appreciate that when for most of us in this country. we come to problems of this kind, the For those reasons, we attach a great rights of minorities must be a first con­ deal of importance to the Amendments. sideration. If the right hon. Gentleman could accept Buit what matters is the way we seek one, that would be a clear indication of to do that. I am bound in all kindliness his belief in tolerance and his belief that to say to hon. Members opposiite, especi­ people should not be subjected in this ally rto rthe hon. Member for Ba,singsrtoke unfair way to this kind of treatment. (Mr. M~tchell), ,~hart:iu hey reveal a frighten­ I still do not understand why, having ing ignomnce of ,the tensions and stresses moved as he has, he is unable to go which occur in industry. In Committee, further and to accept an Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke in­ the sort suggested. He has not convinced voked Magna Carta. I remind him that me by any of the arguments which he the working class was not consulted used iin Committee. I invite him now to when Magna Carta was drawn up. That respond to the debate and to show that was a special effort between the king he himself has not only a degree of and his barons. Times move and the tolerance, but a willingness to meet the proletariat has grown up. We have to . House and to assist by improving the Bill try to come to terms with these modern in the way we suggest. conditions. · Mr. Gunter : I have noted this after­ What we have been arguing about this noon that my past words have been afternoon is not whether there should be frequently quoted. I want to say immed­ protection for acts intended to compel a iately that I withdraw nothing. I stand person to join or remain in a trade union where I have always stood, but I must or em·ployers' association. The whole say to the hon. and learned Member for argument has been about that thing on Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that I do not which we are all a bit confused and which agree with him that it is a test of my is called the closed shop. I have made sincerity that I must automatically follow my position about the closed shop per­ the path which he believes to be the fectly clear. In the House, in Committee solution. I believe that the solution to upstairs and outside, I have always taken these problems is to be found in another the view that trade unions are voluntary bodies and that it is far better for them and wiser direction. to build up their membership by volun­ The right hon. Member for Grantham tJa,ry means. I am, therefore, by no (Mr. Godber) has spoken about tolerance. means sure at this stage whether the Before I come to the main burden of my closed shop is a good thing, or, indeed, argument, I will say only, as I have said whether it is a good thing even for the before, that there is no difference between trade union movement. us in our desire for tolerance. It is a However, this is not as simple a matter virtue in greatest need and in shortest as hon. Members opposite have sug­ supply not only at home, but abroad, gested. They claim to be concerned and in trying to find the answer to these about the rights of individuals-I was major problems of industry I immediately moved to tears by the hon. Member for concur with the right hon. Gentleman Barry in his description of the rights that tolerance is a prerequisite of any of individuals being bashed about by final solution of these problems. bruil:al trade unions. There have been 1261 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1262 exceptional cases, but it is to the credit sibility as a member and tried ,to put of the British trade union movement that things right according to his lighrt:s. they have been rare enough to be of For all these reasons, I am convinced news value. However, I would certainly thait tihe closed shop, wi.th all tihe compli­ not condone those cases. caitions which surround 1t, is precisely -the But union members have their rights sorit of problem which needs to be situdied as well. They are individuals, and they by the Royal Commission. To itry :to legis­ are the majorities. Trade union mem­ laite about iit wiithouit the benefit of such bers certainly have their rights. If we are a study is, in my view, like trying to read to argue in this way, have they not the w~thout learllilg ithe alphabet. right to say wi,th whom they are pre­ On two occasions ilihe 1·ighrt hon. Mem­ pared to work? Surely it is only human ber for Grainfaam has suggested to me nature for trade unionists to resent thait we are, in a sense, indica,ting our sharing the benefits of trade union mem­ bias rt:orthe Royal Commission. I do not bership with those who refuse to join accept House of Lords decision it is to their advantage for all employees in Rookes v. Barnard until we could have to be trade union members. guide lines laid down for us by a body of I ask ithe right hon. Member for mein not subject to poliitical passions or Graintham to remember something which trade union pressures, whioh could tell us I said on Second Reading. I am con­ not only what rt!he olosed shop issue repre­ cerned about ithe presenit position, but sented in presem circumstances, blllt how I am far more concerned about :the future. it would develop in future if we had a The area of collusion betweoo very big far wider degree of co-operaJtion beitween industrialists and very big trade unions employers and itrade unions in he root of the problem of the posiil:ion of rt:he individual in the Trade union activities are concerned with highly complex industrial society in which negotiating terms and conditions of em­ we live. The question of the closed shop ployment-that is, with furthering the is bound up wilth the way in which the interests of their members, not with per­ trade unions are run. lit is bound up wi.th secuting individuals. the way iin which they dnaw up their rules It is true-I have said this before­ and the way in which they enforce their that there are difficult individual cases decisions. Hon. Members opposiif:e are which arise from the enforcement of the concerned abolllt rthe man who, because closed shop. Hon. Members opposite he does not like ,tJhe way in which a have quoted some such instances. I am union is run, refuses to join it or decides as much concerned about this as anyone to leave 1t. Many of us would have a lot else, and I am very anxious for the Royal more sympaithy wi,th thait man when he Commission to examine the whole situa­ disa~eed wiJth a union's ~olicy or tion and all the ramifications which flow admmistraition if he accepted his respon- from modern industrial negotiations. But 1263 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1264 [MR. GUNTER.] take the necessary action, and if they do I beg the House to remember that these not have the courage to take that action, disgraceful cases are, as it is admitted. they will have missed an opportunity very rare exceptions in the history of which may not be repeated for a long British trade unionism. time. Therefore, we can only hope that I ask the House to reject the new any Government, having been acquainted Clause and the Amendments. We shall with all the facts and complexities of an have to look at the problem of the closed emerging modern society, will take the shop when we have the benefit of the necessary action. Royal Commission's report. I am some­ The best way to deal with this problem times disturbed when I bear hon. Mem­ is to wait until we have the Royal Com­ bers ask whether anything will be done after the Royal Commission bas reported. mission's report and then to take action. It is suggested that once the Bill is on I invite the House to reject the Clause and the Statute Book the trade unions will the Amendments. make sure that it is never taken away. Question put, That the Clause be read If, having had for the first time for 60 a Second time : - years a report on the matters which so concern us in the modern industrial The House divided: Ayes 181, society, the Government of the day do not Noes 198. Division No. 111.] AYES [6.19 p.m. Agnew, Commander Sir Peter Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Lubbock, Eric Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S' pton) MacArthur, Ian Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Foster, Sir John Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land) Anstruther-Cray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Gammans, Lady McLaren, Mar tin Astor, John Gibson-Watt, David Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Awdry, Daniel Giles, Rear•Admiral Morgan McMaster, Stanley Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthon!' Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) McNair-Wilson, Patri ck Barlow, Sir John Clover, Sir Douglas Maginnis, John E. Batsford, Brian Codber, Rt . Hn. J. 8. Mathew, Robert Beamish , Col. Sir Tutton Goodhart, Philip Maude, Angus Bell, Ronald Gootlhew, Victor Mawby, Ray Berry, Hn. Anthony Gower. Raymond Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Biggs-Davison, John Grant-Ferris, R. Meyer , Sir Anthony Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Grieve, Percy Mills, Peter (Torrington) Black, Sir Cyril Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) MIiis, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Blaker, Peter Crimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mitchell, David Bossom, Hn. Clive Curden, Harold Monro, Hector Bowen, Roderic ( Cardigan) Hall, John (Wycombe) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Box, Donald Hall-Davis, A. C. F. Mott-Rad clyffe, Sir Charles Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Braine, Bernard Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W .) Murton, Oscar Brinton, Sir Tatton Harris, Reader (Heston) Neave , Airey Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Watter Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harvie Anderson, Miss Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard Bruce-Cardyne, J . Hastings, Stephen Onslow, Cranley Buchanan-Smith, Alick Hawkins, Paul Orr•Ewing, Sir Ian Bullus, Sir Eric Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Butcher, Sir Herbert Hiley, Joseph Page, John (H arrow, W .) Buxton, Ronald Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Page, R. Graham (Crosby) Carlisle, Mark Hoo~on, H. E. Peel, John Cary, Sir Robert Hopk ins, Alan Peyton, John 'Clark, William (Nottingham , S.) Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington) Pitt, Dame Edith Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w .) Hunt, John (Bromley) Price, David (Eastleigh) Cooke, Robert Hutch ison, M ichael Clark Prior, J. M. L. Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye) Pym, Francis Cordle, John Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin Corfield, F. V. Jennings, J. c. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Costain, A. P. Johnson Smith, C. (East Grinstead) Ridsdale, Julian Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Cunningham, Sir Knox Jopling, Michael Russell, Sir Ronald Curran, Charles Kaberry, Sir Donald St. John-Stevas, Norman ·Currie, G. B, H. Kerby, Capt. Henry Scott•Hopkins, James Digby, Simon Wingfield Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) Sharples, Richard Dodds•Parker, Douglas !Cimball, Marcus Sinclair, Sir George Doughty, Charles King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Smith, Dudley (Br ' ntf'd & Chlswick) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kirk, Peter Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John Elliott, R. W .(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Lambton, Viscount Stanley, Hn. Richard Emery, Peter Langford-Holt, Sir John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Errington, Sir Eric Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Studholme, Sir Henry Eyre, Richard Lloyd, Rt. H n. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) T albot, John E. Farr, John Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn ( Wirral) T aylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Fell, Anthony Loveys, Walter H. Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart) 1265 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1266 Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Walker, Peter (Worcester) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Temple, John M. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Wise, A. R. Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury) Ward, Dame Irene Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S,) Weatherill, Bernard Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Tilney, John (Wavertree) Webster, David Wylie, N. R. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Wells, John (Maidstone) Yates, William (The Wrekin) Tweedsmuir, Lady Whitelaw, William Walder, David (High Peak) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. More and Mr. Jan Fraser.

NOES

Abse, Leo Gregory, Arnold 0' Malley I Brian Allaun, Frank (Sallord, E.) Grey, Charles Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.) Alldritt, Walter Griffiths, David (Roth er Valley) Orme, Stanley Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Oswald, Thomas Armstrong, Ernest Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Padley. Walter Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, w illiam ( West Fife) Page, Derek (K ing's Lynn) Bacon, Miss Alice Hannan, William Palmer, Arthur Barnett, Joel Harrison, Walter ( Wakefield) Pargiter, G. A. Ba xter, William Hart, Mrs. Judith Park, Trevor (Der byshire, S.E.) Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Hattersley, Roy Pavitt, Laurence Bence, Cyril Heffer, Eric S. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Bishop, E. s. Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur Popplewell, Ernest Blackburn, F. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Prentice, R. E. Blenkinsop, Arthur Hill, J. (Midlothian) Price, J. T. (Wes thoughton) Boardman, H. Holman, Percy P ursey, Cmdr. Harry Boston, T. G, Horner, John Redhead, Edward Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W .) Howarth, Harry ( wen;ngborough) Rhodes, Geoffrey Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.) Richard, Ivor Bray, Dr. Jeremy Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Buchan, Norman (Renrrewshire, W .) Howie, W, Roberts, Goronwy ( Caernarvon) Buchanan, Richard Hoy, James Robertson, John (Paisley) Butler, Herbert (Hac)mey, C.) Hunter, Adam (Dun fermline) Rodgers, William (Stockton) Carmichael, Neil Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) Rose, Paul B. Carter-Jones, Lewis Hynd, H. (Accrington) Sheldon, Robert Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. I::. Chapman, Donald Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Shore, Peter (Stepney) Coleman, Donald Jeger, George (Goole) Short, Rt.Hn.E. ( N 'c'tle-on -Tyne,C.) Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Silkin, John ( Deptford) Craddock, George (Bradford. S.) Johnson,James(K 'ston-on-Hull, W .) Silkin, s. C. ( Camberwell, Dulwich) Crawshaw, Richard Jones, Dan (Burnley) Silverman, Julius (Aston) Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. s. Jones,Rt. Hn.SirElwyn( W .Ham,S.) Slater, Mrs. Harriet ( Stoke, N.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, J. ldwal (Wre,h am) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Small, William Davies, Harold (Leek) Kenyon, Clifford Smith, Ellis (Stol,e, S.) Davies, lfor (Gower) Lawson, George Snow, Julian Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr) Ledger, Ron Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W .) de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Stones, William Delargy, Hugh Lever, L. M . (Ardwick) Summerskill, Dr. Shirley Dell, Edmund Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Swingler, Stephen Dempsey, James Lomas, Kenneth Taverne, Dick Dodds, Norman Loughlin, Charles Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Doig, Peter Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thornton, Ernest Donnelly, Desmond McBride, Neil Tinn, James Driberg, Tom Mccann, J. Tomney, Frank Duffy, Dr. A. E. P . MacCoJJ, dames Tuck, Raphael Dunnell, Jack McGuire, Michael Varley, Eric G. Edelman, Maurice Mc es, inn James Wainwright 1 Edwin Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rut herg1en) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mackie, John (Enfield, E.) Wallace, George English, Michael Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Watkins, Tudor Ennals, David Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Ensor, David Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Whitlock, William Evans, Albert ( Islington, S. W .) Mallalieu,J.P. W .(Huddcrsfield,E.) Wilkins, w. A. Evans , loan (Birmingham , Yardley) Mapp, Charles Williams, Alan (Swansea, W .) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Maxwell, Robert Williams, Albert (Abortillery) Floud, Bernard Mendelson, J. J. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) Foley, Maurice Millan, Bruce Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Miller, Dr. M. S. Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, William (Covimtry, S.) Ford, Ben Molloy, William Winterbottom, R. E. Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Monslow, Walter Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. Freeson, Reginald Mulley, Rt. H n. Frederick( SheffieldPk) Woof, Robert Galpern, Sir Myer Murray, Albert Yates, Victor (Ladywood) Garrett, W. E. Neal, Harold Zilliacus, K, Garrow, A. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Ginsburg, David Norwood, Christopher TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Gourlay, Harry Oakes, Gordon Mr. George Rogers and Mr. Harper.

Vol. 712 X ------~~----~-~-~

1267 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1268 6.30 p.m. or had not been operated, and pointed Sir T. Brinton: I beg to move Amend­ out that this was often a bone of con­ ment No. 5, in page 1, line 14, at the end tention in industry. I agree. What I to insert: do not accept, and what my hon. Friends Provided that no act done as aforesaid by do not accept, is that because it is very a person shall for the purposes of this Act difficult to legislate for something in be treated as done in contemplation or which one believes one should burk the furtherance of a trade dispute if done before issue and say that nothing can be done. the agreed procedure in the company or industry for resolving disputes has been My hon. Friends and I do not support exhausted. that point of view at all. The Amendment is similar to one that It was also urged that even if legisla­ was moved in Committee and which was tion were passed the Bill would not be criticised, quite rightly, by various hon. the best instrument by which to introduce and right hon. Members, including the it. This tends to throw us back to the Minister, as being somewhat vague and arguments which we have already had misleading. It has, therefore, been slightly this afternoon, as to whether the Bill reworded. Its object is to encourage should in any case be the vehicle for adherence to agreed procedures in any kind of legislation which would industry, thereby discouraging rash and, tend to restrain certain aspects of trade even more, unofficial action. union activity to which many people object. We must face the fact that the We moved a number of Amendments Royal Commission has not yet even in Committee, some of which have been started its work on any continuous scale ; followed up today, but although you I understand that there are a number of have decided not to call two of them, half-day meetings per week-- Mr. Speaker, if this Amendment is accepted it will go some way towards Mr. Gunter indicated dissent. covering certain aspects of the others, in Sir Brinton: will probably take particular, that relating to the protection T. It and encouragement of the authority of three years at least to produce any official trade unions. That authority is answer. Do I hear any other bid? That very much bound. up with adherence to is a longish time. Even if we are lucky the proper courses of procedure which enough to get a complete survey of all the Amendment seeks to establish and the intricacies of industrial awards encourage. within industry we still have to wait those three years, during which time we should In Committee, we had a considerable do everything we can to encourage the debate on the Amendment similar to following of laid-down procedures. this, and various reasons were advanced The Minister also made the point that why it should not be accepted-although if we succeed in forcing or pushing I detected a good deal of sympathy for people into using the procedural agree­ its object. The Minister made a number ments which are laid down, none the less of points. I am not trying to quote him it might lead to great dispute afterwards. verbatim, but I would like to summarise People who have laid themselves open his main objections, some of which were to action in the civil courts through fail­ quite sound. He· said, for instance, that ing to observe the correct procedure will this is a highly complicated question for feel resentful, and this might, in turn, which to legislate ; that we cannot put lead to unions abrogating procedural into black and white compartrne_n't$ two agreements altogether, on the ground that sorts of strike or failure to observe they might be tripped up by them. agreements, namely, the kind where there I do not subscribe to this view. At is definitely a breach of procedure and present, there is far too muoh of a tend­ the kind where no breach takes place but ency for trade unions-o~en with the a strike ensues. He said that we cannot support of employers- to say "Leave it distinguish clearly enough between the all to us. We will sort it out within in­ two to be able to legislate for them. dustry." It is a very attractive proposi­ The right hon. Gentleman said that it tion for trade unions, arnd even for some would be very difficult to distinguish employers, to say, "For goodness' sake whether the correct procedure as laid do not stick the legislative finger into our down within a company or industry had pie. We are perfectly happy as we are." 1269 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1270 As I have said before, we ought not to 25th March , 1965, Standing Committee A ; forget that this is not a simple two-way C. 135.] mat1ler. We are talki,ng not only of the Where do we get to on this? We are interests of employers and trade union­ in a morass. Anything that we can do ists ; the whol,e existence of industry is at this time we should surely do. There based on the benefit of the public at is no reason for including it in the con­ large, and the public is much larger and text of this Bill. much more important than employers or trade unionists. Mr. Gunter: The hon. Member has spoken about a morass, but his Amend­ One of the dangers that I foresee, look­ ment is really increasing the morass, ing into the futur,e-and this was implicit because most of the disoutes that arise, in what the right hon. Gentleman has the rows that break out, -are really about just said- is that in cases where em­ whether procedure has been exhausted ployers and trade unionists are very much or not. Nobody seems to know. This on the same side of the fence the public is the morass that we are in. will perhaps be paying the piper, but not calling the tune. The reason for keeping Sir T. Brinton : This is the point to procedures is to create a climate of which the Minister made during the opinion in which it will be regarded as Committee stage. I am aware that is not legitimate to go outside them, and what happens, but is it beyond the wit this was illustrated v,ery well by many of of our courts to decide whether pro­ the things which cropped up in Commit­ cedure has or has not been followed and tee. For instance, we had a consider­ is it beyond the wit of our trade unions able discussion about the possibility of and employers to lay down procedures deciding who was or was not a trade which are clear and definite so that there union official. This occupied us for a shall not be this question as to whether long time. they have not been followed? Is the Later, we had to ask the right hon. alternative to say that when procedures and learned Attorney-General to tell us are clearly and definitely breached the what a trade union was. If be will for­ House tacitly agrees that this is all give me, I must point out that the right right, because, if so, it seems to be a hon. and learned Gentleman ended his most extraordinary attitude? I deduced clarificatio:n by saying that he trusted that that there were many hon. Members on it cast some light upon the darkness, or the other side of the Committee, and, I words to that effect. He was suppo1ited hope, on this side, who were not too in what he said by my right hon. and happy about this position. learned Friend the former Attorney­ Are we to say all this is so compli­ General, who agreed that almost any two cated that we shall not admit the or three people gathered together, pro­ Amendment to the Bill? Are we to say vided that they observed some simple that it is altogether too difficult let formalities, could call themselves a trade us not try to deal with it? Are we to union. quote the psalmist who said: What sort of a mess is the whole " Such knowledge is too wonderful for me ; situation in already? How much more it is high, I cannot attain unto it" ? is it bedevilled by a remark made in I feel quite certain that the right hon. the Committee by an hon. Gentleman Gentleman will recognise where that on the other side-I will not identify comes from, although I cannot quote him, because although I tried to contact him chapter and verse. him to warn him I was going to quote 6.45 p.m. from what he said I have discovered What we seek to do within the frame­ that he is not in the House. He inter­ work of the Bill is to create some form vened in another hon. Member's speech of opinion which will express our dis­ to say: approval of the breaches of agreements " Would the hon. Member not agree that and of procedure laid down by agree­ in many cases an unofficial strike is a recog­ ments. We want to discourage rash and nised method of negotiation and that secondly rapid action. We consider that this is also in many cases, although the officials may say publicly tha t they do not agree with the one way in which this could be done. We unofficial action privately and in reality they want to encourage something which is approve of it heartily?" -- [OFFIClAL REPORT, laid down by legislation in some other Vol. 712 X2 1271 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Reporr 1272 [SIR T. BRINTON .] save me from the lawyers". The diffi­ countries, and that is the " cooling off culty of the lawyer in trade union nego­ period" . What use are those procedural tiations has been his rigidity. In most agreements if they are not only followed cases, especially in cases dealing with by the people concerned, but supported what this Bill deals with, a great amount and seen to be supported by us here in of flexibility and understanding is called this House? Are we to say, by implica­ for rather than the rigid mind of the tion, by throwing out this Amendment, lawyer. that we do not really think that they mat­ There are industries in this country ter very much, because that, I maintain, is where there is nothing written down in what we are, by -implication, saying. terms of procedure for dealing with dis­ It has already been said by my right putes. Only in very isolated cases in hon. Friend the Member for Grantham respect of individual firms within that (Mr. Godber) that the Bill is of special industry has there been any trades importance. The eyes of the country are union agreement for dealing with diffi­ very much on it. If it is given as a culties between large individual firms licence to disregard agreements and to and the trades unions. What would be do various things on which comments done if this were drafted in terms of the have already been made this afternoon, Bill for those industries where there is then I think that we shall have done a no procedural provision for dealing with disservice to the country as a whole. I disputes at all? am still hoping that the Minister may be open, if not to accepting this Amendment, There is also the difficulty of the agreed to attempting in the context of the Bill procedure in a company. What is meant to do something to encourage the follow­ exactly by that? Is it meant that the ing or procedural agreements. Some company is, in effect, the employer? sympathy was shown for this point of In many cases the procedure that the view by the Committee. The Minister company says should apply does not himself said in his speech that apply to the trades union, or does not it was his belief that agreed pro­ apply in the case where there is no trade cedure should be adhered to. Why not union effective, but where the whole of try and translate it into action instead of the employees are of one mind in terms merely thinking it and paying lip-service of negotiating with a particular employer. to it? The hon. Member for Bristol, I think that the wording of this particu­ South (Mr. W. A. Wilkins) himself said lar Amendment is far from the realities at the end of his speech: of the situation. " I think that I have said enough to indicate There is one thing, too, that has been to the hon. Member for Kidderminster that completely omitted. I do not want to with the basis of his argument and what he has in mind, some of us have considerable sym­ say anything to detract from the need pathy. I am only suggesting that this is the to develop negotiations and procedure wrong way to do it."- [OFFJCIAL REPORT, 1st for negotJiations throughout the country, April, 1965, Standing Commillee A ; c. 225.) nor to say anything whereby those pro­ This is what the Minister also said. In cedures shall prevent disputes arising. In other words, everybody says that this is the case of this Amendment, I think that a very good idea, but everybody says the hon. Member will have to face the that we shall not do anything about it fact that it is one-sided. yet. Take, for instance, the case of a man Mr. Winterbottom : T he Minister bas who deliberately employs a man to whom interjected and pointed out one of the he says, " In this factory there is 100 per difficulties of the wording in this Clause. cent. trade union organisation and you Most of the difficulties in negotiations will be expected to join the trade union arise from the fact that both sides say of those who work ins·ide the factory." that proceedings have been exhausted. On that understanding, a man accepts I want to take up an idea that the hon. employment and the employer gives him Member advanced about dealing with the employment. Then he refuses to join this. He suggested that lawyers could the union. I could quote instances where find a way out of it. I will only say this, this has happened. In those circumstances, that in my experience of the trade union would the employer also accept the pro­ movt:ment I have always said, " God cedural obligation to withdraw that man 1273 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Repor1 1274 from labour until the dispute had been give 1t all ,tihe support I can. The view settled, or the orocedures exhausted or which I have always expressed with re­ until maybe there had been time for gard to the Bill is that it would be the people to cool off? greatest pity if, in a laudable desire to This errs by trying to create a situation set at rest anxieties which undoubtedly beneficial to one side and dangerous for exist among many trade unionists about the other. I agree to a certain extent the possible effects of Rookes v. Barnard, with many of the sentiments expressed, we put on the Statute Book words which but I feel that this is the wrong way to indicated that it is the view of Parlia­ do it ; that the words are wrong; that it ment at this date in I 965 that certain would be bad law and confusing to those things, certain practices, are unobjection­ who would have to apply it. able. I know that the right hon. Gentleman Sir T. Brinton: The hon. Member bas says that it will not make any differenc:: put definite questions to me. If there the Commission will not is no procedural agreement there could and that Royal be no question of a breach of it. I agree be affected. He has repeated-I am ,ure with the hon. Member that we want we were all glad and not in the least sur­ procedural agreements. His second prised to hear it-t hat he personally, point- I have forgotten what his second when the time comes, if the Royal Com­ point was. mission made recommendations which would be difficult and perhaps Mr. Winterbottom : Let us face the unpopular, would support them, if he fact that in this country there are about believed them to be right. That is in 90 wages councils catering for people who keeping with what we should expect of are employed in what, when trade boards the right hon. Gentleman. I feel, how­ were originally introduced into this ever persuasive and authoritative he is, country by law in 1918, were described that it is one thing for him to be anxious as "sweated industries" . In many such and ready to do that, and another thing industries today, where the workers are for him to secure compliance with his low-paid, there is a small degree of trade suggestion from people who feel very union organisation. In many there is strongly about these matters, and who no organisation at all and no procedure would be in the position, if the Bill is for the settlement of disputes. Taking the unamended, to say, " This is a recent narrowest view of what I have sa,id, it view of Parliament and it ought not to remains true that a great number of be altered." people in employment would not be covered at all, and if that is the case, we If we make any provision at ail to are legislating only for part of those in except unofficial action in any form, this industry. is only one form and one can put the general argument on one case by way of Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey): I wish to general example. It could still be said, support the Amendment for reasons and I believe it would be said when the which I shall indicate quite briefly. As time came, " Parliament had discussions has been pointed out, this Amendment about this matter ; Amendments were not to some extent deals with the question accepted, they were rejected by the of unofficial strikes. We discussed that House, and the view has been expressed subject during the Committee stage and that this protection should exist, not only I think everyone will agree that we had in the case of official but of unofficial an interesting and full discussion. This action." That is the reason why we was one of the methods suggested for pressed very strongly, and I did so par­ dealing with it and I hope therefore that ticularly, tha.t ~t should be made clear I shall not be out of order if I deal that Parliament was not expressing an shortly with the subject. I think it was opinion at the present time that the law fully and frankly recognised by the should be laid down in a form which Minister that this matter of unofficial would give countenance to unofficial strikes is a very serious one. action. I have aiways been a firm supporter I fully appreciate that there would be of the trade union movement. I wish difficulties in applying the principle which to see it functioning efficiently and to is enshrined in the Amendment. I am Vol. 712 X3 ,-

1275 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1276 [SIR L. HEALD.] When we were discussing the matter not concerned with that. Today we are in Standing Committee, the right hon. concerned to see whether we cannot, even Gentleman did not agree with the point of at this late hour, prevail on the right view which we put before him, but at hon. Gentleman to take some action by any rate he accepted that there might be way of amending the Bill, either here or something in it, that it was unfortunate in another place, to prevent it from being tha,t the Bill should have the effect of read in the sense which I have indicated, legalising the aotions of those who were and thereby avoid what I consider to be either not properly authorised officials or a very real danger. who had not gone through the authorised procedure. He seemed to imply that, as There are a number of ways in which i,t was a difficult matter, it would not be it could be done. I feel that the limita­ of much consequence, because this was tion to a properly authorised official would only a temporary Measure. This is what be a praotical way to do it. No doubt he called a holding action. That may be there are other methods which might true, but we are having a serious and I occur to one, once we have got over the believe, valuable discussion, at the end of initial point which is, are we to allow this which the House of Commons will Bill to become an Act of Parliament at express its view. As we have done the very time when the Royal Commis­ already on one Amendment, we will vote sion is s~tting? I have always taken the on another and eventually on Third view tha,t it would be a great pity to have Reading. H is, in my submission, a very a Bill a,t all at the time when the Royal serious thing that one should pass into Commission was about to sit. It is a very law words whioh will have an effect which unusual and remarkable thing to do, if we agree we should not lightly endorse. one is having a Royal Commission which, as the right hon. Gentleman has This ~s a very serious considera.tion. I emphasised time after time, is to have a hope thaJt iit may still be possible for the comple·tely free hand. right hon. Gentleman to say thaJt he will consider tihis. If he cannot do ilt here, We all want it to have no holds barred he may be abl-e, somewhere else, to deal at all. It is to go into the whole sphere in some way w~th unofficial strike aotion, of trade unionism and make recommen­ in such a way thait ilt cannot afiterwards daJtions. Surely it is a greail: p~ty to have be said thaJt Parldiament has approved thaJt had an Act of Parliament passed very irnrnun~ty should be given in these cases. recently if one is sititing on a Commission. We oannot expeot him to give us any­ 7.0 p.m. thing today, first beoause of the words, and If, as seems fairly clear, we cannot second because, ,though we appreciaJte that prevail upon the right hon. Gentleman to he is very receptive over these ma.titers, he abandon his Bill altogether, surely the might find himself restrained by his next best thing is that the Bill should master's voice from taking any immediate be so framed as to make quite clear that aotion. [Interruption.] I was thinking of what is intended is to protect trade another master. At any raite, he will unions when they are acting in the proper lisiten this afternoon and we hope thaJt he manner, in accordance wi,th their tradi­ will do sometJhing about ~t. tional funotions, the necessary and proper Mr. Wilkins : I agreed with the opening funotions which any trade union can sentence of the right hon. and learned carry ou,t. I believe that it is and has Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) just been accepted on many occasions by the as I found myself able to agree with the Minister that uhe unofficial strike is a hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T . real faotor to be taken into account. It came even more strongly perhaps in his Briruton) during the Comm~trt:ee stage of observations a few moments ago, that in the Bill. For the first time this afternoon future it will be even more important to the right hon. and learned Member has try to avoid that kind of disruptive pt1t his finger on the pulse of the Bill. influence. Once this is accepted, surely This Amendment is obviously designed to that is all the more reason that we should rela.te to the corutrol-if possible, which make sure that, if the Bill must become I do not think it is-of unofficial strikes. an Act, it should not go any further than I made a note on my Order Paper early is absolutely necessary. in the a£ternoon, using the exaot words 1277 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1278 which itlbe righit hon. and learned Gentle­ This is, of course, precisely what the man used. The hon. Member for Kidder­ hon. Member for Kidderminster is asking minster quoted my speech. I wish that us to do. This is what we believe mem­ he had quoted all the speech which I bers of trade unions ought to do-exhaust made in Standing Commi:trt:ee. You do not the machinery which their union rules know how forrt:unrute you are, Mr. Speaker, provide for with the employers' associa­ not rto have presided over the meetings tions, before any other form of action is in Standing Committee, beoause you taken. would today be ruling many of us out of The leaflet goes on : order for ,tedious repeti1tion if you had "The matter was dealt with but progress heard rthe speeches which we made on that was slow and, not without justification, mem­ occasion. bers expressed concern about the reluctance It is true thrut I expressed some sym­ of the Corporation to satisfy their complaints. A meeting of members was called in that pruthy wiith what ,the hon. Member for Autumn of 1955 to consider a report on nego­ Kidderminster said abol.llt >this. I am cer­ tiations. At this meeting a small group of tain thrut if my hon. Friends on rthis side members, amongst wbom Rookes was very of the House had been privileged ~o hear vocal, tried to get the other members to press the union to take ' more direct action.' Since tJhe very fine speech whioh I made, ,they the Union was then taking the only con­ would agree also, beoause those of my stitutional step possible, it" colleagues who have had long and close was- conneotions wiith the trade union move­ " difficult to imagine what other steps could melllt do not agree wiith unofficial strikes. be taken other than . . . " We rtry our urtmosrt to dissuade members of ~he rtriade union movement from calling unconstitutional action. A ll the argument unofficial strikes. lrt is eXJtremely ironic and argie-bargie which we have had over thait we are discussing an Amendment to the Bill in Committee and today stem from this original situation. the Bill very largely because rtihe Bill was necessi,taited itlbrough :the aotion of a man To hear hon. Members opposite talking, who was trying it!o persuade his colleagues anyone would think that this chap was a -accord ing to bhe leaf!~ which I have in paragon of virtue and that all the other my hand~to >take unofficial aotion. fellows with whom he worked, the other 99 per cent., were wrong. This I think thrut we had bebter purt rllhis on canno the record, so tihrut it shall not be in any t-- dispute. This is a document whioh I Sir T. Brinton: It has not been the passed to the late Attorney-General and point of any of our speeches, either on which I expeot he has read- - the previous Amendment or on this, that the Rookes v. Barnard case was the essen­ Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leam­ tial point. It was merely the match ington): Former, not late. which has lighted the fire. We are deal­ Mr. Wilkins: I am sorry. I always ing now with the total matter of prin­ try to avoid rthe word " late " and rto use ciple as it affects everybody. The hon. " former ". Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) I am sure that the right hon. and seems to imagine that I am worried about learned Gentleman has looked at this Mr. Rookes. I am not worried about Mr. leaflet put out by the Draughtsmen's and Rookes but about the consequences of tl-!e Allied Technicians' Association. The legislation inspired by that case. The leaflet says that a meeting of members case itself has nothing to do with it. was called. The episode began with an Mr. Wilkins: I was trying to make the objection by the staff of B.O.A.C. to the same inference ; that all this has arisen place t9 which they were being trans­ because of a case which was started as a ferred for the purposes of their employ­ result of someone kicking over the traces. ment. They were being moved from a At the beginning and end of my remarks number of out-buildings into some other in Committee I pointed out that my hon. staff accommodation and they were object­ Friends and I were as anxious as anyone ing to this. The conditions in this build­ else to see that all the constitutional ing, it says, procedures should be followed in the " ... were unsatisfactory and there were many settling of disputes. complaints. In consequence, the matter was raised by the union through the machinery of By trying to introduce various altera­ the National Joint Council." tions, by means of Amendments and new Vol. 712 X 4 1279 Trade Disputes Bi/1- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1280 [MR. WILKINS.] able objects, I fear that they would be Clauses-one of which we have just incapable of realisation if the Amendment defeated-hon. Gentlemen opposite allege were accepted. that they wish to protect the rights of minorities. The trouble is that they 7.15 p.m. would, at the same time-perhaps un­ Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, intentionally-do a tremendous amount South) : The Amendment seeks to with­ of damage to trade unionists and par­ draw the protection of the Bill from ticularly to trade union officials who try threats to strike in breach of procedure, to conduct the business of their unions to use a convenient phrase, whether those on proper constitutional lines. [HON. threatened strikes are official or un­ MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen official. opposite say "No", but I said that they The Minister has not yet said that this may be doing this unintentionally. I do is not the Bill in which to carry out this not suggest that they would do this in­ reform, but I expect that he will because tentionally ; merely that their proposals he said it when we discussed similar pro­ might have this precise result. posals in Committee upstairs. I think that I interpret him oorrectly when I say Mr. Hooson: While I have some that on that occasion the right hon. sympathy with the views expressed by Gentleman agreed that s,tri~es in breach the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir ~ of agreed procedures were bad. He was T. Brinton), 1I cannot supporit tihe Amend­ against them. He is against sin and other ment because while the objects he has in things. I see that the Minister is trying mind are desirable, and would probably to indicate something to me. Suffice to receive the support of the majority of say that I hope that be is not against hon. Members, I feel that if he thought virtue. He said that he was not opposed t'hait It.here were any ohance of his Amend­ in principle to legislation to deal w~th ment being accepted he would not have acknowledged evil, but that this was not proposed it in the first place. the Bill in which to carry out the sort of Si.r T. Brinton : Will the hon. and reform proposed. learned Gentleman please confine himself I trust that he will be consistient. He to his own opinions and not speculate justified those remarks in Committee by about mine? siiyi,ng that he thought that legislation of this kind should be very oarefully con­ Mr. Winterbottom: Would the hon. sidered and maturely thought out. I and learned Gentleman also confine his agree, but the difficulty is that the right remarks to the mess in which we should hon. Gentleman has brought the Bill for­ find ourselves if the Amendment were ward, that it is intervening in precisely carried? this branch of the law and that mature Mr. Hooson : In the present state of consideration cannot be given to it. industry in Britain-when we do not The Minister is, in effect- if he adopts have agreed procedures in all companies that argument today- saying that it is and industries. when no one can decide all right for him ,to introduce a Bill re­ when agreed principles have been versing the position and that it is all right exhausted, when one can envisage end­ for him to do it at once and without con­ less arguments as to whether or not there sideration but that it is wrong for us to are agreed procedures and whether such propos·e that the scope of the Bill should procedures as exist have been exhausted be more limited than it is in its un­ -accepta nce of an Amendment of this amended form because, as he would say, sort would be putting the cart before the our Amendments raise matters which are horse. appropriate for consideration by the The Minister has a good case for saying Royal Commission. I do not think 1:hat that this matter should be left to the I have misr·epresented the right hon. Royal Commission, certainly until we Gentleman. have not only agreed but defined pro­ We recognise that the operation of the cedures ; and it is important to have the law is only one factor entering into indus­ procedures defined to ensure that we trial relations. That was cogently know when they have been exhausted. pointed out in the document which was While the Amendment may have laud- circulated by the T.U.C. after the Rookes 1281 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1282

1·. Barnard decision. That is so, but if not merely in a clear form, but in a form one takes the step of introducing a Bill that required a pronouncement of the into Parliament to alter in a material courts. So it is not realistic to say that respect the legal relations between em­ this Amendment is unworkable, because ployers, employees and private individuals all my hon. Friend proposes is that one who may be affected by the operation of of the rationes in Rookes v. Barnard these procedures, then one must face up should not be the subject matter of this to the current implications and try, in a Bill and that the other should stand ; practical way, to solve the problems that is to say, that in relation to a threat raised by the Bill. to strike without giving proper notice of In Committee the Minister

Division No. 112.] AYES [7.36 p.m. Agnew, Commander Sir Peter Elliot, Capt. Waller (Carsha lton) MacArthur, Ian Alison, Michael (Bark ston Ash) Elliott, R. W .(N'c' tle-upon-Tyne,N.) McLaren, Martin Allason, James ( Hemel Hempstead) Eyre, Reginald Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Anstruth er-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir w. Farr, John McMa stcr, Stanley Astor, John Fisher, Nigel McNair-Wilson, Patrick Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Awdry, Daniel Maginnis, John E. Ba rber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Foster, Sir John Math ew, Robert Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maude, Angus Barlow, Sir John Gammans, Lady Batsford, Brian Mawby, Ray Gardner, Edward Maydon, Lt .-Cmdr. s . L. c. Beamish, Col. Sir T utton Gibson -Watt, David Bell, Ronald Meyer, Sir Anthony Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan Mills, Peter (To rrington) Berry, Hn. Anth ony Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Biggs-Davison, John Clover, Sir Doug las Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Mitchell, David Codber , Rt. Hn. J . B. Monro, Hector Black, Sir Cyril Goodhart, Philip More, sper Blaker, Peter Gower, Raymond Ja Box, Donald Grant•Ferris, R. Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Griffiths, Eldon (Bu ry St. Edmund s) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Braine, Bernard Griffiths, Peter ( Smethwick) Murton, Oscar Brinton, Sir T atton Gurden 1 Harold Nichol-ls, Sir Harmar Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Hamilton, Marquess of (F ermanagh) Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W .) Onslow, Cranley Buchan an-Smith, Alick Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Bullus J Sir Eric Harvey, John ( Walthamstow, E.) Page, John (Harrow, W .) Butcher, Sir Herb ert Ha rvie Anderson, Miss Page, R. Graham (Crosby) Buxton, Ronald Hastings, Stephen Pee l, John Carlisle, Mark Hawkins, Paul Peyton, John Cary, Sir Robert Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pike, Miss Mervyn Clark, William (N ottingham, S.) Hiley, J oseph P itt, Dame Edith Cooke, Robert Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Pr ice, David (Eastleig h) Cooper-Key, Sir Neill H owe, Geoffrey (Be bington) Prior, J. M. L. Cordle, J ohn Hunt, John ( Bromley) Pym, Francis Corfield, F. V. Hutchison, Michael Clark Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin Costain , A. P. Irvine , Bryant Go dman (R ye) Rees•Davies, W. R. Craddock, Sir Beresford ( Spellhorne) J ennings, J. C. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Crowder, F. P. Jopling, Michael Ridsdale 1 Julian Cunningham, Sir Knox Kaberry, Sir Donald Roberts, Sir Peter ( Heeley) Curran, Charles Kerby, Capt. Henry Russell, Sir Ronald Deedes, Rt. tin . W. F. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Scott-Hopkins, J ames Dodds-Parker , Douglas Kirk, Peter Sharples, Richard .Doughty, Charles Lambton, Viscount Shepherd, William du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Legge•Bourke, Sir Harry Sinclair, Sir George ,Ede n, Sir J ohn Loveys, Walter H. Stanley, Hn. Richard ~,rl J

1289 Trade Dispules Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1290 Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Turton, Rt. Hn. R, H. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Studholme, Sir Henry Tweedsmuir, Lady Wise, A. R. Talbot, John E. Walder, David (High Peak) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Walker, Peter (Worcester) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Taylor, Edward M. (G 'gow,Cathcart) Walters, Dennis Wylie, N. R, Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Ward, Dame Irene Temple, John M. Weatherill, Bernard rELLERS Fu .R THE AYES: Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury) Webster, David Mr. Dudley Smith nod Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter Whitelaw, William Mr. Johnson Smith. Tilney, John '(Wa•ertree) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

NOES Abse, Leo Griffiths, Da,·id (Rothe r Valley) Oakes, Cordon Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J , O'Malley, Brian Alldritt, Walter Gunter, RI. Hn. R. J . Oram, Albert E, ( E, Ham, S.) Allen, Scholefield (C rewe) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Orme, Stanley Armstrong, Ernest Hamilton, William (West Fife) Oswald, Thomas Atkinson, Norman Hannan, William Page, Derek ( King's Lynn) Bacon, Miss Alice Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Palmer. Arthur Barnett1 Joel Har t, Mrs. Judith Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.) Baxter1 William Heffer, Eric s. Pavitt, Laurence Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Bence, Cyril Hill, J. (Midlothian) Popplewell, Ernest Bishop, E. s. Holman, Percy Prent ice, R. E. Blackburn, F. Hooson, H. E. Price, J. T. ( Westh oughton) BlenkSnsop, Arthur HornerJ John Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Boardman, H. Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) fledhead, Edward Boston, T. G. Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.) Rhodes, Geoffrey Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. w. (Leics S. W ,) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Roberts, Albert (No rmanton) Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Howie, w. Roberts, Goronwy \Caernarvon) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hoy, James Robertson, John ( Paisley) Buchanan, Richard Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) Rodgers, William ( Stockton) Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) ' Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Carmichael, Neil Hynd , H. ( Accrington) Sheldon, Robert Carter-Jones, Lewis Hynll, John (Attercliffe) Shore, Peter (Stepney) Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jeger, George (Goole) Short ,Rt. Hn.E.(N 'C'tle-on-Tyne,C.) Donald Chapman, Jenk ins, Hugh (Pu tney) Silkin, John (Deptf ord) Coleman, Donald Johnson, James(K'ston-on-H ull, w .) Silkin, S. C. (Ca mberwell, Dulwich) Conlan, Bernard Johnston, Russell (Invernes s) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke , N,) Crawshaw, Richard Jones, Dan (Burnley) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Crosland, Anthony Jones,Rt .Hn .SirElwyn(W .Ham,S.) Small, William Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. s. Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kelley, Richa rd Snow, Julian Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda , E.) Kenyon1 Clifford Steel, David (Roxburgh) Davies, lfor (Gower) Lawson, Ceorge Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W ,) Ledger, Ron Stones, William de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Lever, L. M. ( Ardwick) Summerskill1 Dr. Shirley ; De%a rgy, Hugh Lewis, Ron (Carli sl,1) Dell, Swingler, Stephen Edmund Lomas, Kenneth Dempsey, Jam~s Taverne, Dick Loughlin, Charles Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Dodds, Norman Lubbock, Eric Doig, Peter Thornton, Ernest •I Mabon, Dr. ~- Dickson Donnelly, De3mond Tomney, Frank Duffy, Dr. A. E. P. McBride, Neil Tuck, Raphael Ounnett, Jack Mcc ann, J. Varley, Eric G. Edelman, Mnurice Maccoll , James Wainwright, Edwin Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) McGuire, Michael Walden, Brian (All Saints! Edwards , Robert (Bilston) Mcinnes, James Walker, Harold (Doncaster) English, Michael Mackenzie, Gregor (R

Division No. 113.] AYES [7.47 p.m. Agnew. Commander Sir Peter Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan Mott-Rad clyffe, Sir Charles Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Murton, Oscar Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Glover, Sir Douglas Nicholls, Sir Harmar Anstruther•Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Godber, Rt. Hn. J, B, Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard Astor. John Goodhart, Philip Onslow, Cranley Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Gower, Raymond Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Barlow, Sir John Grant-Ferris, R. Page, John (Harrow, W.) Batsford, Brian Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Page, R. Graham (Crosby) Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) Peel, John Bell, Ronald Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Peyton, John Berry, Hn. Anthony Gurden , Harold Pike, Miss Mervyn Biggs-Davison, John Hall-Davis, A. G. F, Pitt, Dame Edith Birch, Rt. Hn, Nigel Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermana gh) Price, David (Eastleigh) Black, Sir Cyril Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W .) Prior, J. M. L. Blaker, Peter Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pym, Francis Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Redmayne1 Rt. Hn. Sir Martin Box, Donald Harvie Anderson, Miss Rees-Davies, W. R. Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Eclward Hastings, Stephen Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Braine, Bernard Hawkins, Paul Ridsdale, Julian Brinton, Sir Tatton Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. SirW alter Hiley, Joseoh Russell, Sir Ronald Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Scott-Hopkins, James Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington) Sharples, Richard Buchanan-Smith, Alick Hunt, John (Bromley) Shepherd, w illiam Bullus, Sir Eric Hutchison, Michael Clark Sinclair, Sir George Butcher, Sir Herbert Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd, & Chiswick) Buxton, Ronald Jennings, J. C. Stanley, Hn. Richard Carlisle, Mark Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead) Steel, David (Roxburgh) Cary, Sir Robert Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Stodda rt-Scott, Col. Sir Ma lcolm Clark, William (Nott ingham, S.) Jopling, Michael Studholme, Sir Henry Cooke, Robert Kerby, Capt. Henry Talbot, John E . Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) T aylor, Sir Charles ( Eastbourne) Cordle, John King, Evelyn (Dorset, 5.) Taylor, Edward M. (G'go w,Cathcart) Corfield, F. V. Kirk, Peter Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Costain, A. P. Lambton, Viscount Temple, John M. Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury) Crowder, F. P. Loveys, Walter H. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter Cunningh"-m, Sir Knox MacArthur Ian Tilney, John (Wavertree) Curran, Charles Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F, McLaren, Martin Tweedsmu!r, Lady Dodds-Parker, Douglas Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Walder, David (High Peak) Doughty, Charles McMaster, Stanley Walker, Peter (Worcester) du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward McNair• Wilson, Patrick Walters, Dennis Eden, Sir John Maginnis, John E. Ward, Dame Irene Elliot, Capt . Walter (Carshalton) Mathew, Robert Weatherill. Bernard Elliott, R. W .(N'c'tle•upon-Tyne,N ,) Maude, Angus Webster, David Eyre, Reginald ' Mawby, Ray Whitelaw, William Farr, John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S,· L. c. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) Fisher, Nigel Meyer, Sir Anthony Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Fletcher•Cooke, Charles (D arwen) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wise, A. R. Foster, Sir John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Wolrige.Gordon, Patrick Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Mitchell, David Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Gammans, Lady Monro, Hector Wylie, N. R, Gardner, Edward More, Jasper Gibson-Watt, David Morrison, Charles (Devizes) TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. Lubbock and Mr. Hooson.

NOES

Abse, Leo Blenkinsop1 Arthur Crawshaw, Richard Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Boardman, H. Crosland, Anthony Aldritt, Walter Boston, T . G. Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. s. Allen, Scholelield (Crewe) Bowde13, 1Rt, Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W .) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Armstrong, Ernest Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Atkinson, Norman Buchanan, Richard Davies, lfor (Gower) Bacon, Miss Alice Butler, Herbert (Hac~ney, C.) Davies, s. o. (Merth yr) Barnett, Joel Carmichael, Neil de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Baxter, William Carter~Jones, Lewis Delargy, Hugh Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Dell, Edmund Bence, Cyril Chapman, Donald Dempsey, James Bishop, E. S. Coleman, Donald Dodds, Norman Blackburn, F. Conlan, Bernard Doig, Peter 1293 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1294 Donnelly, Desmond Johnson,James(K 'ston-on-H ull, w .) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Duffy, Dr. A. E, P, Jones, Dan (Burnley) Redhead, Edward Dunnett, Jack Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W .Ham,S.) Rhodes, Geoffrey Edelman, Maurice Jones, J. I dwal ( Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Kelley, Richard Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Kenyon, Clifford Robertson, John (Pa isley) English, Michael Lawson, George Rodgers, William (Stockton) Ensor, Dav id Ledger, Ron Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lever. L. M. (Ardwick) Sheldon, Robert Floud, Bernard Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shore, Peter (Stepney) Foley, Maurice Lomas, Kenneth Short, Rt. H n. E. ( N 'c'tle-on-Tyne, C,) Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Loughlin, Charles Silkin, John (De ptford) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Silkin, s. C. (Cambe rwell, Dulwich) Fo rd, Ben McBride, Neil Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Mccann, J. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Frceson, Reginald Maccoll, James Small, William Galpern, Sir Myer McGuire, Michael Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Garrett, W. E. Mcinnes, James Snow, Julian Garrow, A. Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Ginsburg, David Mackie, J ohn (Enfield, E.) Stones, William Gourlay, Harry Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Summerskill, Dr. Shirley Creenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Swingler, Stephen Gregory, Arnold Mallalieu, E, L. (Brigg) Taverne, Dick Crey, Charles Mallalieu,J,P . W .(Huddersfied,E. ) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mapp, Charles Thornton, Ernest Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Mendelson, J. J. Tomne y, Frank HamHton, James (Bothwell) Millan, Bruce Tuck , na~hael Hamilton, William (West Fife) Miller, Dr. M. s. Varley, Eric G. Hannan, William Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wainwright, Edwin Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Monslow, Walter Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Hart, Mrs. Judith Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick(SheffieldPk) Wallace, George Heffer, Eric S. Murray, Albert Watkins, Tudor Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Neal, Harold Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Whitlock, William Holman, Percy Oakes, Gordon Wilkins, W. A. Horner, John O'Malley, Brian Williams, Alan ( Swansea, W .) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham , S.) Williams, Albert (Abertiller y) Howarth, Roberl L. (Bolton, E.) Orme, Stanley Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Oswa ld, Thomas Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Howie, W . Page, Derek ( King's Lynn) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) Hoy, James Palmer, Arthur Wilson, William (Coven try, S.) Hunter, Adam (D unfermline) Park. Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.) Winterbottom, R. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) Pavitt, Laurence Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Yates, Victor (Ladywood) Hynd, John (Atterclifle) Popplewell, Ernest Jeger, George (Goole) Prentice, R. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Price, J. T. (We sthoughton) Mr. Fitch and Mr. Hamer .

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn had already arisen. This could mean Jones) : I beg to move Amendment No. that a potential plaintiff who had a right 8, in page 1, line 18, to leave out of action before the Bill became law " before " and to insert: would lose that right. If the Amendment "either before or within the period of six is adopted he will have six months' grace months beginning with the date of". in which to bring an action under the Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel present law. Storey) : I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House also to I emphasise that this perfod of grace will apply only to proceedings in respect discuss Amendment No. 9, in line 18, leave out from " instituted " to " or " of acts done before the Royal Assent. The Bill will apply to proceedings in and insert: respect of acts done after the Royal "with in three years of the cause of action Assent whether proceedings are instituted arising". within the six months or not. The The Attorney-General : The purpose ot Government originally took the view that the Amendment is to allow proceedings the application of the provisions of sub• in respect of causes of action which arise section (]) to all proceedings which were before Royal Assent to the Bill to be commenced after the date of Royal decided under the law as it now stands Assent, whether the act of which the provided that they are brought within plantiff first complained occurred before six months of Royal Assent. The Bill or after that date, would give rise to no as it stands would apply to all proceed. practical difficulty, and it was desirable ings which were commenced after the to achieve at the earliest possible moment Royal Assent even if the cause of action cet1tail111.yabout the legal pos~tion of all 1295 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 129-6 [THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.) I am satisfied that the successful appli­ who were concerned and thereby remo-ve cant for legal aid will, within a few a5 soon as possible all doubts and diffi­ weeks, be gronrted it:he necessary cerili­ culties arising from the decision in the ficate for the launching of his proceed­ case of Rookes v. Barnard. ings. But we are most anxious, on the Gov­ I ought to add that, if there 1s any ernment side, to be fair to all concerned, question of time running out, a certifi­ to .poterutiail plamtiffs -a:s well as potemial cate can be issued under the legal aid defendants. Therefore, we have looked at machinery limited to obtaining counsel's this question in the light of our discus­ opinion, and, if that is favourable, taking sions in Standing Committee. It seems the initial steps in the action by the issue improbable that more than one or two of the writ to keep the right of action potential plaintiffs, if, indeed, any at all, alive. As has been said more than once would be frustrated by the provisions of in our debates, the eyes of the country subsection (2) as it stands, but there is, are very much on the Bill. There is an at any rate in theory, a possibility that awareness of the right of action, and a person in whom a right of action there will be an awareness of the limi­ accrued shortly before the Royal Assent tation of time imposed by its terms. might lose that right because there was insufficient time for him to take legal There are precedents for what is pro­ advice and issue his writ before the posed in the Amendment. There is the Royal Assent was given. We propose, precedent for a limitation period of six therefore, that to eliminate this possi­ months in the Law Reform (Miscel­ bility the putative plaintiff should be laneous Provisions) Act, 1934, which pro­ allowed six months in which to institute vides that proceedings in tort against the proceedings by the issue of a writ. estate of a deceased person must be in­ stituted not later than six months after a 8.0 p.m. personal representative takes out repre­ The courts have expressed at least sentation. That was the period recom­ three different reasons for supporting the mended by the Law Revision Committee, existence of statutes of limitation or time­ and it was accepted without question by bmiting provisions. First, it is said that the House as achieving the right balance Jong-dormant claims have more of between the interests of the potential cruelty than justice in them, and that the plaintiff who wishes to proceed against limitation Acts are acts of peace. This the estate of a deceased, and of the per­ ought to be a principle particularly per­ sonal representatives whose duty it is to tinent, I suggest, to disputes in indus­ distribute the estate to the beneficiaries trial relations. Second, the view has been with the minimum of delay. taken by the courts that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove [n the same way, in my submission, a stale claim. Third, the principle that the period of six months now proposed in the law applies is that persons with good the Bill achieves the right balance between causes of action should pursue them with the interests of the potential plaintiff and reasonable diligence. We have, there­ the potential defendant. It will suffice to fore, a whole series of limitation provi­ enable all potential plaintiffs whose cause sions in our law. of action accrues before Royal Assent to start their proceedings and, at the same I have most carefully considered time, it will within a reasonable period whether six months will be enough. I am put an end to the uncertainties arising satisfied that it would be. Even if it from the decision in the case of Rookes be necessary for the potential plaintiff v. Barnard. I should say that there is a to apply for and to obtain a legal aid further and, perhaps, more immediately certificate before he is in a position to comparable precedent for a limitation institute proceedings, six months is, I am assured by the legal aid authorities, period of six months to be found in the more than ample for this purpose. I Truck Acts. Proceedings by a workman understand that, provided that the pro­ for the recovery of improper deductions posed plaintiff answers letters and keeps from his wages made by an employer appointments with the legal aid com­ must be commenced within six months mittee, six weeks is invariably sufficient. of the date of the deduction. 1297 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1298 Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been straight retrospective legisla­ have put down Amendment No. 9 to ex­ tion n9t only to make future actions im­ tend the period to three years. I am satis­ possible in certain circums,tances, but to fied that that would in the circumstances remove the accumulated and vested rights be too long and that it is not necessary of citizens who had suffered damage as for the adequate protection of the pos­ a result of actions which were unlawful sible plaintiff. It would expose trade before the Bill was passed, but upon unionists to an excessive spell of uncer­ which they could not rely or found pro­ tainty as to whether they were at risk in ceedings after it became law. · regard to actions possibly being brought In Commiittee, it was the Solicitor­ against them for acts long since passed, General who endeavoured to justify the and this fear and uncertainty could well provisions of the Bill upon the basis of have an unsettling effect on industrial re­ retrospective legislation being justifiable in lations. It might also involve the courts appropriate circumstances, this being one themselves in considerable difficulties in such circumstance. We are grateful that interpreting the law as it now stands long better counsel has prevailed and that after the Bill has come into effect and there is to be at least some opportunity that law has been ?.mended and, perhaps for people whose rights have arisen before after ,a new volume of case law- I hope the BiH becomes law to enforce them that it does not come to pass but it might within a reasonable period if they d:esire -has arisen on the provisions of to do so. But we are discussing at the this Bill, and perhaps, even after the same time our Amendment No. 9, to Royal Commission on Trade Unions and substiitute the period of three years from Employers' Association bas reported. the time when the cause of action arose In other words, it would seriously de­ instead of a mere six months. tract from the objects of the Bill, which While we are grateful for a crumb, it are to remove the anxieties and uncertain­ is a wholly inadequate and somewhat ties created by the decision in Rookes mean crumb. There is no reason why v. Barnard, allowing the Royal Commis­ trade unionists as defendants should not sion to approach its task unimpeded by be subject to the ordinary period that the doubts among trade unionists about their vast majority of our citizens are subjeot legal position. As I have said, the Gov­ to, either a period of s,ix years~ the ernment are anxious to be fair to all those ordinary period of limitation-or the concerned, and I believe that that result period of three years, which we propose. will be best achieved by the Amend­ This period is that within which every ment. citizen is liable to be sued in respect of Sir John Hobson (Warwick and action for personal injuries. It is the Leamington): Naturally, we are grate­ period in which he is certain that the ful that at least one concession has been ma.tter is set at risk. made by the Government during the The only dispute between us and the whole of our proceedings on the Bill, and Government is on the length of the we are glad that the Attorney-General, period. I entirely concede that the right who must have borne some of the respon­ hon. and learned Gentleman gave most sibility for this Amendment, has been able excellent r,easons as to why one should to move it and put it before the House in have a time J.imit of some sort but that such agreeable terms. does not justify and argue so exiguous a We are glad that the original provisions time limit as six months. We must have been seen to be wholly wrong. It remember that between 1893 and 1938 was proposed that, to some extent, there public authorities had the benefit of a six should be retrospective legislation by the months' limitation. Anyone who wished removal of vested rights in individuals to sue a public authority had to bring which would cease to remain vested in his action within six months. In 1938, them as soon as the Bill began to operate. however, Parliament thought that this If a citizen, a week before the Royal was far too high a privilege even for Assent, had acquired vested rights, they public authorities and certainly in the ,i would, within that week, have been courts, and the Scottish courts. in parti­ removed. cular, it was frequently pointed out what This would have had nothing to do injustices were created by so short a with a period of limitation ; it would period of limitation. 1299 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Report 1300 [SIR J. HOBSON.] must be aware of the facts and in many Now, Parliament having removed so insitances not all itbe faots will be avail­ short a period that was to the benefit of able from ,tlhe start. One then has to public authorities, it is proposed to put get le~l aid, whioh -takes time. One must trade unions in the position which public then find a solidtor and he will want ,to authorities enjoyed at one time by grant­ know add1tional faots. One ,then has to ing them a period of six months. This, take beitJter advice and while colleoting therefore, puts the trade unions in a more thait advice and more IllaJterial time is advantageous position than that of the running against on~. Crown or public authorities which are We all know thait lirtiga,tion should be liable to be sued in respect of their pursued aotively but there is a disadvan­ actions. tage in forcing peop1e rto issue writs before The Attorney-General referred to· the they are really ready and to reserve their Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) posiition by issuing wr1ts when it may be Act, 1934, and pointed out that a period wholly unnecessary rto do so and when, of six months existed in respect of the if they had more time to consider the estate of a deceased person. But be is mattter, tihev would decide not to seek surely not suggesting that trade unions any legal remedy. are dead above or below the neck. They Actions arising from the tort of intimi­ are a continuing body. They are not daitio,n are complicaited and difficulit. They winding up their affairs and endeavouring, invnlve very difficul,t questions of borth as an execUJtor does, to distribute airi faot and law. They are infinmely more estate to those entitled to it. The Truck complicated and difficult than any per­ Acts are ancient legislation of the nine­ sonal aotion and on top of itJhait the teenth century and in any case deal with damages and injuries thait can be suf­ small sums of money and are nothing like fered by rthe plainrt:iff in many instances actions of the sort or importance dealt can be far mo.re serious rthan the damages with by the Bill. or injuries done during a cause of action for person-al injur,ies. We propose, therefore, that three years is the proper period to fix. Actions for Probrubly rthere are not very many ol personal injuries can be straightforward these aotions, as the right hon. and learned and ordinary. The citizen is given a Geilltleman said, bUJt I do not think thait period not only of three years, however, the principle alrt:ers one way or the other, but a period which can include additional whether ,there are many such aotions or time if, first, he is under a disability for few. When imposing a period of lim1ta­ any reason and cannot sue, secondly, if tion one must endeavour to hold the the cause of the action has been concealed balance of justice, as the right hon. and from him, and, thirdly, if be has an learned Geilltleman said, between the in­ illness which does not reveal itself to terests of rthe people who may have rights him at an early stage. He can also show accruing ito them and which they may that material facts were outside his wish to pursue, and •the intereSlts of pro­ knowledge. speotive defendanrts who should not be kept in a state of suspense for too long 8.15 p.m. wmhoUJtknowing whether or not ,nhey are The period we propose in rthis case to be sued. would be inoapable of extension for any I do not accept that there are not suoh reason, even rthou~h the cause of necessarily many of these actions. One aotion wa,s aotively concealed from him example was quoted by my right hon. by those who would be the prospective Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. defendants. Even if he was under a dis­ Godber), in Committee, and another was abiliJty ood could not be sued, and even mentioned earlier today. We already though rthe ma,terial faots could not be know of two cases, therefore, which may discovered by which he could rtake advice come to litigation and there may be a as to whether or not he could sue, once great many others. But whether there

~ the time had gone he could not sue. are many or whether there are few, the We say ,thait a period of three yearn is interests of the party who wishes to sue usual and proper. As the Artitomey­ and of those likely to be the defendants Gener-al says, there is a substantial amount must be held in balance and I submit that to do before one even issues a wrirt. One our Amendment proposing a three year 1301 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third R eading 1302 period without any possibility of extension and friendly self and has always been for any reason is infinitely fairer and apparently prepared to meet our argu­ better than the six months the Govern­ ments. Unfortunately, he has not gone ment have just managed to edge their that little further to satisfy us and our way towards. fears remain. On Report, hon. Members We hope that, now they are through opposite pooh-poohed any idea that there the door, they will see that there is no would be widespread intimidation as a substantial difference of principle between result of the Bill becoming law. They six months and three"years and that it said, as most of us agree, that in their would be infinitely fairer to all concerned normal day-to-day activities the last in­ if they were to be even more gracious tention of trade union officials is to and accept our Amendment. intimidate anybody and that all they want to do is to get on with their normal Amendment agreed to. business of negotiating with employers Motion made, and Question proposed, on behalf of their members. That the Bill be now read the Third time. If this is so, there is little point in 8.21 p.m. having the Bill, because if trade union Mr. Mawby : Although this is a very officials are not interested in intimidating short Bill- on one side of a sheet of people, but in getting on with their every­ paper-we have spent many hours dis­ day job, there is no point in passing a cussing it and we have reached Third Bill which will not give them any more R eading with the Bill very little changed. power than they now need. There were At this hour I do not desire to go over special circumstances in the Rookes v. our long discussions, but we should not Barnard case, one of which was that allow the Bill to pass its Third Reading officials had to threaten action which was without one or two comments. contrary to a contract of service before the law could bite. Only a few moments ago, the Attorney­ General said that the Bill sought to re­ Time after time it has been said that move anxieties and confusions, and it is the Bill merely restores the law to what obvious from the decision in Rookes v. everyone had thought it to be since the Barnard that there have been anxieties passing of the 1906 Act. I shall not and confusions. The right hon. Gentle­ rehearse the arguments again, but I be­ man the Minister of Labour obviously lieve this to be an erroneous impression. has it in mind to sweeten the atmosphere Conditions in 1965 are entirely different as much as possible to enable the Royal from those in 1906, when there was Commission to have an ideal atmosphere obviously a desperate need for the sort in which to take as much evidence as of legislation then introduced. Industrial possible. One can, therefore, understand conditions were entirely different and the his desire to bring in a Bill to remove 1906 Act at least made certain that those the anxieties and confusions which arose who were fighting, in many cases for after the Rookes v. Barnard decision. their very existence, at least had protec­ However, because the Bill has not been tion and immunity, so that if they did amended, it could still be used-a nd I jobs as trade union officials, the small believe that in certain circumstances it funds of their unions would not be at will be used- to legalise intimidation. I officials took. In those days many em­ have every respect for the right hon. ployers made it a condition of Gentleman's desire that the normal trade employment- - union official should be able to go about his duties without fear of being sued for Mr. Eric S. H efter (Liverpool, Walton): any action he takes, but as it stands the The 1906 Act was introduced in the face Bill legalises intimidation and because of bitter Conservative opposition. When­ its dangers are so great, on balance-and ever progress has been made, it has we should always consider balance-it always been made in the face of Tory would have been better if we had held opposition, and the hon. Member should up the Bill until the Royal Commission remember that. had reported. Throughout these proceedings the Mr. Mawby : Neither the hon. Gentle­ Minister has been· his usual courteous man nor I had been born in 1906. 1303 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1304 Mr. Deffer : What has that to do with the employer said, " You cannot work it? for me if you are a member of a trade union " . Now the employer has to Mr. Mawby : It has a great deal to do say, "Y ou cannot work for me if you with it. If we base our consideration of are not a member of a trade union.'· the future of this country on impressions One tyranny can be as tyrannical as of what happened years before we were another. We should think very care­ born, we will not get very far. We fully before passing a Bill which legalises must accept conditions as they are at intimidation. I hope that if the Bill the moment and use and rely on the is passed it will not be used for this results of many battles fought in the past purpose. But if it is used in only a by our fathers and forefathers. It is very small number of cases that will no good harking back to situations which be enough. The rights of the individual obtained when neither the hon. Gentle­ should be maintained by Members or man nor I had been born and in respect this House. As Members of Parliament, of which we can only refer to the evidence we have a much wider duty than any which we read in books. of the interests which we may have out­ Mr. Heffer : For the hon. Gentleman's side. We must ensure that whenever information, may I say that I have been a minority is affected it is given reason­ a leading shop steward on many big able protection. building jobs. My experience in modern days has been that the Conservative Sir E. Brown: Would not my hon. Party and the employers have never Friend agree that the death of one welcomed us trade unionists with open trade unionist as a result of intimidation arms. We have always had to fight -for by his fellow workers is enough to make everything that we got. sure that the Bill is amended? Mr. Mawby : Probably the hon. Mr. Mawby : That is an important Gentleman has had some unfortunate point. It needs only one case to arise experiences. I have not had such experi­ for all of use to have a bad conscience. ences in the various offices which I have I believe that we ought to think very held in my union. seriously indeed before we give this right to anyone. In 1906, there was a need for men to combine together and to make sure that For those reasons, I believe that we they got proper recognition and could ought to oppose the Third Reading negotiate for proper wages and conditions. of the Bill, but I know that if the Bill Many employers made it a condition that is passed the right hon. Gentleman will they would not employ anybody if he do everything possible to impress on belonged to a union. We have now all those who are in charge of trade unions- and not only those who are turned full circle. Those who were fight­ in charge, but other persons, as well as ing to get rid of a tyranny-and it was a small groups of unofficial leaders- that tyranny ; any employer who takes that this right which he is giving them must attitude is a tyrant-- in no circumstances be used by any­ Mr. Orme : The hon. Gentleman says one as a licence. that we have come full circle. Mv own 8.30 p.m. union, the Amalgamated Engineering Mr. Hooson: Listening to the hon. Union, is having problems in Scotland Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), I was with American employers who still will reassured to hear that the Conservative not recognise trade unions. We are Party had concern for minorities. It having to fight for that recognition. has not always shown this concern in all spheres, and I would be a little more Mr. Mawby : I wish the hon. Gentle­ reassured if it had shown greater con­ man luck. I do not know the particular cern in spheres of activity other than case to which he refers. Such instances trade unions. are in the minority in industry in this country. However, be that as it may, it is a legitimate criticism of the Minister that The tyranny which we were set up he has proved so intractable on this to fight has come full circle. Before, Bill. I made the position of the Liberal 1305 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1306 Party clear during the Second Reading ber of a union, or indeed to cease to be debate. I understand the Minister's need a member of a union. If that was the to reassure trade union officials and shop sole purpose of the action, the intimida­ stewards who are legitimately conduct­ tion would nevertheless be legal under ing union business that they will not the Bill as it stands. expose themselves to tortious action by something that they might say, or some I fully appreciate the view of the Minister that we cannot begin to embark formula which they may not follow, piecemeal on the reform of trade union during the conduct of negotiations. law. It is now very complicated. The I think that those fears were exag­ industrial development of this country gernted, just as the fears from this side has taken place in such a way that the about the effects of the Bill have beein whole of trade union law needs review. greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, cast­ I am sure that hon. Members on both ing aside the exaggerations, I think that sides of the House will agree that that it was a legitimate exercise for the Gov­ is so, and that it would be a long job, ernment to enlist the full co-operation of which should be undertaken by a body the trade union movement in the Royal such as a Royal Commission, with the Commission's investigation by allaying full co-operation of the trade unions con­ the fears that arose, not, I think, from cerned. Nevertheless, the Minister is the judgment itself, but from the pos­ wrong in suggesting that we necessarily sible implications of some of the speeches have to freeze all political judgment I in the other place. It was not the judg­ until a report is nroduced. He could ment itself that caused the difficulty, but have come- a little -way towards meeting 1 the possibl,e interpretation of what was the general fears that have been said by some of the learned Lords. expressed about the Bill. There was, as I said on Second Read­ ing, great divergence of opinion among Mr. Orme : What worries me is the lawyers as to what the diktat might mean. hon. and learned Member's attempt to I always thought that there was great expand the field of trade union law. exaggeration of the fea,r that this could Trade unions in this country do not lead to the v,ictimisation of trade union want to see the arrival here of the sort officials and shop stewards. of situation that exists in the United As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, States, where trade union law covers all 1 approved of both ,the tone and content spheres of activity, and where resort is of his Second Reading speech. I thought had to the courts continuously. I that it was a most enlightened speech, and thought that our method of collective during our consideration of the Bill I bargaining and the position of our trade have found myself in the pos,ition that unions were such that there was no need whereas I was certain that it was my duty to resort to the law. I am surprised that to vote against the Third Reading of the the hon. and learned Member should Bill-and during the Second Reading suggest that we should expand the law­ debate I said that I would- I was in unless it is because he is a lawyer. agreement with the r,ight hon. Gentle­ man's view on many of the ma·tJters which Mr. Hooson : I am sorry that the hon. he dealt with both today and during the Member should suggest that I have a Second Reading debate. vested interest in preserving the rights Whereas it was right to allay the legi­ of lawyers in this respect. I have not. timate fears of trade union oflioials and There is a great deal to be said for our shop stewards, and it was right not to try method of collective bargaining. I was to amend trade union law in all its detail putting forward a general view of how in a short Bill like this, it was equally a Royal Commission should approach right to allay the legitimate fears of those this very complicated problem. who were worried that the powers con­ The Minister said that he was dealing tained in the Bill might be used as an with a narrow point. That is true. In instrument for victimisation. · Under the that case, however, I do not see why Bill as it stands, somebody could resort he should not have accepted the Amend­ to intimidation and inflict injury for the ment No. 6. I will willingly give way sole purpose of enforcing a man to re­ to any hon. Member opposite who can maiin a member of a union, to be a mem- tell me that a shop steward or trade 1307 Trade Disputes Bi/1- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1308 [MR. HOOSON.] 8.45 p.m. union official would be inhibited in per­ Mr. Hugh Jenkins : The question is: forming his ordinary legitimate duties if what is the legitimate work of a trade he were not protected from a tortious union official? I think that it is here action if he intimidated, or threatened that we have the nub of the matter. The intimidation, with the sole intention of hon. and learned Gentleman the Member forcing a person to become a member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), from the of a trade union, or remain a member Liberal benches, is doing what the of a trade union, or leave a trade union. Liberal Party nearly always does. He is demonstrating that its members are Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): I shall anarchist in political theory, but Whigs tell the hon. and learned Member about in political practice. It is legitimate for this if I succeed in catching your eye, a trade union to seek to become 100 per Mr. Deputy-Speaker. cent. This is a part of the function of Mr. Hooson: I have discussed with a trade union, to seek to establish itself many people the question whether this and to build a complete organisation. would inhibit a trade union official or Members opposite might travel with me shop steward in the normal and legiti­ a little further and agree that there are mate pursuit of his activities, and I have certain occupations in which 100 per cent. been assured that it would not. membership is essen,ti,aJ ; for example, doctors, and possibly even lawyers. I Mr. Orme: My experience in industry would not wish to go that far myself but prior to October, when I came here, is the hon. Gentleman might perhaps. that the Rookes v. Barnard case has There are other spheres of occupation in inhibited shop stewards and trade union which 100 per cent. organisation is officials. The decision in that case has necessary for other reasons. hung over industry and is being used in many ways-- To give an example. The hon. Gentle­ man lt!he Member for Baitih (Sir E. Mr. Godber indicated dissent. Brown), talked about death. We had an Mr. Orme: It is no good the right hon. example of death occurring among Gentleman shaking his head. It is true. trade unionists yesterday. These are the There have been instances in my union sort of deaths with which we are con­ of its restrictive effect. We have had cerned. There are many jobs which are letters from the executive council to my carried out by many ordinary people district committee, pointing out that we which are extremely dangerous and must be careful how we proceed because these men have the tradition of 100 per of the Rookes v. Barnard decision. cent. trade unionism which they are en­ titled to enforce and demand. Mine­ Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member misses workers have always said that they will my point. He is dealing with an entirely not work alongside non-members of their different point. I accept that fears exist trade union, and I would say that they about the decision itself. What I am have an absolute right to say this. saying is that if the narrow Liberal Amendment No. 6 had been accepted it Mr. Hooson: I am most grateful to would in no way have inhibited a trade the hon. Member for giving way. The union official or shop steward from con­ example of doctors and lawyers is a tinuing his legitimate work. If it had mistake. T here is a difference between been accepted by the Minister it would professional qualifications. The doctor have allayed a good many of the qualifies as a doctor and becomes a mem­ exaggerated fears which have been ber of the British Medical Association, raised about the Bill. but the doctor does not have to become a member before he can practise, and Therefore, as I said in the Second a barrister does not have to be a member Reading debate, although we are in of a circuit to practise. general sympathy with the objectives of the Bill we will not support it unless w,:, Mr. Jenkins : I will take up what the are reassured on this point. The Minister hon. Gentleman says._ It is a question of has come no way towards reassuring us. qualification. The qualification of the He bas given us honeyed words; but his miner is th at he belongs to the trade actions have not matched his words. union. On the Second Reading of the 1309 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third R eading 1310 Bill I gave another example in which I vation of industrial peace, for trade asserted that it was absolutely essential union membership to be obligatory. and right for 100 per cent. trade unionism These are the facts of life, and if hon. to be exacted. The example is that of Members opposite do not like it they rhe &tunt film aDtisit. Here is very dan- must lump it. gerous work and membership of the trade union gives a guarantee to that Sir E. Brown : It is on this pertinent point that there is so much interest with aDtis,t. He is ,righit:rt:o ensure that whoever comes into the trade union will have the regard to 100 per cent. trade union mem­ degree of skill to ensure that his own bership. I believe in 100 per cent. trade life is nort endangered. union membership and would recruit for it. But what happens if an individual Hon. Members are saying that the falls foul of his union when there is 100 Bill is not necessary, provided the trade per cent. trade union membership? How unionist does his job in a legitimate way. do we protect him? The hon. Member The question is: what is the legitimate referred to film artists. We in the House way? Words like " threats", "pers ua­ have a responsibility, in the name of s~on," and so forth, are used. At what freedom and democracy, to make certain point does persuasion become intimida­ tion? These are the narrow arguments that such a person can get another job. we would have to go on having through­ Mr. Jenkins: There are circumstances out the trade union movement if we did in which it becomes necessary in some not have this Bill. This is the sort of occupations for an individual to lose the situartion which hon. Members opposite right to earn his living. It could be a would put this country into. I say that lawyer losing his practice, or it might if the Bill were not to be carried there become impossible for a doctor to prac­ would be a vast increase in the number tise, or for a trade unionist to follow a of disputes occurring because of argu­ certain occupation, in the event of his ments around and abouit this sort of refusing the necessary degree of co­ problem. operation with the rest of the people Let me give one further illustration. concerned. This business of taking a Between the wars there was a threat of single case as the proposition on which a strike in the entertainment business. to change the whole of trade union law is As a result of that threat it was decided absolutely ludicrous. Hon. Members to establish machinery under which there opposite are pleading not for freedom, would be registration of all concerned but for licence, and that would under­ in the business. The registration proce­ mine our trade union structure. dure was established and employers and I welcome the Bill. The opposition performers had to be registered under to it has not been well founded. I the London Theatre Council. believe that the passing of the Bill is The registration of the performers is essential so that the normal practices effected by means of trade union mem­ and traditions of the trade union move­ bership. Everybody who appears on the ment may be carried on. stage in London has to be a member of the trade union organisation. Without 8.52 p.m. this protection the enforcement of that Mr. Edward M. Taylor : I wish to join regulation emanating from the Ministry my hon. Friends in oppos,ing the Third of Labour, universally enforced and as Reading of this Bill. I feel that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) a result of which there has been peaceful has completely misunderstood the purpose organisation in the theatre over the last of the Bill and of our proposed Amend­ 2S years, would be quite impossible. ments to it. In fact, the Bill, unamended, If the trade union official comes across is not concerned with the rights of unions a non-member he says, " The regulations in any way. It is concerned with the are that you must join." The hon. Mem­ rights of individuals. The Bill, as such, in ber wishes to make it impossible for the no way restricts, nor would our Amend­ official to say that. He wishes to end ments have restricted, the powers of trade compulsion. I say that there are circum­ unions as such. A U that has happened is stances- I have illustrated one or two­ that a new immunity is to be given to in which it is essential, for the preser- trade unions. 1311 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1312 [MR. TAYLOR.] seldom these identical circumstances The Bill in no way restriots the right could arise, it is clear that the Bill covers to strike or affects the question of the only a few cases in special circumstances. closed shop. It is concerned that we give a new immunity to trade union leaders, On the other hand, I am certainly of unions, or groups within unions, to use the opinion that much greater issues of some kind of intimidation to force a principle are involved in the Bill, short third party to do certain things. though it ,is and limited though its appli­ cation may be. The consequences of It would make it possible for intimida­ passing the Bill are far more -dangerous tion ,to be used to bring abou:t a closed and far more significant than are shop despite the faot that the Minister of immediately obvious. It is certainly not Labour and some hon. Members on the the basis of my case nor of that of my Government side have opposed that in hon. Friends that trade union reform is principle. It would make it possible for not necessary or desirable. Anyone who intimidation to be used to carry out or has been involved in industrial negotia­ to continue restrictive practices, despite tions or industrial life today appreciates the fact that in the declaraition of inten­ that there must be a real change in trade tion, signed by prominent people in the union law . Government and the trade union move­ It might be argued that the Bill is a ment, it is stated that the Government means of getting trade union r-eform, a wish to get rid of restrictive practices. means of having a Royal Commission It would make it possible for inrtimidation through which we can get these changes, to be used to enforce unofficial strikes but we find it very difficult to accept that and to insist that people should par­ this is a possibility, when all the conces­ ticipate in them. Yet unofficial strikes sions have been made on one side. We are have been forcibly condemned by hon. very scared that the Government will not Members both sides of the House. on be in a position to bring forward the What the Bill does is make it possible kind of changes which the Royal Com­ for intimidation to be used to enforce mission might suggest. We appreciate certain things which both Government that c ges are required. Those who and Opposiition have condemned time and han time again. drafted and brought forward the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 cannot possibly The one argument which has been put have envisaged the complex problems of forward regularly in support of the Bill modern industry and the changing atti­ is tha,t it will create the right conditions tudes to human relations in our com­ in which the Royal Commission can work. mercial and industrial life. We might have been prepared to accept There has been one significant change. this if there had been in the Bill some In 1906, when the Bill was brought in, kind of time limit. We appreciate that on I think that it was appreciated that there Third Reading we are concerned only was a need to protect people in industry, with what is in the Bill, and I see no a need to protect human beings. This mention in the Bill of a time limit, so gives a further measure of protection, but that we have no guarantee that the Royal it gives more powers to people involved Commission will complete its delibera­ in industry on the labour side. If there tions by any time. We should have been has been a change in the situation, it has more influenced to accept these sort of been a change in the protection which a arguments if there hact been some time person now has. The Bill will remove limit. There is none. one bit of protect,ion which a person It has been suggested in support of formerly had. the Bill as it now is that it deals only A man might not want to participate with a minor legal point arising out of in a restrictive oractice but his mates the application of the Trade Disputes might go out on -strike to insist that he Act, 1906. Certainly, at first sight, it should. He could be thrown out in appears that the Bill will have a very consequence and lose his job- not just limited effect on a few cases which arise for a few weeks but for all time-because in special circumstances. When we con­ his membership was withdrawn. We are sider the peculiar case from which the now making sure that he has no protec­ Bill stemmed, and when we consider how tion whatever. The Bill removes any

.,,_ 1313 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1314 protection which he had. If someone In other words, Lord Reid considered has a conscientious objection to joining that the point in the Rookes v. Barnard a union and is thrown out of his work case had not arisen before. It was a in consequence, we are now removing any simple point in principle, but a com­ right which he has to take action aga,inst plicated one at law. The point at law those who brought this upon him. I hope contained in the Bill, and dealt with by that the hon. Member for Putney will it, is whether it is legal for a trade union think about these things and appreciate to do something which an individual is that the Bill removes the rights of not in a position to do. The original individuals and does not in any way Trade Disputes Act gave immunity from consolidate the, powers· of the trade an action for conspiracy in respect of unions. acts done in concert which would have As the Bill is completely unamended, been lawful if done by an individual, apart from one minor point of proceed­ but was not intended to give protection ings which are in the pipeline, I think to the use of unlawful means such as the that we are faced with the central argu­ tort of intimidation. ment which has been put forward time The question then arose that, while it and time again, that, having appointed was clear that the threat cf violence con­ the Royal Commission, it is a very stituted intimidation, did the threat of a dangerous thing to take a decision in body of men to break their contracts of thi's way on the central theme of the employment constitute such intimida­ relationship under law between all people tion? I do not think that anyone would in industry. This is a real danger and question, in the case of Rookes v. Barn­ we also have the difficulty that there is ard, the fact that there was intimidation the possibility that the passing of this - of a great aircraft corporation being Measure will remove any prospect of threatened with a sudden strike. How­ having a useful outcome from the Royal ever, the question was this. Was intimi­ Commission's deliberations. daition in law. Atter consideraition it was If the Government cannot resist the decided in the House of Lords that in­ pressures to pass the Bill-to remove all timidation had existed in that case. I the alleged anomalies arising from the feel that the basic principle was whether Rookes v. Barnf(rd case-how can we men in an industry had the right to believe that they would have the courage threaten to do what legally they had no to remove such protection as the Bill right to threaten to do. The Bill will now affords? We have accused the have the effect of deciding that they did. Government of this from time to time I said that the Measure gives a new and one thing that has confirmed this immunity. Before we pass the Third belief is that the Government have not Reading we must seriously consider how been willing seriously to consider amend­ this new immunity might be used. We ing the Bill. Had they been prepared to must think carefully about the questions make some changes in the Bill we might affecting the closed shop, about restrictive have been convinced that they had room practices and about the wide sphere of for manceuvre. Our feeling now is that activities in which this new immunity they are restricted by the terms of a could be given. I feel that it is an ex­ squalid package deal which gives no tremely dangerous new immunity and room for manceuvre. that if the Bill were not passed we should It is clear that the circumstances dealt be in no way detracting from the powers with by the Bill will arise on only a few of the trade unions and the rights of occasions. I mentioned earlier in the individual trade union members. We day that this was made clear by Lord would, however, be preventing-I think Reid's judgment in the case. Since rightly-the removal of the one safe­ making those remarks I have had a guard which individuals within trade chance to look the matter up, particu­ unions now have. larly the passage in which Lord Reid This brings me to the question of said: individuals within trade unions. There 1 "I have not set out any of the passages has been a good deal of talk about the cited in argument because the precise point which we have to decide did not arise in any rights of individuals to join unions. It of the cases in which they occur ... ". has been suggested that certain firms - 1315 Trade Disputes Bil/- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1316 [MR. TAYLOR.] The Government, on the other hand, deny individuals the right to part1c1pate quite rightly say that since the Rookes v. I fully in trade union activities, and we Barnard case the position is so doubtful know that this is the case. Many of my that the trade union movement is justified hon. Friends would condemn it as much in seeking a measure of clarification until as hon. Members opposite. Let us also the Royal Commission reports and its remember the growing problem in in­ recommendations can be acted upon. At dustry and the many individual cases the same time, many of us think that -I agree that they are only individual workers in the mines and the farms, in cases, but a growing number of them­ engineering, in factories and offices have concerning individuals who are willing to a right to know where they stand. Solici­ participate fully in a trade union but tors are not always handy in all these who are expelled and not given the right places to advise workers who may be to rejoin. upset by the frustrations- and the dangers the conditions in which they work. In this way we immediately deprive -of people of their livelihood, and may de­ I tabled various Amendments in the prive them for all time from engaging in Committee, but did not press them. I their normal occupation and using skills wanted to air certain matters, but I was that may have taken manyyearsto acquire. also prepared to accept the Minister's If the law is to be changed so as to give assurance that they could be looked at a change in emphasis, let that emphasis in the light of the Royal Commission be on the rights of the individual, and report. I think that I speak on behalf of on giving a little more protection to the trade union movement generally when the individual from the dangers that can I say that although we appreciate the arise in a society in which the trade Government's bringing forward the Bill unions appear to be getting a little too -and it would not have been produced much power. had the Conservatives gained power in October-we are also well aware of its 9.5 p.m. limitations, and hope that the various Mr. Bishop : When he introduced the matters on which we have aired our views Bill, the Minister claimed that the object will be put right when the Royal Com­ was to restore the Jaw to the position as mission reports. it was thought to be before the Rookes v. The Bill seeks to protect the new form Barnard case ; that, by it, the Government of intimidation relating to threats to were fulfilling a pre-election promise to break a contract of employment. It may deal with the situation flowing from that cover union officials against that liability, case in 1956, and that we were not con­ but whether it protects some of the indi­ ferring on the trade union movement­ viduals, such as Barnard and Fistal, is as some hon. Members opposite have doubtful. Rookes v. Barnard breach of alleged-any special privileges, but were contract was declared wholly unlawful, seeking merely to restore the position to like violence, and it appears that despite the status quo of 1906. the Bill the courts could regard a breach The Bill has had from the Conservative as unlawfully involving other torts, such Party the determined opposition one as conspiracy. might expect. Hon. Members opposite, In Commi1ttee, we spent seven s~t,tings under the guise of fighting for the rights discussing Amendments moved by hon. of minorities, have sought to restrict the Membe£s opposiJte and various questions rights of majorities. It is fair to say that remain to be answered. One may ask in opposing the Bill and its purpose they whait is a ,trade dispurte? Does irt include show that they are not in favour of the a recognition dispute as in the case of privileges and rights given to the trade Sitvaitford v. Lindley? It would appear ,to be illegal wiJth all the side effeots of rthe union movement in 1906, but are aiming Rookes v. Barnard case. One may ask to put the clock back 60 years. It is whether a sitrike is a conspiracy to use quite clear that the Opposition are illegal means and whether a warning is a anxious that the Bill should not proceed, threa,t because the legal possibilirties make and believe that we should await the re­ it rather severe on those ooncerned. Since port of the Royal Commission, whenever the Rookes v. Barnard oase •there have that may come. been other martlters which the Minister

.... 1317 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1318 claims should be dealit with at a later gers. Barnard and Fistal, in the Rookes date. The S>trart:ford v. Lindley case is a v. Barnard case, were penalised for case in point. doing something in 1956 which the House While we are doing what we promised of Lords, in 1964, said was illegal, ana these trade unionists were held to be to do, to give limiited proteotion >to itrade unions which may be affected by the in order by the Court of Appeal while Rookes v. Barnard decision, legislation on the House of Lords' decision was to the the Stratford v. Lindley and the Bowles v. contrary. Therefore, there has been Lindley cases raise new points. In the retrospective action here. It is possible Straitford v. Lindley case a question was for people who rightly believe they are raised in which iit was held thait there was within the law of the trade union move­ no trade dispute, brut an inter-union ment and who act accordingly to be dispute. In faot it was a dispute beitween subject to heavy penalties at a later a union and an employer. I should like date. These people are an important this Bill if possible to have included cornerstone of our industrial society. recogni,tion disprutes as being itrade dis­ I welcome the Bill. I am sure that putes and to give proteotion in thart: way. the trade union movement welcomes it. A furither doubt arises since the Rookes The Bill is really the soup before the v. Barnard decision in the case of Strat­ main meal which will be provided by ford v. Lindley where the defendants were the Royal Commission. I have merely held liable because ithey urged members pointed out some of the misgivings which to break ,their contracts of employment some of us have so that they may be and deprived barge-hirer cu&tomers of dealt with by the Royal Commission. their co11Jtraots. The Bill deals w~th con­ My colleagues and I believe that the tracts of employment, but irt: may be that matter is very urgent. Many ndoubts we should have included commerci,al con­ remain to be resolved. Many questions tracts as well. The Bill provides ,thait a.n have yet to be answered. The sooner aot sihall be aotionable on the ground the Royal Commission reports, the better only thart: irt: consisits of threart:ening. The it will be for everyone concerned. aot done by Barnard and Fis.ta! was not I end by quoting from the excellent only a threait to ,the B.O.A.C., bu>t was held to be damaging ,to Rookes, who was book, "The Worker and the Law", by also concerned. The defendanits were held Professor K. W. Wedderburn, Professor not to be protected by Seotion 3 of the of Commercial Law at the University Trade Disprutes Aot. So ,the protection of London: we all ,thought was in the 1906 Act did " The Bill, if enacted in this form, would have substantial limitations and would not not exist. One may ask whether ,the reproduce the law as it was thought to be prese11Jt Bill provides proteotion in that before 1964 in every respect." respect. I have mentioned tonight some of the lit is not easy to ,tell wha.t the effects reasons the professor gives in support of a breach of contract may be. Com­ of that claim. mercial contraots may be affected and people can be made subject to the very We are pleased that the Bill is to severe penalties for invoking breach of become law. It gives somewhat limited commercial coilltraots. The House of protection in respect of the doubts which Lords decision in Rookes v. Barnard was have risen since Rookes v. Barnard. We that a breach of contract is an unlawful still have to await the wider findings ot aot for the purpose of the torit of intimida­ the Royal Commission. We sincerely tion. The Bill deals with intimidation, hope that they will come as soon as but not conspiracy, yet we know thait possible so that doubts can be resolved every strike involves conspiracy in breach and those who work in industry will of contraot and that such a conspiracy have the protection which is their due. may be held to be unlawful. The House has accepted an Amend­ 9.16 p.m. ment which gives defendants a right Mr. Godber: We come almost to the to bring action within six months of the end of our discussion on the Bill. I have Act being passed. One may say that been in the House for some years. It for some time those engaged in industry is a long time since I can recall, if indeed have been subjected to certain legal dan- I can recall, an occasion on which a ~--~------~--- ~- ----~ --,...... -r ,...-.

1319 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1320 [MR. GOOBER.] strikes in breach of contract, nor a re we legis­ Minister was so unenthusiastic about bis lating against them."-[OFF ICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1965 ; Vol. 706, c. 1017.J Bill that he failed to make one single articulate sound in commending it to From listening to some of the Minister's the House on Third Reading. hon. Friends today one would have thought that very sweeping things were Mr. Gunter : It was the deception of being done by the Bill. the right hon. Gentleman that brought As I pointed out on an Amendment about that state of affairs. I thought that during the Report stage, the effect of the right hon. Gentleman was calling a the Bill is very limited, as the Minis·ter Division. I went out in obedience. For himself then said. It sought primarily to some reason, the right hon. Gentleman clear up an area of doubt which existed did not call a Division. in the minds of many trade union leaders Mr. Godber: I am sure that the subsequent to the Rookes v. Barnard Minister has all sorts of reasons about judgment. We have debated with the which he will tell the House later. We Government the issues and the main criti­ were waiting eagerly for his speech on cisms which we have of the Bill. In Third Reading. It did not emerge. Committee I summarised three main Before we conclude, I trust that he will points. I said then, on the Motion give us the benefit of his views. "T hat the Clause stand part of the Bill ": .. I fin d three main criticisms of the Clause: Mr. Gunter : Very shortly. one is about the position of the individual : one is about the position of the unofficial Mr. Godber : That depends on how strike leader ; and one is about retrospection." long I take. I do not intend to delay - [OFFICIAL REPO RT, Standing Committee A. the House for long, although I feel 6th April, 1965, C. 273.J strongly about the Bill. We have already On the point of retrospection we have discussed it in considerable detail. It had one crumb of comfort. appears clear that the Minister is not in We were not able to debate the posi­ the mood to assist the House. We have tion of the unofficial strike leader on every right to feel a sense of grievance Report stage. We had an Amendment because he has not taken more account of but it was not selected. I believe that the Amendments we have moved during the Minister was wrong in not doing the Bill's passage. We must acknowledge, something which could hav,e helped him with a very limited degree of gratitude, in his official position as Minister of the fact that at the very last moment Labour by restricting any benefit which not the Minister but his right hon. and the Bill would give to those in an official learned Friend the Attorney-General was position in a trade union. I believe persuaded on the merits of the case about that there would have been real benefit retrospection to give us one crumb of in producing something of that sort and comfort. That is all we have had during in restricting the advantages to those who the passage of the Bill. So the Bill goes speak in an official capacity. The forward almost in the form in which it Minister knows as well as anyone in the emerged, a form which in our view has House the difficulties and the dangers very serious defects. which arise in industrial relations when It would seem from some of the official leaders are ignored. I believe that speeches made by hon. Members opposite he wants to strengthen the hands of today that hon. Members opposite have official leaders as much as I do and that I no idea of what the Bill intends to do. he was wrong not to accede to our request I They have tried to expand the issues there. raised by the Bill far beyond its con­ What the Minister was most wrong , fines, certainly far beyond the confines about, however, was rthe matter on which set out by the Minister himself on Second we have spent most of our time, and that Reading. The Minister said this when is the question of the individual. The moving the Second Reading: right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to .. I should like to take this early opportunity move one iota to meet us on a genuine of emphasising that this legislation is not in­ case put forward with great cogency by tended to make any new departure in the law my hon. Friends. Yet we have bad no governing trade union activities. We are not legalising the closed sh op, nor are we out­ safeguards a.t all. The Bill still contains lawing it. We are not opening the door to words whioh mean that not only is the 1321 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1322 trade union leader in his normal activities have exaggerated. Nevertheless, I assure of wage 111egotiation safeguarded but also him that th~se opinions are deeply held that he is safeguarded with regard to any and deserve to be treated with respect, intimidation in individual cases. ,:mid he could have taken action without The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. militating against what he wanted to Hugh Jenkins) earlier took up this point achieve. It is a serious failure on the when he spoke about what he said was right hon. Gentleman's part that he has a quite proper part of a trade union not accepted what we pressed upon him. official's duty. I have noted his view The Bill will leave the House in almost on that bllil: the whole basis of the Bill the same form as when it came here. was one of urgency. We were told that It will leave without the advantage which it was urgent to provide some protection it could have had of a much more pending the Royal Commission's Report, favourable attitude from the House as a but I do not accept that there was as whole. This is a great pity. much urgency about this as about other The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. funotions which trade union officials Bishop) tried to make far too strong a have to carry out. point in saying that, if we were against Mr. Hugh Jenkins : I should like to the Bill, we were even against the pro­ correct the right hon. Gentleman. This visions of the 1906 Act. He must know is purely a matter of opinion and it is that there was no justification for saying the opinion of people who do the jobs that. When I was Minister and had of trade union officials that the matter to deal with this particular issue, I said was urgent and that the lack of a Bill to trade union leaders then that, if they was impeding them in their day's work. would bring to me evidence showing that they were being inhibited in their Mr. Godber: This is a matter of work because of any deviation regarding ,opinion and I am giving him mine just as the interpretation of the 1906 Act, I the hon. Member gave me his, but surely should consider it sympathetically. I in trade union matters this could not never had such cases brought to me. be of the same degree of urgency as The issue here is very much narrower, things which are involved in wage nego­ as the hon. Gentleman must realise and tiations that must go on whatever else as the Minisiter knows very well. happens. However desirable a 100 per cent. shop may be in the view of hon. Tlhe Bill is leaving ·the House in a form Members, I find it difficult Ito believe which is much less satisfactory than that in general there is the same degree would have been possible had the Minis­ of urgency about it. But still, I am ter been willing ·to show just a small sure ithat this is an issue on which the degree of accommodation. We are Minister is doing harm. It is quite clear entitled to voice our deep dissatisfaction that, in opinion outside, there is an issue because we asked him fn various ways ,of importance here. The Minister was not and different form of words to assist us very happy when I said earlier today on it, but he did not do so. He has ,that I felt that an indication of the opinion done harm to what could have been of the House as a whole could be of a more or less ready approach together assistance to the Royal Commission. The to solve the problem on a basis in which right hon. Gentleman refuted that. I we could have had something much can only say that, in my view, the col­ nearer agreement, though I am not say­ lective decision of the House is an im­ ing that we could have had complete portant element in relation to public agreement. Now, if the Bill proceeds opinion, and he should not underesti­ in this way, we shall, presumably, have marte that effect in this connection. to await the report of the Royal Com­ mission before we have any further con­ 1 I believe that the right hon. Gentle­ sideration of these matters. man's main failure on the Bill lies here. He has not been able to agree to any Naturally, we hope that we shall be 1Amendment which would still have receiving the advice of the Royal Com­ given him the main thing he wanted and mission before very long. I remind the yet would have provided a great deal of Minister that the Trades Union Congress satisfaction to very many people who feel asked for this only as temporary legisla­ deeply on this issue. He may say that we tion pending the report of the Royal .,,..,..,.

1323 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1324 1t [MR. GOOBER.] Mount Sinai, that times had changed. Of Commission. We shall want to look course they have. The background today at all these matters again, as the Minis­ is entirely different from the background ter himself said on Second Reading. of the 1906 Act. I want to relieve myself We all want to reconsider them, and I from these suggestions of Machiavel!ian­ hope that it will not be long before we ism. All" I wanted to do in my own daft can look at the far wider issues involved. and simple way was to clear the ground I am sure that the whole country will and go back to where we were, for a welcome that further examination. Of short period until an objective body could course, by the time the Royal Com­ have a look at all the related problems­ mission has reported, we shall be on not at just one problem, not just at the other side of the House. restrictive practices or the closed shop or union rule books but at all the problems, 9.29 p.m. bringing them together and thus giving, Mr. Gunter: When the right hon. as did a similar body at the beginning of Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) the century, a guiding light to the talks about major issues here, the closed Government. I am bound to say to the shop and restrictive practices, I am right hon. Gentleman, therefore, that bound to ask him, why on earth did whilst he might be very disappointed and not he do something about them? We consider me to be to blame for not taking have been here for only six months. His the course the Opposition wished me to party was in power for a long time. The take, my simple aim was to restore the closed shop was an issue long before position until the Royal Commission Rookes v. Barnard. If the right hon. could look at the whole situation. Gentleman wanted me to-I am sure This is not a particularly dramatic or that he would not-I could go over far-reaching Measure. Its scope is limited speeches of mine on the closed shop to removing a particular problem which during the past 10 years drawing the has arisen in the law affecting trade attention of Ministers of Labour and unions. It is not an unimportant Bill but the Tory Party, in my own kindly way, it is only a Bill which seeks to bridge to the difficulties which were arising. a gulf until we get the Royal Commis­ Yet nothing at all was done. But we sion's report. We have heard before all take office and the sacred cause of the arguments that have been adduced liberty is raised. on Third Reading. Perhaps I am con­ I want to say to the Liberal Party that ceited enough to believe that I could I respect its radical tradition but that recite some of the speeches which have when a Tory starts talking to me about been made on both sides. I am sure the defence of individual liberty then it that I could recite the speech of the hon. is time for all decent men to reach for Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. their guns. There has been much play Edward M. Taylor), although I could on individual liberty. I do not know abbreviate it. what the Welsh miners of my father's We have heard all the arguments and generation would have thought if they therefore I shall try to be commendably had heard some of the speeches today brief and say that we do not need to be in defence of individual liberty. disappointed. But I would add that we The right hon. Gentleman the Member on this side of the House are as near for Grantham expressed deep disappoint­ to the cause of individual liberty and the ment that I have not moved in the way necessity for the abolition of restrictive he wanted.. It was to me a narrow issue practices as anyone. At least part of this and yet a fundamental one that we should whole operation is to see whether we by some means or other seek to restore can get some guiding light as to how the law as we thought it would have been to get the trade union structure into order. for 60 years, with all that history had All these problems are related and one proved were its weaknesses, all the facet~ cannot winkle one off and deal with it which 60 years of developing society had in isolation. They all must he dealt with t revealed had gone wrong with the 1906 together. I commend the Bill to the Act. House for Third Reading. I believe the One hon. Member opposite discovered. course I have adopted is right. It is not almost as though it had come from an outrage against individual liberty and 1325 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1326 it does not condone restnct1ve practices Commission. I think that on balance or the closed shop. All I ask is that a I am right in my approach. I do not Royal Commission shall view all these want to end on an acid note, but I would problems together and relate them so only say that if he had seized the oppor­ that we can see properly what is re­ tunity before the General Election, per­ quired in a modern industrial society. haps this dilemma would not have arisen. I have felt for the right hon. Member Question put, That the Bill be now read for Grantham during the course of the the Third time: - Committee stage because my speeches have been so repetitive and have always The House divided: Ayes 178, ended with a reference to the Royal Noes 167.

Division No. 114.) AYES [9.35 p.m. Abse, Leo Carrow, A. Noel,Saker, Francis (Swindon) Allaun, Frank (Salfo rd, E.) Ginsburg, D avid Oakes, Cordon Alldritt, Walter Gourlay, Harry O'Malley, Brian Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Greenwood, Rt. H n. AnthOny • Oram, Albert E. (E, Ham, S.) Armstrong, Ernest Gregory, Arnold Orbach, Maurice Atkinson, Norman Grey, Charles Orme, Stanley Bacon, Miss Alice Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) CswalcJ, Thomas Barnett, Joel Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Owen, Will Baxter, William Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Page, Derek (Klflf;'S Ly!lll) 1 Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Hamilton, W llliam ( West Fife) P.1 mer 1 Arthur Bence , Cyril Hannan, William Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.) Bishop, E. s. Harper, Joseph Pe:1rson, Arthu· (Pontf!u ·1dc1) Blackburn, F. Harrison, Walter ( Wakefield) Popplewell, Ernest Blenklnsop, Arthur Hart, Mrs. Judith Prentice, R. E. Boston, T. G. Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W .) Holman, Percy Redhead, Eds•,ard Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Horner, John Rhodes, Geoffrey Bray, Dr. Jeremy Howa rth, Harry (Wellingborough) Roberts , Albert (Normanton) Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch & Fbury) Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Buchanan, Richard Howell, Denis (Small H eath) Robertson, John (P;us.ley) Carmichael, Neil Howie , W. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Carter•Jones, Lowis Hoy, James Rose, Paul B. Castle, Rt. Hn . Barbara Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) Sheldon, Robert Chapman, Donald Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) Shore, Peter (Stepney) Coleman, Donald Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Short,Rt. Hn. E.( N 'c'lle-on-Tyne ,C.) Conlan, Bernard Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Silkin, John (Deptford) Crawshaw, Richard Jeger, George (Goole) Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich) Crosland, Anthony Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Silverman, Julius (Aston) Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S. Johnson,James(K'ston-on-Hu ll, w .) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Dan (Burnley) Small, William Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W .Ham,S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Davies, lfor (Gower) Jones, J. ldwal (Wr exham) Snow, Julian Davies, S. 0 . (Merthy r) Kenyon, Clifford Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W .) de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Ledger, Ron Stonehouse, John Delargy, Hugh Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Stones, William Dell, Edmund Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Summerskill, Dr. Shirley Dodds, Norman Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Swingler, Stephen Doig, Peter Lomas, Kenneth Taverne, Dick Donnelly, Desmond Loughlin, Charles Thornton, Ernest Duffy, Or. A. E. P. Mabon, Or. J. Dickson Tomney, Frank Dunn, James A. McBride, Neil Tuck, Raphael Dunnell, Jack Maccoll, James Varley, Eric C. Edelman, Maurice McGuire, Michael Wainwright, Edwin Edwards, RI. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Mel nnes, James Walden, Brian (All Saints) Edwards, Robert ( Bilston) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) English, Michael Mackie, John (Enfield, E.) w allace, George Ensor, David MacMillan, Malcolm Watkins, Tudor Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wells, William (Wa lsall, N.) Fe rnyhough, E. Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Whillock, William Filch, Alan (Wigan) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W .) Fletcher, Ted (Dar lington) Mallalieu,J.P. W .(Huddersfield,E.) Williams, Albert (Aberlillery) FloucJ, Bernard Mapp, Charles Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) Foley, Maurice Mendelson, J. J . Williams, W. T. (Warring 1on) Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Mikardo, Ian Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Millan, Bruce Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) Ford, Ben Miller, Dr. M. S. Winterbottom, R. E. Fraser, RI. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Milne, Edward (B lyth) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. Freeson, Reginald Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick(SheffieldPk) Yates, Victor (Ladywood) Galpern, Sir Myer Murray, Albert Garrell, W. E. Neal, Harold TELLERS FOR THE A YES: Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCano. 1327 Trade Disputes Bill- 18 MAY 1965 Third Reading 1328 NOES Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Glover, Sir Douglas Mott-Radc lyffe, Sir Charles Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Murton, Oscar Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Gower, Raymond Nicholls, Sir Harmar Astor, John Grant-Ferris, R. Nicholson, Sir Goc1frey Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Barlow, Sir John Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard Batsford, Brian Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. 011s1ow1 Cranley Bell, Ronald Curden, Harold Oshorne, Sir Ctri, (Loi.th) Berkeley, Humphry Hall-Davies, A. G. F. r',!!e, R. Graham (Crosby) Berry, Hn. Anthony Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Biggs-Davison, John Hamilton, M. (Salisbury) Peel, John Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Peyton, John Black, Sir Cyril Harris, Reader (Heston) Pike, Miss Mervyn Blaker, Peter Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pitt, Dame l:dith Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Harvey, J ohn (Walth anistow, E.) Price, David (Easue ;gh) Box, Donald Harvie Anderson , Miss Prior, J . M. L. Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hawkins, Paul Pym, Francts Braine, Bernard Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Redmayne, Ht. tin. Sir Martin Brinton, Sir Tatton Hiley, Joseph Rees-Davie•, W. R. Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Renton, Rt. Uri. Sir D av!,1 Brown , Sir Edward (Bath) Hooson, H. E. Ridsda le, Julian Buchanan•Smith, Alick Hopkins, Alatl Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Bullus, Sir Eric Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington) Russell, Sir Ronald Butcher, Sir Herbert Hunt , John (Bromley) scott ..Hopklns, Jam es Bux ton, Ronald Hutchison, Michael Clark Sharples, Richard • Carlisle, Ma rk Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Shepherd, William Cary, Sir Robert Jenkin, Patr ick (Woodford) Sinclair, Sir George Clark, William (Nott ingham, S.) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Stanley, Hn. Richard Cooke, Robert Jopling, Michael Steel, David (Ro xburgh) Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Cordle, John Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) Studholme, Sir Henry Corfield, F. V. Ki ng, Evelyn (Do rset, S.) T albot, John E.

Costain, A, P. Kirk, Peter Taylor I Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorno) Lagden, Godfrey Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart) Crowder, F. P. Lambton, Viscount Temple, J ohn M. Cunningham, Sir Knox Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbu ry) Curran, Charles Loveys, Walter H. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W .) Currie, G. B. H. Lubbock, Eric Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Dance, James McAdden, Sir Stephen Tweed smuir, Lady Deede s, Rt. Hn. W. F. MacArthur, Ian Walder, David (Hi gh Peak) Dodds-Pa rker, Douglas Mackie, George V. (C'ness & S'land) W a Iker, Peter (Worc ester) Doughty, Charles McLaren, Martin Walters, Dennis Drayso n, G. B. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Ward, Dame Irene du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward McMaster, Stanley Weatherill, Bernard Eden, Sir John McNalr-Wilson, Pa trick Whitelaw, William Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maginnis, John E. Williams, Sir Rolf Dudl•Y (Exeter) Elliott, R. W .(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne ,N .) Mathew, Robert Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) Eyre, Reginald Maude, Angus Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Fisher, Nigel Mawby, Ray Wise, A. R. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Da rwen) Maydon 1 Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick Foster, Sir John Meyer, Sir Anthony Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Fraser , Ian (P lymouth, Sutton) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wylie, N. R. Gammans, Lady Mills, Stratto n (Belfast, N .) Yates, William (The Wrekin) Gardner, Edward Mitchell, David Gibson-Watt, David Monro, Hector TELLERS FOR TH E NOES: Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan More, Jasper Mr. Dudley Smith and Gilmour , Sir John (East Fife) Morrison, Charles (Dev izes) Mr. G. Johnson Smilh. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

f 1329 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1330 I believe that this reduction in the AG RI CULTURE (FERTILISERS public commitment is fully justified, and SCHEME) I should like to say a word about the 9.45 p.m. background to these cuts. For the cur­ The Joint Padiamentary Secretary to rent fertiliser year, it is estimated that the the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries subsidy will cost £31·4 million. For and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to several years now, the subsidy has been move, cut annually and consumption has not been adversely affected ; and, now that That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1965, a draft of which was laid before considerably more satisfactory levels of this House on 14th April, be approved. fertiliser application are being reached by This Scheme continues for a further British farmers generally, I am sure it is year the fertiliser subsidy which the right to make a further reduction in the House bas a pproved each year for more subsidy this year. There is no reason for than 10 years. The main change this year believing that this year's reduction will is that the rates of subsidy have been affect the rate of consumption. cut to implement the decision announced As I have already said, there are no at the Annual Review to reduce the sub­ significant changes in the Scheme itself. sidy by £2 million. Apart from this, there The main features are the same as in are only some minor changes in the previous years. Subsidy continues to be Scheme itself which aim to clarify certain paid on fertilisers according to the amount definitions, and to provide for points of of nitrogen or phosphoric acid derived detail that have arisen in the administra­ wholly or partly from inorganic materials. tion of the subsidy during the past year. They must be bought in quanties of T he cuts in the rates of subsidy amount 4 cwt. or more and used for agricultural to 5d. per unit for nitrogen, 4d. per purposes. unit for soluble phosphoric acid, and 2d. This subsidy, gives a considerable per unit for insoluble phosphoric acid. impetus to the use of fertilisers. I am For grades of basic slag containing 14 sure the House will agree that it is an per cent. or more of insoluble phosphoric important and useful one, and I there­ acid, the reduction is 3d. per unit in fore ask the House to approve this Great Britain, and 4d. per unit in Scheme. Northern Ireland. I should add that this still leaves the rate in Northern Ireland 9.49 p.m. higher than that in Great Britain. Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Cornwall, T he overall reduction in the subsidy North) : I am sure that the House is grate­ represents a little over 6 per cent. As in ful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary previous years, this has been spread over for the brevity with which he moved the the nutrients in such a way as to repre­ Motion that we should approve this new sent roughly equivalent percentage cuts in draft Scheme, which brings in a cut of each case. Again, in accordance with £2 million in the amount of fertiliser practice in the past, the rates for the subsidy. lower grades of basic slag have been I have one or two questions to ask cut rather more heavily to avoid making concerning the Scheme before I come to bigger reductions in the higher grades my main criticism of the cut in general. which are the materials in greatest First, with regard to paragraph 4 of the demand. Scheme, can the hon. Gentleman tell us At the new rates the subsidy represents whether there has been any infringement, roughly the same percentage of the cost or any difficulty concerning the registra­ of the two nutrients- that is, a little tion of suppliers? As he will be aware, over 30 per cent. For compounds, the under the terms of the Agriculture percentage varies according to the rela­ (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963, tive amounts of nitrogen and phosphoric farmers had to deal with registered acid in them. T he incidence of subsidy suppliers to qualify for the subsidy. I for most compounds is between 22 and should like to know whether there bas 28 per cent. For all fertilisers taken been any difficulity about this. Has he together the subsidy represents-at had any cases reported back to him of present prices-a bout 25 per cent. of the information not having been supplied? cost. H as he had any information from bis Vol. 712 y 1331 A griculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertiliser.,· Schem e) 1332 [MR. SCOTT-HOPKINS.] Mr. John Mackie: l may have mis­ officers conce~ning fraud or otherwise, understood the hon. Gentleman. H e under the registration system? seemed to say that farmers were bearing Secondly, paragraph 8 is completely a £19½ million increase in costs, and, new and deals with the repayment of con­ immediately afterwards, that this was a tributions. Perhaps be will explain why further cut of £2 million. I would point this paragraph has been fo und to be out that the sum of £2 million should be necessary. I know that my hon. Friends included in the £ I 9-} million, if his will wish to cross-question the Parliamen­ figures are correct. - tary Secretary about the tolerances which Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, it is not in­ have occurred in the past. I will not say cluded. As the hon. Gentleman must more. I hope that the Parliamentary know, the increased cost to the industry Secretary will have time to mention any this year is about £29 million, and under difficulties thathe times gone down, but this year there is difficulties which the industry is going no question of manufacturers lowering thro ugh at present. I am sure that my their prices, and this cut will represent a hon. F riends will join with me in depre­ direct increase in the farmers' costs. cating that this has happ ened in the way If they use the same amount of fertiliser it has. they will have to bear an increased cost. The unfortunate part about this is The Parliamentary Secretary, at Ques­ that the farmers who will suffer from tion Time recently, has been very keen this are those who can least afford to do to encourage farmers to use more so. Quite obviously, this cut in subsidy fertilisers to make up for the increased for fertiliser, combined with the lime costs they have to bear. T hat is what subsidy scheme cut, which is to he has said, and he cannot get away come later, will hit those who grow grass from it. This Scheme represents quite and, of course, cereal growers. T he a considerable increase in costs to the cereal growers have, as we know, suffered farming community. the maximum cut this year in the Price 1333 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1334 Review. This is a further cut on top ment has gone. They had relied on this of that. They will have to bear this cut when increasing their productivity to and the cut they took in the Price meet their rising costs in the use of Review. fertiliser. The Parliamentary Secretary I say that this was quite unjustified knows this full well. He has advised them to do this and now he is making and unnecessary and that the Parliamen­ those fertilisers more expensive. This is, tary Secretary himself made a mistake, as he knows full well during the debate with respect, absolute nonsense, and something the Parliamentary Secretary on the Price Review a couple of months ought not to do. The best thing he can ago, when he said it was forced on him do is to withdraw this Scheme altogether and his Government by the previous and restore the position as it was before Administration. This was completely the Price Review. false. This indignity and this extra cut that the cereal growers suffered-- It will not only be the milk producer who suffers, but also the meat producer. Mr. William Baxter (West Stirling­ It is nonsense for the Government to shire) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. make speeches in the House and in the Is 1tJh~s not a violation of ithe Ruling you country telling farmers that they want gave a moment ago that we should de­ to encourage them in increasing their vote our time to discussing the matter productivity of milk, calves and beef before us? when, at the same time, they are doing the most they can to discourage them Mr. Speaker : I was listening with in the proper use of the land, and in customary courtesy and was handicapped producing the grass which is part and by my personal ignorance of some parcel of increasing the productivity to aspects of agriculture. I had not quite meet the demands of the Government. It got to the point when I would wish to just does not make sense. This is the intervene. wrong type of subsidy. A point which Mr. Scott-Hopkins : I was trying to has been brought to my notice- perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me point out the effect that this reduction whether it is true or not-is that it seems of £2 million will have on those in the that there is a shortage of nitrogenous farming industry who will have to bear maiterial -in t1he soruth of England. I probably the heaviest burden and who have no evidence to substantiate that. I are perhaps the biggest users of fertiliser. was informed of it only this evening, Quite obviously, they will have to pay but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary more because they are getting less sub­ can let the House know-- sidy from the Government. That is the effect of the Scheme we are discussin!:!. Mr. Walter H. Loveys (Chichester): If By having cut the Scheme by thit my hon. Friend would like some con­ amount, of all the types of people who firmation of his statement, I am able to will have to pay more for their fertiliser inform him that only the other day I one is the cereal grower. If the hon. got in touch with the Southern Counties Gentleman the Member for West Stir­ Agricultural Trading Society, a large­ lingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) takes excep­ scale registered supplier of nitrogenous tion to what I have been saying, perhaps fenti.Jisers, and was rtold 11:,hait: ii1: had he will endeavour to catch Mr. Speaker's had no supplies for several weeks and eye later. had no idea when it would get any more. The other type of industry which uses Mr. Scott-Hopkins : f am grateful to a great deal of fertiliser, and would my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will try to have to pay more for it through the lack catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at a later of Government subsidy, is the livestock date-[Laughter.] Well, the Parliamen­ industry. This is particularly true in tary Secretary must know that there is relation to production of milk and rear­ no limit to the time during which we can ing of beef. These people will be par­ go on discussing this matter. I am sure ticularly hard hit, because as the House that the Parliamentary Secretary will will know full well, during the Price have a great deal to say, as · he always Review they were recouped to a very has, and that he cannot imagine how small extent and now all that recoup- glad we shall be to hear him. Vol. 712 Y2 1335 Awiculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1336 [MR. SCOTT-HOPKINS.] and 1964 tthe use of nitrogen, for example, As I was saying, if ithere is a shor,tage has increased by 12·2 per cent. This is I hope :thaJt the Par11amel11tary Secretary an example of how the indusitry by rt.he will see tihart:the siiituaition is deaLt wiJth in use of ferttilisers is reaoting to the demand the near flllture, and ,then the farming for gre8Jter efficiency. It is a shame ithat industry will be graiteful to him. This cut we should have to endure these cu,ts at of £2 million is a false economy. There this time. 1t seems quite wrong :that the is no pari-ty w1th whait happened lasit year. Government should take this action. I The Governmelllt subsidies are ail: the can only think th8Jt irt is a case of killing lowest level since 1959 and I think ,that the goose thait lays the golden egg. thaJt will work agarins,t the long-11:erm in­ teres-ts of agriculiture w:hich the Govern­ I was always brought up to believe ment profess to have at hear;t. Judging in the old adage that one should live from stiaJteme11Jtls made from No. 10, as though one were going to die tomorrow Downing Streed:, and foom elsewhere, tihe and farm as though one were going to live for ever. It seems to me that with ferti­ Governmentt seem '110 wanJt to encourage forming, blllt by their actions they dis­ lisers, one is right at the root of this in courage the industry. terms of how one should farm. Every­ thing should be done to encourage I suspeot thart: this resulted from a ques­ farmers to use as much fertiliser as pos­ tion of mathematics. The Government sible. I think that it is true to say that have made a clllt of £2 million. The the Scheme over the years has worked Minister of AgricuLture was told, perhaps very well. But there are two points t by the Prime Minister or by the First which are worthy of the Minister's atten­ Secretary. th8Jt all he would be allowed was £10 million, and as the right hon. tion, where I do not believe that the Gentleman wanited to give a few small farmer or the Minister-who is the mouthpiece of the taxpayer-is getting b11ibes ,to · other parts of rtJhe indusil:ry he had to make cwts elsewhere. He rthought full value for money. I do not believe that anything illegal is going on, but there thaJt petihaps we would not notice rt.his cut, certain loopholes and certain practices and th8Jt rt.here would be no outcry about are iJt. lit is a false economy and ,tihe industry which need to be tightened up. will regret irt. There can be no com­ I ask the Minister if he will look at pe,ns8Jto.ry lowering of prices by manufac­ these two things. The first is the back­ turers who have had increases in their ground to the figure which I have already costs, due ,to uhe aotion of the Govern­ mentioned of the increased use of nitro­ ment. gen. I am sure that he is aware, being All in all, I regard this as an unfor­ a farmer like many of the rest of us, tun8Jte action whiah has been taken a,t the of the spectacular results which can be wrong time. I regret th8Jt, once again, achieved from the use of more nitrogen. the Government are introducing measures It is now common practice to have as which will rever,se the trend which was much as 100 units of nitrogen to get the apparenJt under the previous Administra­ best results with wheat. Very plausible tion when steps were take,n ito encourage theses have been written explaining how farming and give confidence rto the indus­ one can get an economic return by using try. The cuts have been imposed where as much as 15 cwt. of nitro chalk on they will do the most harm to the industry, grassland. and I regret 'llhaJtthe Minister has brought When one talks about nitrogen, it is the Scheme to the House in this form. easy to cover the whole lot with one 10.4 p.m. umbrella. There are many sources­ sulphate of ammonia, ammonium nitrate Mr. Michael Jopling (Westtmorland): Like my hon. Friend the Member for and urea-the last of which I believe is Cornwall, No11th (Mr. Scotrt-Hopkins) creeping in for too much in the com­ I am eXitremely disappointed '1ih8Jtthe Gov­ position of fertilisers. As the law stands ernmeillt have seen fit to clllt the raite of at the moment, there is no onus on any subsidy this year. We are proud of the manufacturer to state what proportion increasing efficiency of our agriculrtural of urea there is in his compound. This industry which depends so much on The is something which ought to be looked at, use of ferttilise11S, as has been apparent because I think that a very strong case over the last few years. Between 1963 has been made out on the harmful effect

; ~ 1337 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1338 of urea and the fact that it is a most I hope that the Minister will look inferior form of nitrogen. As the Parlia­ seriously at this matter. A strong case mentary Secretary, I am sure, knows, has been made out to show the harmful when urea is appli-ed as a fertiliser, an effects of urea, particularly in cereals with enzyme action occurs in the soil and combined drilling, and the harmful effects the chemical is converted to ammonia on the germination of corn has been gas. If one is not very careful, this shown with a compound content of over ammonia, this source of nitrogen, is lost 12 per cent. of urea. It would be as well to the atmosphere. if the percentage was reduced as much as It has been proved that, particularly possible and if the inclusion of urea in in top dressings and grassland, urea is compounds was not allowed to go on with extremely harmful and bad to use econo­ the present subsidy system on fertilisers. mically. Dr. Cooke of Rothamstead I move from that point to the second has suggested that 100 units of nitrogen matter I wish to raise, which is the way applied as urea are as effective as only in which the industry and the public­ 80 urats wib.en applied as nitro chalk. the public as taxpayers and providers of subsidies-are not getting full value for Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel money. There is a strong case for try­ Storey) : I think that the hon. Member is ing to do something about the present getting wide of the Scheme which we position of the tolerances allowed on the are discussing. analysis of fertilisers. At present the Mr. Jopling : With respect, Sir Samuel, tolerances allowed on fertilisers, on com­ I was trying to make the case that to pounds, is 10 per cent., with a maximum get the best use of the subsidy, it would of 1·75 per cent. total difference in any be better to be sure that the subsidy was one nutrient. This means that if a com­ used for the best possible sources of pound contains, say, IO per cent. of nitrogen. If you direct me that I am potash, a manufacturer can produce be­ out of order, I must bow to your Ruling. tween nine and 11 per cent. without breaking the law. This means, when one Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the thinks of the compounds in most general hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks use today, that a manufacturer is to the fact that the subsidy should not be allowed an enormous difference in the paid for urea. value of the fertiliser i_f he works inside the tolerances. With the mos,t typical Mr. Jopling : I would certainly take corn fertiliser. 22-11 -11 , there is, using that up. The Minister should make up last yea,r's prices, a permissible discrep­ his mind-I do not mind how he does it ancy of 54s.. on which no less than - and he should either say that any con­ 16s. 7d. i-s public money. This, in turn, tent of a compound which is composed of means that there is, in terms of sub- urea will not qualify for subsidy, or he 1sidy, a very large discrepancy per ton should go the other way, which I think which the manufacturer is allowed to would redress the balance to a large have. extent by making it compulsory for all This tolerance is much too large. A manufacturers to say what proportion of great deal of public money is, perhaps, urea is in their compounds. being lost because of the large and wide Very many manufacturers are now in­ variation which is allowed in the cluding up to, and some well over, 20 ·analysis of fertilisers. There is more than per cent. of urea in their compounds and a suspicion that a small minority of fer­ it would make a great difference if urea tiliser manufacturers are working to the were not allowed to qualify for the sub­ bottom end of the tolerance scale and sidy. If it did not qualify I am sure oare~~ that there would be few compounds in Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The future which contained urea. It is a very hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks much cheaper source of nitrogen to the to the scheme. I do not see where this compounders and they are, therefore, question of tolerances comes into the tempted to use it because they find it Scheme which is before the House. difficult to compete in the great competi­ ·~ tion which goes on between fertiliser Mr. Jopling: I took this matter up, manufacturers. Sir Samuel, with the Journal Office last Vol. 712 Y3 r 1339 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1340 [MR. JoPLING.] be saved there, I should be extremely ,week. Although I must, of course, bow pleased. ,to your Ruling, I was advised by the I believe that new techniques for Journal Office-and I appreciart:e that that analysing fertilisers provide an impor­ advice does not bind you, Sir Samuel­ tant and legitimate argument for saying that it would be in order for me to talk that these large tolerances are no longer about this because, I was told, paragraph necessary. I myself have seen the new 3 of the Scheme implies that steps are auto-analyser techniques. Continuous taken to ascertain the nature of the fer­ results can be obtained for every form tiliser, while paragraph 7 is concerned of analysis and every type of nutrient with the inspection of the fertiliser in within 10 minutes, and this method has question. It was my general impression quite revolutionised the whole business that I should be in order in raising these of the control of manufacture. matters. However, if you rule me out of order and say that it is wrong for A report on the new techniques ot analysis presented to the Fertiliser ~\ me to discuss these issues I must, of course, bow to your Ru ling. Society in November, 1963, stated: " Then it should be possible to have an I felt bound to say that public money almost continuous record of the composition may be wasted unnecessarily over the fer­ of a product from a fertiliser plant. This tiliser subsidies. Perhaps something will permit even closer control of product could done tighten system. quality than has been possible hitherto, and be to up the be of considerable benefit to the whole If it were not possible to tighten matters fertiliser industry." up it might be possible to make other Because of the new techniques and the arrangements, but, before proceeding. new information that is available, I iJ i,t is your Ruling that T should keep believe that now is the moment when off this topic rthen I must abide by it these tolerances can be tightened up. Mr. Deputy-Speaker : I thought that I hope that the Minister will find ways the hon. Member was arguing that of tightening up in the two ways I have another provision should be made to suggested, and thus save money that l change the tolerances that are allowed. believe is at present going down the I do not think that that would come drain. under the Scheme, but there is the 10.19 p.m. quest,ion of iinspeotion, to which I rtruink Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries): Over the hon. Member could relart:e his ,remarks. the last few months, hon. Members on Mr. Jopling : Thank you, Mr. Deputy­ this side of the House have shown with Speaker. Inspection is enormously im­ great clarity the reduction of profitability portant, as I have found out to my in agriculture and last week, more par­ cost. Within the last year I have hao ticularly, in an Adjournment debate, we fertilisers sampled, as I thought I was showed that the profitability in dairying getting some that might wel1 be far had decreased twice as fast in Scotland down in the tolerance scale. The analysis as in England. was a most enormous and lengthy I am glad to see the Minister of State, business. It took three men half a day Scottish Office, here tonight, to hear to sample about 100 tons of fertiliser, these brief remarks. The only way in · and I certainly hope that it will not be which dairy farmers, particularly those in necessary for me to have it done again. Scotland, can produce from fast diminish­ It seems unfortunate that within the ing returns is by increasing production last few months the rate of subsidy shoulo from their herds and increasing the have been cut. I am sure that some­ amount of fertiliser so that they can thing can be done to alter the way in produce more milk. Yet they are to have which these tolerances are worked out. a reduction in the fertiliser grant, the very If the Minister will be kind enough to last thing which Scottish farmers wish for look at this matter in order to see from any Government. I hope that the whether sufficient money would be saveo Minister will explain to the farmers of by tightening up these tolerances to Scotland why dairy farmers will have to make the exercise worth while, and will put up with the reduction. That, of also look at my previous point about course, goes for beef and sheep produc­ urea to see whether subsidy money could tion also. 1341 Agricu/lC/re 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1342 There is a glorious " paper chase " farms and dairy farms for increased concerned with the payment. The application of fertiliser. Stock farming supplier has to get a form from the is by far the most important sector of Ministry, fill it in and post it to the agriculture in Scotland. There is very occupier, who has to fill in another part wide scope for the more intensive use of the form and post it to the local of fertiliser on grassland. This can lead office of the Department of Agriculture. to the better use of grassland and we That Department has to fill in still could save on our importation of pro­ another part of the form and send it teins by conserving more grass for winter to St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh. feed. In this respect, the economy made Eventually, a cheque comes to the occu­ by this Scheme is particularly unfor­ pier who, at last, can put the money in tunate and could have a bad effect on his bank. our balance of payments position. This seems to be an extraordinarily There is also the auestion of the use roundabout way of paying the subsidy. o.f fertiliser in upland areas. Only 10 I quite agree that it is absolutely vital days ago we were debating an increase that public money should be spent wisely in grant for winter keep and for hill and that all safeguards should be pro­ farming subsidies. I have always felt vided, but these half dozen exchanges of that money spent in hill areas is well letters seem to be a very wasteful method spent. It can be supported further if of paying for this decreasing subsidy. more money can be spent on improving I hope that the Minister of State will hill grazings. One of the quickest ways reply to these points. of doing this is the wider use of fer­ tilisers. 10.21 p.m. Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith {North It appears from the Journal of Scottish Angus): At a time like this, when every­ Agricultural Economics, published by the Department of Agriculture for Scot­ one jn agriculrture has rto rtighten his land, that when there has been a setback belit, iit is ,paDticularly disappointing to have this reduction in production grants. in the amount of fertiliser used it has I have always believed them to be one fallen back far more in uoland areas of the most important supports for agri­ than in dairying and in cropping areas. The inference to be drawn from the culture, a way to encourage efficient agriculture and to make it more com­ present cut in fertiliser subsidy is that petitive with overseas production. there is likely to be a more than pro­ portionate fall in the use of fertilisers This matter is important, because this in the very areas of Scotland where their is one way in which Government money increased use would be most welcome. can be spent to help those farmers who are prepared to help themselves. That I hooe that the Government will review is an important criterion for any support this on account of the effects on Scottish which is given. No farmer can collect agriculture in general, particularly in this subsidy unless he is first prepared to dairying and upland areas. make an outlay on fertiliser. For this 10.26 p.m. reason it is a great pity that the Govern­ Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington): I am ment should have seen fit to reduce the delighted to see that the hon. Member grant. for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. There is undoubtedly at present in George Y. Mackie) is back in his seat. Britain tremendous scope for improving For one moment I thought that the and extending the use of fertiliser. Liberals were not interested in fertilisers. Reference has been made to its greater use for the production of cereals. It Mr. George Y. Mackie (Cai,thness and may be a good thing to include nitrogen Sutherland): It i,s not fertilisers I am to a very high rate for the production interested in. It is some of the speeches. of wheat, but to do so for the production Mr. Mills: That may well be. One of barley for distilling purposes would Liberal at least is in his place. I do not be so welcome to the distilling not know wha;t has happened to the interests. Liberal Members from the South-West. I wish to speak particularly about the It is obvious that they are not interested tremendous scope there is on stock in fertilisers. In view of the problems Vol. 712 Y4 1343 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1344 [MR. MILLS.] much more will have to be done to feed in the South-West, I should have thought a hungry world. that they would have taken an interest in Fertilisers will play their essential part this matter, because this is one means in this work. I am, therefore, not happy of helping to raise agricultural production at this cut in the fertiliser subsidy. This, in the South-West. coupled with the other cuts which If I were asked what major contribu­ we have experienced, will not help agri­ tion had been made to modern agricul­ culture, to say the least. I believe that tural techniques, high up on my lis,t the Socialist Government will bitterly would come the use of modem compound regret this cut of £2 million. Andre fertilisers. There is no doubt that over Voisin believed that the destiny of nations the past few years subsidies have played and of civilisation depends largely on a very big part in these new agricultural our ability to use mineral fertilisers techniques. The Cons-ervatives are to be wisely and in ever-increasing amounts. congratulated on the part they played in This cut will certainly not help in that. this ove-r the years when they were in We need an ever-increasing use of fer­ office. Therefore, it was with a little tilisers in this country. sorrow that I realised that the first thing tha,t a Socialist Minister of Agriculture To turn to one or two practical points did was to cut the fexitiliser subsidies. I on the application of fertilisers-and I am sure that the Socialisrts w,ill regret this hope to prove that what I have to say in the years ahead. comes within the scope of the Scheme. Over the last 20 to 25 years there has I believe that however much the sub­ been an enormous advance in fertiliser sidies are increased or are cut it is essen­ techniques. I can look back over nearly tial to have efficient spreaders. This is 26 yea-rs of farming. I well remember not to say that we lack efficient spreaders whart was said in those far-off days about in this country, but that-- compound fertilisers. It was almost an Mr. Deputy-Speaker : Order. I do not immoral thing to speak of sulphate of think that the application of fertiliser by ammonia, or "nitre", as it was called spreaders comes wiithin the Scheme. in those days. There was much shalcing of heads at the use of these new modern Mr. Mills : I was trying to say that fertilisers. In those days we relied on there is not much point in having sub­ dung, hoof and horn, and shoddy. sidies at all if the application of the fertiliser is not 100 per cent. correct. Mr. George Y. Mackie: On a point of order. Are the interesting reminiscences Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. of the hon. Gentleman relevant to the Ge111tleman .is getti.ng wide of ithe Order. Scheme? Mr. Mills : May I move on to the Mr. Deputy-Speaker : I take it tha,t the question of liquid fertiliser? I am not hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter sure whether the Scheme covers it. Mills) intends to rela,te them to the ques­ Much research on this question is tion whether these rates of subsidy are needed. My observations - adequate. are- Mr. Mills: Thank you, Mr. Depurty­ Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We can­ Speaker. not go into the question of research into liquid fertiliser on this Scheme. If I may continue, the hon. Member for Cai,thness and Sutherland will understand Mr. Mills : If I am out of order I will my argument. At least, I hope that he not continue on that point. I should be will. It was said in those far-off days glad of an assurance that liquid fertilisers that the use of these subsidies was pull­ come within the scope of the Scheme. I ing the ground. There has been a great hope that the Paarliamentary Secretary change. There has been a great expan­ will look into the matter, because I be­ sion. T here is no doubt that subsidies lieve that there is a great future for the have played their part in this expansion. use of liquid fertiliser in agriculture. I t ' I believe that if we want to achieve an repeat that I am disappointed by the cut • expansion in our food production ferti­ in the subsidy. It is a backward move lisers will have to play an ever-increasing which will not help agriculture. The part. T he accelerator is only half down. Government will regret it in the years Much more could be done. I believe that to come. 1345 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1346 10.33 p.m. smallholders on, say, 50 acres, it will Mr. George Y. Mackie (Caithness and amount to about £1 a week. What other Sutherland): I have listened to the argu­ section of the community has had a cut ment, which has been somewhat small of this order since this Government came from this side of the House, against the to power? Is it any wonder that the cut in the subsidy. The cut, of course, temper of the farmers is shorter than it is a bad thing and is another addition has ever been since the war? to the many burdens which farmers have I support what was said by my hon. to bear, but there are other features which Friend the Member for Westmorland could help farmers a great deal more. (Mr. Jopling) on the tolerance allowances. This cut is not nearly as bad as the cut I am a member of the public protection in the prices which farmers receive. committee of the Norfolk County Council, I should like the Parliamentary Secre­ and I know from experience what we are tary to tell us, if he can, how much we coming up against in having to administer are paying for imported fertilisers. I the testing of artificial manures and their know that there are a great many tariffs composition. We have been extremely on them and that a total of about £30 worried to find that certain manufac­ million is being expended on this sub­ turers have cut the tolerance allowance sidy and the farming industry is bearing a to the absolute minimum. As a result, cut of £2 million. How many millions farmers are not getting the full benefit of pounds are we paying for fertilisers of what they are paying for, and the imported into the country both in raw country is not getting the full benefit of material and in manufactured nitrogen, the subsidies which it is paying out. It which was useful in bringing down the has been very difficult for county councils price and increasing the nitrogen content to press a prosecution. The Ministry, of nitro-chalk and other nitrogenous under whichever Government, has always fertilisers in this country? One thing we been extremely chary of pressing prose­ badly need in the industry in order to cutions for infringement of the tolerance offset cuts in subsidies of this sort, as allowances. I hope that the Minister witness the Monopolies Commission's will look into this again, because it is Report, is a close look at the tariffs on public money involved in the subsidies. this important raw material-- Mr. Deputy-Speaker : The hon. Gentle­ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel man is getting on to prosecutions and Storey) : Order. We cannot discuss tariffs going away from the Scheme. He must on this Scheme. relate his argument to the subsidy. Mr. Mackie : I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Hawkins : I am very grateful to Mr. Deputy-Speaker, having finished that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can only point. I should very much like to know urge that we look closely at how we how much could be offset against this cut spend our public money on subsidies in if the question were really gone into. this way. The great corn-growing industry of East Anglia has suffered a 10.35 p.m. very severe blow in the Price Review, Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South­ coupled with the cut in subsidy, and I west): The Minister was commendably hope that the Minister will take an eariy brief in opening the debate, and I shall opportunity to review the subsidy. try to follow his example. However, his remarks were not very sweet to the 10.34 p.m. farming community, because this Scheme Mr. John Mackie : You have been so means a cut of about £2 million. My lenient in caH-ing hon. Members to order, constituency of South-West Norfolk is Mr. Deputy-Speaker, t>hait I find I have probably one of the greatest users per taken a lot of notes of what has been acre of fertilisers, and the cut will mean s·aid but I illave not put at each appro­ a great deal there. The corn growers pr~ate poinrt: " Called to order ". so ithart:, of East Anglia have already experienced in answering, I am almost bound to get a very big cut, the biggest possible cut out of order myself. No doubt, you will that could have been imposed under the be as lenient wi-th me as yoo were witlh Price Review. To our county council hon. Members opposi,te. r

1347 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1348 [MR. MACKIE.] is an increased cost to the ind us try and Tlhis is not a debate on the Price that the costs are more than £19 million. Review. lit is a debate on ,tJhe Fe11tiMsers Mr. Mackie: It is not a point at all. (United Kingdo1I11)Scheme, 1965, wihioh I This was not an increased cost introduced have put rto the House tonighrt. Mos,t tonight. It was in the Price Review two hon. Members have taken itihe oppor­ months ago. It is not additional to the tun,ity-1 suppose 4:ihat it is perfecHy legi­ Price Review. The hon. Gentleman gave timate so iong as the Ohair keeps rthem the impression that it was an extra £2 in order-t ·o discuss ot>her matters, bu1 million as of tonight and it is nothing of I feel that some of tJhem reaHy over­ the sort. stepped the bounds. The Minister of State, Scottish Office 'J1be first point made by hon. Members (Mr. George Willis) : It was misrepre­ opposite was t!heir claim t>haitthr s Soheme sentation by the hon. Member for Corn­ represents a disaster for tthe farmers and wall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). that it will make them bankrupt over­ nil?Jht. There are 32 miUion acres of Mr. Mackie : The hon. Member for grass and crops in tJhe country. Divide Chichester (Mr. Loveys) raised the ques­ tihat up and it works out at exaotcly ls. 3d. ition of shor,tage in soUitlh-east Engloo.d. an acre. I do not know wheoher 1Jhart He has written to the Board of Trade, wiH bankmpt the farmers. but That is which has asked us about it. We have vhe figure. [Interruption.] Hon. Mem­ had no real complaint about this. I gather bers have made the most of their points. that he is worried about nitrogen and I sha'11l make the most of m1ne. The granular nitrogenous fertilisers. One of figure is ls. 3d. an acre. the reasons for the situation is that some­ The hon. Member for OornwaH, Noruh times people take advantage of what is (Mr. Scant-Hopkins) asked whetlher we left in order to claim last year's subsidy. Farmers are often late in ordering. This had had any difficulties in registration­ bas happened in the past and it is noth­ for instance, whet>her there had been any fraud. We have ,had tle none and ing serious. Sulphate of ammonia is avail­ lit or able but is not so easy to spread and we aU has gone as arranged. Paragraph 8 could with a better spr der. But is additional to this Scheme as mpared do ea co perhaps I had better stop at that point witlh last year's. It is simply ito provide in case I get out of order. a new declaration in the application form, whiob wi11 safeguard vhe Minister The hon. Gentleman also made a point about £31 -4 million as being the lowest in hen retum itihe fe11ti'iiser to tJhe supplier. imagine that the proportion of subsidy to price is probably higher than it was I &hould 'like to puJ.I •bhe hon. Member before. I may be wrong but the situa­ for Cornwall, North up on one point, tion is not in any case as bad as he made witJh which he made great play. He out. claimed tJhat l(Jhe£2 million involved here was extra ro tthe Price Review whereas The hon. Member for Westmorland in fact it was included in tihe Review. (Mr. Jopling) damned the Scheme with slightly faint praise. The hon. Member It was nort broug:ht before 1:Jhe farmers for tihe first time by 1lhis Order. They for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) reminisced a little too much but made a knew abourt it at the Price Review. To point about loopholes in the use of say that rtJhere bave been extra costs since has notJhing to do with tihis Order. 'I1he nitrogen and urea. The question is over­ figure was calculated for the Price Re­ done, but we will take note of it. The view. Whet:her or not we are agreed Advisory Committee under the Fertiliser and Feedingstuff Act is looking into this on 1:Jhe figure of £19½ mili,ion used by matter. tJhe hon. Member for Cornwal,1, No11tih has nofuing -to do wi~h 1:Jheargument. On the question of tolerances-- Mr. Scott-Hopkins : But the hon. Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the hon. Gen­ Gentleman will accept the point that this tleman tell my hon. Friend and the 1349 Agriculture 18 MAY 1965 (Fertilisers Scheme) 1350 House, having taken note of it, what The hon. Member can proceed himself action he can take to do anything about if he wishes. it? The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Mr. Mackie : The action of putting it Monro) also made great play on the sub­ to the Advisory Committee, which is why ject of the Review. This is not a cut that body exists. which has been made tonight. It is a Review decision, and I do not propose to Mr. Jopling: By that, does the hon. start on the argument about that. The Gentleman mean that he will put the hon. Member objected to filling in forms case of urea to the Standing Advisory and said that it was a waste of paper, Committee? time and stamps. Considerable thought has been given to this matter. Although Mr. Mackie : I said that I would take it might be better to pay the subsidy note of it and go into the matter. [HON. direct to the manufacturer, we would MEMBERS: "He ar, hear."] If one pro­ then have the big problem of all the ·1 mised to do everything that hon. Members other users who use fertilisers- gardens, opposite suggested without going into golf courses, sports grounds and every­ the matter fully to see whether their sug­ thing else-and it might take just as long gestions had any background, I do not to get the forms back that way as it does know where we should be. the way we do it at present. If thos•e The question of tolerances has been in the industry are to collect £31 -4 gone into by the Advisory Committe,e to million, they should not object to filJing a considerable extent. Al though there in a few forms correctly. may be individual cases where the tole­ The hon. Member for North Angus rances rare ithe wrong way, returns fu-om and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), my local auithoniities show rthait, on rthe Scottish Member of Parliament, men­ whole, farmers are getting rather more tiom;d, among various other things, my than the amounts declared, which means advice to farmers, if they wanted to re­ that there is no overall loss but a slight coup the little cut that they have had saving in subsidy. Although there may recently, to put on more nitrogen, and he be individual cases in which it works was worried about the amount to put on the other way, and I understand that to destroy the distilling quality of barley. the hon. Member for Westmorland had It is a point, but I doubt whether it is such a case, that is what the overall valid. Enough barley is grown in the figures from ithe locaI autthorilbies show. country for there to be a selection for The hon. Member mentioned new tech­ distilling, leaving the rest for feeding. niques in analysis. Again, I suggest He made the comment that grass was that that might be put to the Com­ now one of the crops on which nitrogen mittee. If there are techniaues that can was used. I point out that on average help in any way, I am certain that they the cost would be ls. 3d. an acre, so that will be taken up. if farmers want to put on a little more, it would not cost them all that much. Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman The hon. Member for Torrington was again raises the question of the Advisory reminiscent and mentioned nitre and was Committee, as he did a few minutes ago, not too happy about the cut. He wanted when, on being pressed, he sa:id that he efficient spreaders, but was pulled up for would go into it himself. Does he advise being out of order. The best way is to me to do it myself to get action, or does spread parallel to the road and then it he intend to change his mind and to let is not seen. He mentioned the use of us have action from him for a change? liquid fertilisers. The subsidy is paid Mr. Mackie: In answer to a Question per unit of nitrogen irrespective of how which he put to me some time ago, l the nitrogen is bought. Liquid fertilisers gave the hon. Member all the particulars have considerable value in a dry year of the procedure for applying to the when they mostly go in through the leaf Advisory Committee. He can do it, but and there is not the rain to put in the we will, naturally, take note of what he powdered form. has said ; and if we consider it all that The hon. Member for Caithness and important, we will look into the matter. Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) r· I

1351 Benefices (Suspension 18 MAY 1965 of Presentation) 1352 [MR. MACKIE.] wanted the figures of imported fertilisers. BENEFICES (SUSPENSION OF I am never sure where the Liberal Party PRESENTATION) stands and I did not know whether he 10.45 p.m. was arguing that it was a good thing to Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg): I beg to have imported fertilisers, provided that move, they did not have a tariff, or whether the That the Benefices (Suspension of Presenta­ amount of the tariff would be sufficient tion) (Continuance) Measure, passed by the to pay back the £2 million, or whether National Assembly of the Church of England, he simply meant that the competition be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal would be a little greater and that firms in Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. this country would then bring down their prices. I think that I need detain the House for a very short time only about this Mr. George Y. Mackie: I had heard matter. The Measure which it is sought that the hon. Gentleman was a little slow. to continue is one which concerns the t· I hoped that he would be able to tell us reorganisation of parishes, and this is a .how the figures related, whether the continuous process. Owing to changes amount collected in tariff would repay of population, or other causes, it is very the £2 million, or the whole of the £31 often necessary to unite two benefices. million. Those figures are relevant to the Indeed, the Pastoral Measure of 1949 costs which farmers are bearing. set up in each diocese a pastoral com­ mittee which, if I may use the Whitehall Mr. John Mackie : I can assure the hon. jargon which covers this matter, have Gentleman that they will not pay the the special duty to keep the suitability £31·4 million. Speakiing from memory, of parishes for the purpose for which I think that the total cost of fertilisers they exist "constantly under review". used in this country is about £120 million, but I will certainly look up the figures for It may be very desirable, and may have the hon. Gentleman to see whether ( can been found to be desirable by all those satisfy him, although I know from ex­ whose interest it is to watch these mat­ perience that that is difficult. ters, to unite parishes A and B for in­ stance ; and everyone may have agreed. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South­ But if one of the incumbents dies, and West (Mr. Hawkins) emphasised the if there is a presentation to that parti­ dreadful hardship which would result for cular benefice before the union has been Norfolk farmers from the ls. 3d. an acre effected, it may well be that the man extra cost which they would have to pay who is presented will not agree, and for this fertiliser, and he mentioned can hold up the reorganisation of the tolerances. I have said, .I shall look into parishes, that is, the fitting of the parishes that. for the work they exist to do. I think that I have kept fairly well in Thus, it is plainly desirable to have order, at least as well as hon. Members some machinery to avoid that sort of opposite, in replying to their comments. thing, and in 1946 this machinery was I am perfectly certain that if I have not introduced, and it has proved so success­ :satisfied them, they should be satisfied. ful that it has been renewed already, I hope that the House will now accept apart from being renewed again this the Scheme. evening if the House agrees to it. Question put and agreed to. There is before the Church Assembly Resolved, at present a comprehensive Measure about pastoral reorganisation reform, and That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1965, a draft of which was laid before it will contain provisions which will allow this House on 14th April, be approved. for the suspension of presentation to a benefice in a case which is considered appropriate by the proper authorities. What the House is now being asked to do is to agree to a further extension of the life of this machinery which permits of the suspension of the right of presenta­ tion to a benefice to take place until 1353 Bene/ices (Suspension 18 MAY 1965 of Presentation) 1354 1970 at the outside. It is not considered moment. The hon. and learned Member that it will have a useful life as long as has said :that five years is the outside lirnilt. this because of the comprehensive Can he tell us what he thinks the actual Measure now before the Church term is likely to be? I should be very Assembly ; but it is given until 1970 much happier to pass ithe Measure if I to be certain that there is no gap in knew thait the tempo11ary legislaition would the existence of this machinery which be embodied in pe.rmanent legislation has proved so useful. which we can examine in detail when it comes before us at a fairly early daite. 10.58 p.m. I reoaill the number of debaites that we Mr. Peter Kirk (Saffron Walden): 1 have had on rthe various tem porary statu­ do not propose to detain the House for tory Measures- I believe thait the hon. very long on this Measure. I have never and learned Member has been involved in made a secret of the fact that I do not them. We have Measures brought in after think that the House should be detained the Firsrt World War for a period of one j at all on Measures of this kind. I would year which we are still e:xitending for one rather that we were relieved of this obli­ year in the emergency powers legislation I gation, but, as long as we have it. we each year. We do not want rthe same have to examine these proposals. position to arise in oonnectiion wi;th this I am a little worried about the time legislation. I therefore welcome the hon. scale. Here we have a Measure which, and learned Member's assurance ~bait according to the Report of the Legis­ the.re will be legis.Jaition at an early date­ lative Committee, was introduced to preferably before 1970- to embody this in faci litate the pastoral reorganisation 9tatutory form. necessary after the war. That is why it 11.1 p.m. was originally presented in 1946 for Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington) : I wel­ 10 years. It was then extended for a come the Measure as a Member of the further 10 years, and now we are to Church Assembly. I fully suppont it. I extend it for a further five years. I know took pant in its passage through the that " temporary " is a fairly wide term, Church Assembly. I believe that it is but this seems to be carrying it to excess. essential to have a Measure like this in For 25 years the church will have been our changing paitrt:ern of church life. acting under temporary legislation. Because of my work as a reader no one The hon. and learned Member for knows more than I do thaJt. pastoral re­ Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who moved organisation is vitally important to our the Measure so amiably, said that further church life itoday. legislation was on the way, and this is I want ito purt: three points to the hon. referred to in the Legislative Com­ and learned Gentleman. The firsrt is on mittee's Report, but it seems extra­ the question of time. No parish likes ordinary that we should be extending waiiting too long before the future of iJts for a further five years, from December churoh is settled. People begin to lose of this year to December 1970, provisions inrt:ere~t when rthey have ito wait a long which were brought in as a temporary time, and I do not believe thait this maitter measure in 1946, when we know that a should be allowed to drif.t on and on and comprehensive measure is already before on, as iit has tended to do. I know 1:ha!t the Church Assembly. I know, as the there are problems which any bishop bas hon. and learned Member knows, that the to face in connection wiJth th is maitrter, but Church Assembly, like the mills of God, it must not be allowed to drift on. grinds extremely slowly, as well as Secondly, there is rthe :tradi1tion of these extremely small, no doubt, but it seems churches. This question applies ito both to be carrying slowness to excess to High Church and Low Church. This provide for a further five years in this poinrt should be remembered. The tradi­ matter. tion of :these churches should be main­ What I want to put ito ithe hon. and tained in this reorganisation_ learned Gentleman is itihis: wilthout wish­ Lastly, there is the question of explana­ ing to oppose rthe Measure I would like tion. I believe ,thart there has been much an assurance from ithe Church Assembly misunderstanding wiith ,these chu-rches, •thait this itype of itempora,ry Measure will beoause it has noit been explained cace­ be made permaneillt alt ,the earliest possible fully whait is happening. I therefore 1355 Local Government Staff, 18 MAY 1965 London (Superannuation) 1356 [MR. MILLS.] stress the importance of explaining very LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF, carefully to the parochial church councils LONDON (SUPERANNUATION) whait is happening in order to try to fit 11.6 p.m. them into the plan that is taking place. Mr. Graham Page (Grosby): I beg to Most parishioners will be prepared to accept the plan if it is explained, but move wiithout this is That an humble Address be presented to any explanaition-and what Her Majesty praying that the London Authori­ has happened in the past-they feel rather ties (Superannuation) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, prut ou,t. They do not understand what is No. 621), dated 25th March, 1965, a copy of going on. which was laid before this House on 31st With those three small but important March, be annulled. points, I welcome the Measure, and look As this is the last half hour in which forwa rd to the bigger Measure that is I can pray against this Order I shall have coming later. to speak rather rapidly and perhaps hon. Member s will forgive me if I do not give 11.4 p.m. way. The Order transfers the assets and Mr. E. L. Mallalieu : Perhaps I may liabilities of the superannuation fund of br,iefly r·eply ito the interventions of the the London County Council and the two hon . Members opposite. It is true Middlesex County Council to the Greater ttbat the original legislation was brought London Council and it also transfers the in to deai wi ~h pas·toral reorganisation superannuation funds of the Metropolitan whioh was found necessary after tlhe war, boroughs to the appropriate London burt irt rhas b een found necessacy even boroughs. Those transfers occur in now ; indeed, it has become fuMy recog­ Article 4 of the Order by reference to the nised tihait it is likely to be a continuing Schedule on page 19. need. Hence ,the proposed legislation whioh is now before tihe Ohurch The Order contains a lot of consequen­ Assembly. I !have no authority to give tial provisions with which I do not a date when it will be through that intend to deal. I have no quarrel with machine, but I know that it is the initoo­ the machinery of the Order nor do I tion to press on with it with as much intend to deal with the transfer of super­ speed as poss,ible. annuation funds from the Metropolitan boroughs to the London boroughs. My As · for the question of consultation quarrel is with the substance of the Order wiili pa-roohia,J ohurch councils-this is as it affects the transfer of what I would obligatory. A bishop must consuiit: the term the scandalously deficient L.C.C. paroahia>l ohurch council before he can superannuation fund to the Greater Lon­ suspend in tJhis way. If there have been don Council. I say that the Government, instances in which he has not ful1ly con­ finding that the London County Council suJt,ed it, or fully explai,ned what he after many years of Socialist control had W'

1365 General Hospital, 18 MAY 1965 Cheadle 1366 to build the CheadJ.e General Hospital, do not now work in hospitals because because there is no other hospital there 1Jhey do not wis•h to travel. 'Dhere will that can provide the facilities necessary be an ample su,pply of people anxious to for the people in this vastly growing serve in ~he hospita'i, and we ourselves area. I say that no other hospital in the are keen rto get things moving so !llhat area can provide the facilities required tJhe urgent needs of our area can be by the residents of Cheadle and Wilms­ served. low, but hospitals at present do, in fact, There are very few areas in t!he coun­ provide facilities under conditions of try wbiich have grown as rapidly as tJhe great pressure and of gr,eat inconvenience Wi1lmslow and Cheadle area. My own to patients from both the Cheadle and constituency now, I am sorry to say, Stockport areas. has neady 90,000 electors. !rt is about No doubt, ivhe Parliamentary Secretary time someone came along to relieve me wiN teJl me, not, perihaps, w~tb any great of some of the excess burden, and I hope pleasure, 'bhat under 1lhe Conservative that it wiH be done and in proper fashion. Adminis,tration tlhere was a corn;,i:derable It is a very ,rapidly growing ariea, wi!llh improvement in the phys·icaI capacity, tihe no apparent diminution at present in tJhe administration, the management and the rate of expansion. As I have sa,id, we ca·re in 1ihe Stockport hospitais. My ex­ have ,tihe arrangement to provide 594 acres perience and my record of complaints, or a'1:Wiimslow , as well as ot1her large a,r,eas lack of '!Jhem, over the l,ast year or so withm uhe division for the purpose of bear out tJhat vi,ew. But, even aHow,ing Manohes,ter overspill. If the need for for some improvement in conditions in t!he hospital was seen to be urgent in the Stockpo11t hos:pitals, it stiB remains 1961, it is muoh more urgenit now, in true that this vast area, covering almost the light orf t!he extensive developments 100,000 people, is by no means properly which have taken place since and uhe taken care of by ·the hospitals wihioh meet even more e~tensive developments whiah the needs of the people of Stockport. are projected for the relatively near We have no proper hospital facHj,ties future. at all, and t:bis causes considerable I hope that tihe hon. Genit!leman will anxiety to those who are concerned wi1lh teH me tJha-t he recognis,es t hat 1lhis hos­ the heaJ.tJh of the people in 1:!heOheadile pital has an outstanding olaim to early and Wi'1ms1low divisional heal1lh area. buililing, tihat he will put his Govern­ For instance, we have no provision in ment's ,riecord straight in Oheadile, if irt: is the divis,ion for maternity cases. As t:he straight nowihere eise, and that we can hon. Gentleman will realise, the sending be quite certain that the hospital wi11 of rnatern11ty cases 'long dis,tances, as we be starrted not later ,than 1968. have to do in uhese circumsitances, is by 11.40 p.m. no means sa,t,isfaotory. We have very The Parliamentary Secretary to the li,ttle provision for ,the chronic iH in our Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles area, and ger,iatric cases have no pro­ vision whatever. Loughlin) : I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) I know that the hon. Gen't'leman wi:H marred what was in other respects an be anxious to do what he can in pro­ excellent speech by trying to raise in a cessing Vrus hospital project. Many hon. debate of this kind party political points Members wiM be in touch with him to say which I had deliberately tried to avoid that their need is really urgent. but I in preparing my reply. put it to him uhat the need in Oheadk In my Department, Ministers ought is outstanding because there can be few really to look at the problem as a whole. divis-ionaJ healrtih areas w:lriah have no We are seeking to give a service to the hospirta·l facHities of their own. community and we should consider the We have provided the Manches,ter problem on the basis of the needs of the Regional Hospital Board w,i,th an excellent community rather than on the basis of an site for the hospitaL We know that we attempt to get a particular political ad­ shaH have a large number of people vantage as a result of the action one takes. anxious to work in the hospital-ce r­ It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says. taill'ly, a large number of part-time people that this is an area in which there has who live in t!he immediate area burt who been a large expansion of population in 1367 General Hospital, 18 MAY 1965 Cheadle 1368 [MR. LOUGHLIN.] which, even now, are preventing a precise recent years, largely because of the resi­ definition of the exact site to be acquired dential housing for those who work in for the new hospital. Manchester or Stockport, and both the The regional board is in touch with the regional board and the Ministry recog­ local authorities concerned to clear all nise that a new hospital is needed to give outstanding matters so that negotiations to adequate service to the inhabitants. I purchase the site can begin. Once the am glad to have this opportunity of in­ site has been precisely defined and forming him of what is being done to­ acquired, the board can begin the lengthy wards providing the new hospital for and complicated process of the detailed Cheadle when resources allow. planning of the hospital. As to the I will deal a little later with the ques­ future progress of the planning and con­ tion of whether this Administration is struction of the hospital, I must dis­ deliberately slowing down the hospital appoint the hon. Gentleman, because I programme. First, perhaps I might ex­ can say very little. plain that Cheadle falls within the catch­ It is true that Manchester Regional ment area of the Stockport and Buxton Hospital Board had contemplated pro­ Hospital Management Committee, which ceeding in three phases, but I want this serves a total population of about evening to avoid committing the board 350,000. The long-term plans for this to this arrangement since it may wish to committee's area are to make the main reconsider it in the course of the current hospital provision in two district general review of its programme. Similarly, I hospitals. must leave the board free to decide what will be the content of each of the phases. One of these will be the rebuilt and The first phase must inevitably include a expanded Stepping Hill Hospital, Stock­ large proportion of supporting services port, on its present site, and the other the new hospital Cheadle to which the whatever treatment facilities are included, at but this is the case where any hospital is hon. Gentleman has referred. In the developed on a virgin site. r main, these two hospitals will be inde­ pendent, but complementary in the sense The hon. Member referred to the ques­ that, where it is necessary to concentrate tion whether the present Government all the services in a particularly specialty were slowing down the hospital building for the area in one or other of the programme. I know that the hon. Mem­ hospitals in order to create a viable unit, ber will be disappointed that I can give this will be done. him no assurance about the starting date of this hospital, but he will see the sense The precise size and content of each in the Minister's policy of leaving it to hospital has not yet been settled, but will the regional hospital boards to decide the be resolved with regard as far as possible relative priorities of schemes in the light to the convenience of the patients who of their full and detailed knowledge of all will, naturally, look to each one of them. the conflicting claims upon resources. The hon. Gentleman has heard of the acquisition of the site for the Cheadle The House will, no doubt, remember Hospital and I want to deal with this that on 8th February, my right hon. because so far, although much thought Friend the Minister stated that because has been given to the needs of the area, the individual schemes which comprised the planning of the new hospital has the Hospital Plan had been imprecisely necessarily been in the broadest terms. defined and costed, the resources avail­ able had been found to be insufficient for This does not mean that no action all the schemes to be undertaken. This has been or is being taken. Approval in is the sort of thing which must be taken principle has been given to the Man­ into account by any Government in taking chester Regional Hospital Board to pur­ a responsible look at the programme as chase the site which is owned by the it has been projected prior to their taking governors of Cheadle Royal Hospital and office. We have to consider the schemes is across the road from that hospital. that were initiated or planned two, three, This approval might have been given, and four or five years ago, and whether any the purchase of the land completed some changes have occurred which will mater­ months ago, but for major changes in the ially affect the total cost of the schemes local authority road proposals for the area as they are put into operation. 1369 General Hospital, 18 MAY 1965 Cheadle 1370 I ask the hon. Member to recognise his constituents, and I make no com­ that whilst we are reviewing the pro­ plaint about that. But he is not the gramme, we are doing so because we want only hon. Member who, in one way or to see the greatest possible progress in another, perfectly properly, has brought the utilisation of the resources which are to the attention of my right hon. Friend likely to be available for this part of the claims of his own constituency. I our social policy. replied to a debate a fortnight ago on I should like to quote three short the claims of another hon. Member's examples of how plans go awry when pro­ constituency in the same way, and I posals which on paper appear to be have reason to assume that within a correct prove, by virtue of the passing few weeks I shall have further claims of time, to have been insufficiently and from other hon. Members for their imprecisely costed. In the first example, constituencies. the estimated cost of the project in 1962 I hope iliait the hon. Gellitleman wiU was about £1 million. The present esti­ agree ~hait the amount of resources which mated cost, based upon tenders for phase the country can devote :to ithe building of one, is nearly £1-} million. In the second new hospiltal,s iis limited. If he does, he example, the 1962 estimated cost was must accept rtlhaitwe cannot do everyithing £5-} million. Today's estimate, based we would like rto do a,t once. This means upon the price of phase one, is £6¼ that there must be a list of priorities. million. In the third instance, the esti­ Within the regions, my right hon. Friend mated cost in 1962 was £440,000, whereas looks rto the regional boards to decide the present estimate is about £1 million. priorilties in ,the lighrt of their own de­ Obviously, if a plan is so imprecisely tailed knowledge of local conditions and costed-not because of any deficiencies local needs. Frankly, neither my right on the part of the Minister who initiated hon. Friend nor I would wish to inter­ the plan, but simply because of time fere with the decisions of the board-s in catching up, the changing monetary these maitters. If ithe new Cheadle values and increases in price- the plan Hospi,tail has nort been given the highest must be reviewed. I refute any sug­ priority among the region's projeots, this gestion that we are slowing down. What is because ,tJhe needs elsewhere are even we are doing now is reviewing the whole greaiter and more urgent and iit follows position to see how far it would be that an early starting date could be found possible to put into effect the policy laid for ithis project only by deferring others down in the plan. which, in ithe board's considered view, are more urgent and on which the planning With the regional hospital boards, my is more adv,anced. right hon. Friend is now reviewing the plan, first, to have an even closer look I am sorry itha,t I am not able to give at the content and cost of each project the hon. Gel)ltleman defin:iite assurances, or so that the programme as a whole can be any definite daites this evening. I feel balanced with the available resources ; sure thait he will accept ~ha,t it would be secondly, to examine priorities, particu­ wrong for the Ministry to try to say to larly to see if the needs of geriatric the people in ,the regions thait we know and psychiatric patients have been bertter than they abol.lJt priorities in the properly weighed ; and, thirdly, to give regions which they serve. The regional special attention to the co-ordination of boards know the regions and take into planning with local health and welfare account the grow,th of population, to and general medical services. This re­ which the hon. Member referred, the view will be taking place during the next absence of services and the need to co­ few months and the same careful con­ ordinaite the various servioes in the aireas sideration will be given to the needs w,iJthin the regions. I am saitisfied tha,t the of Cheadle as to all other parts of the regional board in this oase will give the Manchester region and the country as a Oheadle Hosp:iJtaJ ,the highest prioriity in whole. the lighrt of .the needs in the other pants of The hon. Gentleman may feel that the the region. priority given to the building of the new Question put and agreed to. Cheadle Hospital has not been high enough. He is perfectly entitled to urge Adjourned accordingly at six minutes the merits of the case and the needs of to Twelve o'clock. 191 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 192 Tuesday, 18th May,-1965

COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS bers. I am sure the whole House wo1~d wish me to convey an expression of Oberon Class Submarines sympathy in this sad disaster. 8. Mr. Burden asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what Commonwealth Governments have NATIONAL FINANCE expressed an interest in the purchase of Income Tax Oberon class submarines from the United Kingdom. 30. Mr. Temple asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individual Mr. Bottomley : Four Oberon class Income Tax payers there were in the submarines are at present being construc­ United Kingdom, excluding Northern ted for the Australian Government and Ireland, in 1963-64; and of these how three for the Canadians. The approxi­ many had incomes below the rate at mate value of these orders is £28 million. which the standard rate of Income Tax The Government of India has also was not applied. expressed an interest in this class of submarine. Mr. MacDermot: 17,210,000 counting husbands and wives as one. Of these about 11 million were not liable at the Commonwealth Parliament standard rate on any part of their Mr. G. R. Howard asked the Secretary income. of State for Commonwealth Relations what recent representations be bas Decimal Currency received concerning the possibility of set­ 32. Sir J. Langford-Holt asked the ting up a Commonwealth Parliament ; and Chancellor of the Exchequer what esti­ whether he will now make a statement. mate he has made of the total cost to Mr. Bottomley : I have received no Government, private persons and in­ recent representations, although a number dustries of introducing a decimal of hon. Members and others have made currency system this year ; and what known to me their interest in this would be the equivalent figure next year proposal. and in subsequent years, allowing for At the moment I have nothing to add any increase in costs as well as a wider to the information given to the House use of computers and other electronic by the Prime Minister on 9th March. machines. Mr. MacDermot: As the Halsbury Committee recommended a three-year PAKISTAN preparatory period before the change­ Cyclone Disaster (Aid) over took place, there can be no question of introducing a decimal currency this Mr. Ti1ney asked the Secretary of year. For estimates of the total cost in State for Commonwealth Relations what subsequent years I would refer the hon. help Her Majesty's Government are giving Member to the Committee's Report. to the Government of Pakistan to mitigate the recent cyclone disaster in East Government Establishments Pakistan. (Computers) Mr. Bottomley : The full seriousness of Mr. Charles Morrison asked the Chan­ this disaster only became evident on cellor of the Exchequer if he will list Staurday, the 15th. I have reviewed the the Government installations in wnich reports from our High Commissioner in agreements with the National Staff Side Pakistan and I am authorising him today Negotiating Committee limit the number to offer the Pakistan Government aid worth of hours which computers are operated, £7,500 in whatever form they wish. Fur­ indicating in each case the type of com­ ther aid will be considered should later puter involved, the purpose for which it reports warrant this. I have also informed is used, the date of the agreement and the the voluntary agencies, who are co­ number of hours per day that the operating fully with their opposite num- computer is in operation. 193 Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 194 Mr. MacDermot: A list of computers King's Lynn area when agreeing to the operating in Government establishments overspill plan for the area. was given in the reply to the hon. Mem­ Mr. Mellish : The overspill scheme was ber on 2nd March, 1965. The agreement approved by my right hon. Friend's pre­ with the National Staff Side applies decessor who decided that the railway, generally and not to specific installa­ facilities were satisfactory. tions. Under this agreement, made in July, 1962, normal working is limited to 15 hours per day but 24-hour manning Local Government Reform is permitted where necessary to provide 40. Mr. Awdry asked the Minister of a fully operational service or in Housing and Local Government what emergencies. progress he has now made on his plans for a reform of local government struc­ Owner-Occupiers ture ; and whether he will make a state­ (Mortgage Interest Payments) ment. 31. Mr. Atkinson asked the Chancellor Mr. Crossman : I would refer the hon. of the Exchequer what is the average Member to the reply I gave on 15th weekly tax relief enjoyed by owner­ December last to my hon. Friend the occupiers on their mortgage interest pay­ Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger). ments. Since then I have made orders extend­ Mr. MacDermot: Just under 12s. ing the boundaries of Coventry and Northampton and making a number of Gas Production (Oil) minor changes in the boundaries of several counties in the East and West Mr. McGuire asked the Chancellor of Midlands. I have also announced deci­ the Exchequer if he will now introduce sions on the Local Government Commis­ a tax on oil used for producing gas as a sion's proposals for Exeter, Bristol and means of helping the balance of Bath, and shall in due ·course be giving payments. effect to them by order. Mr. MacDermot: As has already been announced my right hon. Friend the Collection of Litter Minister of Power is conducting a 42. Mr. Dodds-Parker asked the thorough review of fuel policy. I can­ Minis,ber of Housing and Local Govern­ not anticipate the outcome of that review. ment wha,t study he has made of vacuum equipmelllt and vehicles used in Europe for the colleation of leaves and ollher street LOCAL GOVERNMENT l~t:Jter; and, in view of the development of smokeless zones, whait action he wnl take Greater London (Rates) to develop such equipment. 33. Mr. Dodds asked the Minister of Mr. Mellish : Sever:al Br~tish firms are Housing and Local Government if he is making and seHing it:his kind of equip­ aware of the concern arising from the melllt. Regular nait:ional and inteirnait:ional substantial increase in the cost of admini­ confel'ences and exhibiitions keep local stration of local government in Greater auit:hodties in it:ouoh w~th developments, London resulting from the London and my rigblt hon. Friend does not rthiink Government Aot, 1963 ; and if he will any special study or aotion is called for take steps to diminish the burden on the from him. · rates. Mr. Mellish: The reply to the first Metropolitan Green Belt pa,:t of the question is, "Yes". As to 43. Sir J. Rodgers asked the Minisit:er th'e second part I would refer my hon. of Housing and Local Govemmen,t if he Friiend to my right hon. Friend's speech will, wi,th the minimum delay, define rthe during the debate on 5th May. limirts of an exitended metropolitan green belt. lwlg's Lynn (Overspill Scheme) Mr. Crossman : The local planning 35. Mr. Derek Page asked the Minister aurthoriities concerned were asked to review of Housing and Local Government what their proposals for exrt:ending the metro­ account he took of rail facilities in the pohtJan green belit in the light of the 195 Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 196 South-East Srtudy. They cannot complete would be destroyed if a 11oad improve­ thi,s work ll1lltil the Governme1nt have ment scheme for the A.602 at present announced 'llheir conclusions on the South­ under consideration, was implemented ; EaS1t Srtudy iitself, since ithe green bel,t and wheither, in view of local ooncern, he boundary has ito be deaided in conjunc­ will institute a public inquiry before tion with the allocaition of land for hous­ reaching a decision on this matter. ing and other needs. Meanwhile discus­ Mr. MacColl: The building is nOlt on sions are proceeding with eaoh of the local the sta,tu,tory list of buildings of special planning authodties. archiitectural or historic interest and the original 17th century structure has been Surrey County Rate (Greater much altered and added to. In these London Council Assistance) circumstances, it would be difficult for 45. Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan asked the my right hon. Friend to intervene. Minister of Housing and Local Govern­ melllt whart: cont,ribution has been made by Brighton Waterworks Offices the Greamer London Council 11:owards11:he assistance of the county of Surrey in ithe Mr. Hobden asked the Minister of year 1965-66 ; and whart: tihis represents Housing and Local Government why he in terms of the Surrey counity rart:e. gave loan sanction for the erection of new offices for Brighton Waterworks at a cost Mr. Mellish: £587,189, or a rate of of £400,000. 2·9 pence. Mr. MacColl : Brighton have long Classified Documents needed new offices for their water under­ taking. Their proposals included work­ 46. Mr. Onslow asked the Minisiter of shops, laboratories and a depot ; and loan Housing and Local Governmeillt wheither sanction was issued as the Department's he is satisfied wiith ,the arrangements for teclmical advisers saw no reason to safe cuSttody of classified documents of criticise the scheme. his Deparitment ; and if he will make a statemenit. Gypsies Mr. Crossman : The arrangements in Mr. Murray asked the Minister of my Department for safe cus,tody of classi­ Housing and Local Government if he will fied documelllts follow ithe Government's issue a circular to such local heal,th autho­ inSttruotions on securiity which are pre­ rities as have unofficial sites for gypsies pared cenrtrally and whiah are issued to and other travellers in their areas on the all Departme!Olts for their guidance. health risks arising from lack of proper sanitation. Rate Payments (Greater London Boroughs) Mr. Crossman : The lack of sanitary facilities on many of the sites occupied Mr. Dudley Smith asked the Minister by these people was stressed in a circular of Housing and Local Government if he my Department issued in 1962. will circularise all the new Greater London boroughs, requesting them to maintain or re-provide facilities for the HOUSING paying of rate demands by the public in the areas where they existed before the Housing Programmes, London Area recent borough amalgamations. 36. Mr. lremonger asked the Minister Mr. Mellish: No. My right hon. Friend of Housing and Local Government if thinks it can be left to the good sense of he will give loan sanction to London each rating authority to provide for the borough councils above the district efficient and convenient payment of rates. valuer's valuation for housing develop­ ments in the acquisition of which the The Old Windmill, Waterford London boroughs are overbid by the Lord Balniel asked the Minister of Greater London Council exercising its Housing and Local Government whether statutory powers. he is aware that The Old Windmill at Mr. Mellish : No. It is no part of Waterford, Hertfordshire. which is listed my right hon. Friend's policy to increase in the Supplementary List of Buildings the price of housing land by encouraging of Architectural or Historical Interest, local authorities to bid against each 197 Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 198 other ; nor is there any occasion for the compulsory purchase powers under the Greater London Council and the London Housing Act, 1957, are available where a Boroughs to compete for land. He has tenant is threatened with homelessness as asked them to prepare their housing a result of a demand for an exorbitant programmes in consultation with each rent. The Protection from Eviction Act, other, and he has powers to adjust the 1964, provides additional interim safe­ balance between them. guards for tenants, but the real answer to this problem will be provided by the Disabled Persons Rent Bill and I intend to establish the· 34. Mr. Hector Hughes asked the machinery for fixing fair rents as soon as Minister of Housing and Local Govern­ possible. ment if he will seek to provide subsidies I shall issue my dedsion on the com­ and grants to local authorities to build pulsory purchase order to which my hon. specially adapted houses for disabled Friend refers in the next few days. men and women. Mr. Mellish : I would refer my hon. Housing Subsidies Friend to the reply given to the hon. 47. Mr. Corfield asked the Minister of Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Housing and Local Government for how Ward) on 16th March. many local authorities the subsidies still Local Authority Houses (Garages) received on pre-war houses amount to more than two-thirds of the total housing 37. Mr. Galbraith asked the Minister subsidies paid to them in any one year. of Housing and Local Government how the number of 1ocal authority houses Mr. Mellish : I regret the information built is related to the space provided is not available and my right hon. Friend on which garages are being or may be does not think that the time and effort constructed ; how this proportion com­ required to compile the figures would be pares with what it was in 1960; and justified. what it is expected to be in 1970. Agricultural Dwellings Mr. Mellish: 31 per cent. of dwellings (Discretionary Subsidies) in tenders approved in England and Mr. Evelyn King asked the Minister of Wales in 1964 were designed with Housing and Local Government how garages, and 28 per cent with either car­ many discretionary subsidies for agri­ ports or hardstandings. Detailed figures cultural cottages have been provided by for earlier years are not available. By the Dorset County Council in each of the 1970 my right hon. Friend would expect last four years. most estates to be olanned on the basis Mr. Crossman: The number of new, of one car per dewelling with some pro­ private agricultural dwellings for which vision for visitors, as recommended in discretionary subsidies were authorised by the Report " Homes for Today and county district councils in the area of the Tomorrow". Dorset County Council in each of the last Compulsory Purchase Order four years for which figures are avail­ able was: 44. Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Minis­ ter of Housing and Local Government Number of Dwellings 1960-61 13 whether he has received the communica­ 1961-62 11 tion from the hon. Member for West 1962-63 12 Ham, under reference DGB concerning 1963-64 4 the rent of £8 10s. 0d. per week and key­ The county council. not being a money of £79, charged to a tenant for housing authority, cannot make these insanitary accommodation and the desire payments. of the local council to purchase com- pulsorily this property under the 1957 Act when he will give his decision on BOARD OF TRADE the inquiry held in January last ; and Commonwealth Trade whether he will make a statement. 48. Mr. Bence asked the President of Mr. Crossman: I am anxious that the Board of Trade what steps he is relief should be given as soon as possible taking to expand inter-Commonwealth to tenants facing exorbitant rents. The trade...... ---,i,..,.lr,~"'i; ~,., ,..._.....,..~ ...... ~ ... 7 199 Written-Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 200 Mr. Redhead: The Government have established unified and comprehensive ·set up-a Commonwealth Exports Council consumer protection services and to with six area committees which are encourage them to provide such services at already engaged in energetically stimu­ district council level. lating British exports to the Common­ Mr. Darling : One local authority has wealth. Development of trade between established a service of this kind and I other Commonwealth countries is mainly understand that two others have proposals a matter for their own Governments, but under consideration. I think it is for it will benefit from the growth of world individual local authorities to decide in trade generally which Her Majesty's Gov­ the light of local circumstances whether ernment, through their participation in the to provide such services. Kennedy Round and their commercial policy generally, are endeavouring to British Films (Quotas) promote. Mr. Edelman asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet made Southampton Water and Bambie a decision about the quota of British River (Oil Pollution) films to be shown by exhibitors during Dr. Bennett asked the Minister of the year beginning 1st January, 1966. Transport if he is aware of the area of Mr. Jay : I have decided to accept the oil occupying the surface of Southampton advice of the Cinematograph Films Coun­ Water and the Ramble River on 12th cil to leave the prescribed quotas at May, 1965 ; and if he will take urgent 30 per cent. for first-feature films and action to prosecute those responsible, in 25 per cent. for the supporting programme view of the fact that nobody will accept for the exhibitors' quota year beginning this responsibility locally, and that this 1st January, 1966. discharge of oil is causing much damage. Mr. Mason: I have been asked to reply. Inquiries by officials of the Southampton BECHUANALAND Harbour Board, within whose jurisdic­ Elliot Ngwabi, Keyi Nkala and tion the area of oil is located, and by Clark Mpofu officials of the Board of Trade, have failed 49. Mr. Berkeley asked the Secretary to establish responsibility for the pollu­ of State for the Colonies in what circum. tion. In these circumstances, I regret stances Elliot Ngwabi, Keyi Nkala, and that there is no basis for a prosecution. Clark Mpofu were arrested by a com. bined force of Rhodesian and Bechuana­ Fuel Oil (Measuring Instruments) land police on 6th January, 1965. Mr. Rhodes asked the President of the Mr. Greenwood : These three men were Board of Trade what regulations exist for initially apprehended in Bechuanaland governing the accuracy of measuring in­ near the border with Rhodesia by four struments for fuel oil in quantities above private citizens who recognised them as 20 gallons ; and whether he will make a having escaped from Bulawayo Prison. statement concerning his intentions in this They were then taken into custody by the respect. Bechuanaland Police and removed from Mr. Darling : No regulations exist at the territory as prohibited immigrants present for controlling instruments of this under the Bechuanaland Immigration type. The Board of Trade intends to Law. frame proposals as soon as practicable with a view to making regulations for that purpose, but a number of items of sub­ MAURITIUS ordinate legislation under the Weights and State of Emergency Measures Act, 1963, will need to be given 50. Mr. James Johnson asked the priority. Secretary of State for the Colonies if Local Authorities he will make a statement regarding the (Consumer Protection Services) state of emergency declared by the Mr. Freeson asked the President of the Governor, Sir John Rennie, in Mauritius. Board of Trade if he will take steps to Mr. Greenwood : Yes. Since 1st May find out how many local authorities have there have been a number of violent Vol. 712 2N r

201 Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 202 incidents during which three persons were a general review of the movement or killed, a number injured and some both prices and money incomes. The damage done to property. With the House will wish to know that I am agreement of the Premier, the Governor today referring to the National Board has proclaimed a state of emergency for Prices and Incomes for examination under the Emergency Powers Order in -in the light of the national interest­ Council, 1939. He has made regulations wages ; costs ; and prices in the printing giving the police and security forces industry. limited powers of entry, search, arrest and detention up to 14 days. A number of persons found in possession of offen­ SECURITY sive weapons have been arrested. There is no indication of any further disorder. 08. Mr. Biggs-Davison asked the Prime Minister what machinery he has I have full confidence in the set up to keep himself informed of Governor's judgment of what was needeo matters involving security risks. and in his handling of the situation. The Prime Minister : It has never been the practice to reveal security procedures. CAMBODIA QlO. Dame Irene Ward asked the 51. Mr. Hector Hughes asked the Prime Minister to what extent past prac­ Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tice is being followed whereby members if he will make a statement on the pro­ of the Government offer themselves for posals for a forthcoming intemationai positive vetting ; and what is the prac­ conference of Powers including Great tice with regard to the positive vetting of Britain, United States of America, France, Her Majesty's Government political ad­ Russia and Communist China, on the visers with direct access to them. subject of Cambodia, indicating its scope The Prime Minister : The position as and personnel and where and when it will regards Ministers is exactly the same meet. as under the last Government. It is for Mr. George Thomson: The Soviet pro­ the Prime Minister of the day to satisfy posal, which my right hon. Friend himself as to the suitability of those accepted, was for a conference of the whose names are submitted to Her Governments participating in the 1954 Majesty. Geneva Conference to consider the ques­ If, as I assume, the second part of the tion of guarantees of the neutrality and hon. Lady's Question refers to· temporary territorial integrity of Cambodia. Her civil servants, none of whom are political Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow sug­ advisers, they are, of course, subject to gested on 26th April that the joint the same rules and procedures as other message in these terms drafted by the Government employees. Soviet Government should be issueo forthwith by both Co-Chairmen. Until we receive a reply from the Soviet Government, I cannot answer my learned FOREIGN AFFAIRS Friend's other questions. Q9. Mr. Woodhouse asked the Prime Minister whether he will move for the appointment of a standing select com­ ECONOMIC AFFAIRS mittee on foreign affairs. National Board for Prices and The Prime Minister : No. Incomes (Reference) 52. Mr. Hastings asked the First Secre­ tary of State and Secretary of State for MINISTERS (CONFIDENTIAL Economic Affairs if he will make a DOCUMENTS) statement on the operation so far of the Qll. Mr. Dance asked the Prime Government's incomes policy. Minister what instructions he issues to Mr. George Brown : The National members of Her Majesty's Government Economic Development Council recently with regard to the safe keeping of con­ decided, at my suggestion, to undertake fidential official documents. 203 Wntten A nswers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 204 Ql2. Mr. Lagden asked the Prime for the payment of an incentive bonus on Minister what instructions he gives to a permanent basis. Ministers to prevent confidential Depart­ Mr. K. Robinson: The Builders Com­ p:1ental documents being left in public mittee of the Ancillary Staffs Council places ; and if any form or reward is has agreed on the principles which must given for their return. underlie any incentive bonus schemes for The Prime Minister: On first appoint­ building maintenance workers in hos­ ment, Ministers are briefed on all aspects pitals, and a firm of management con­ of physical security including the need to sultants has been asked to submit an ensure the safe custody of confidential outline scheme for experiment at a documents. It is not the general practice selected hospiital. This is expected to give rewards for the return of docu­ shoritly, but I cannot forecast when the ments mislaid. results of the scheme, if acceptable, can be fully evaluated.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH Royal Sussex County Hospital Cervical Cancer (Technicians) Mr. Hobden asked the Minister of Mr. Alan Williams asked the Minister Health what projects in the area covered of Health how long it takes to train by the South-East Region Metropolitan technicians for cervical cancer test Hospital Board have taken precedence clinics. over the rebuilding of the Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton. Mr. K. Robinson: The .courses in cyitology arranged centrally for hospital Mr. Loughlin : Of projects starting in technicians normally last 12 weeks: local 1965-66, those at the Kent and Canter­ training will vary in duration, according bury Hospital and the Medway Hospital. to circumstances. Mr. Alan WiJliams asked the Minister EDUCATION AND SCIENCE of Health what factors limit the number Yarcombe Primary School of technicians currently being trained in Wales for the detection of cervical Mr. Mathew asked the Secretary of cancer. State for Education and Science if he will reconsider his decision to close Mr. K. Robinson: At this stage mainly the numbers of pathologists and tech­ Yarcombe Primary School. nicians already trained and available to Mr. Crosland : No. My approval to provide local rtraining, the need to lim~t the Devon local education authority's the number who can be released for proposal to close this school was given training a,t any one time so as to avoid under section 13(4) of the Education Act, detriment to hospital pathology ser­ 1944, after full consideration of the cir­ vices, and the length of training needed cumstances. I have in any case no to ensure the high standards required. power to revoke it.

College of Aeronautics (Analogue HOSPITALS Computer) Hospital Maintenance Staff (Bonus) Mr. Charles Morrison asked the Secre­ Mr. Currie asked the Minister of of State for Education and Science what Health (1) when he expects a decision opportunity was given to British com­ to be made on rthe question of the pay­ puter companies in 1964 to tender for ment of an incentive bonus to building an analogue computer to be used by the maintenance staff in hospitals in the Department of Control Engineering at United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield. (2) whether he will authorise the pay­ Mr. Crosland: No formal tenders for ment of in iillterim bonus of l s. per hour an analogue computer were invited QY on an ex-gratia basis to building main­ the College of Aeronautics in 1964. The tenance staffs in hospitals in the United Governing Body of the College has been Kingdom .and Northern Ireland pending giving careful consideration to the ques­ a decision being made as to a scheme tion of acquiring a hybrid analogue Vol. 712 2N2 205 Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answ ers 206 machine to improve general computer males and three females were sentenced facilities and for highly specialised de­ to imprisonment for less than three partmental purposes, and has now sub­ months. Details of persons under 21 mitted certain proposals to me. I have who were in custody in prisons and referred these proposals to the Standing remand centres on 20th April, 1965, are t Advisory Panel on computers under the as follows: Chairmanship of Sir Willis Jackson for PERSONS UNDER 21 IN CUSTODY IN PRISONS AND advice before taking a decision. REMAND CENTRES ON 20TH APRIL, 1965 PRISONS Male Female Untried 218 17 HOME DEPARTMENT Young prisoners 3 years and over 228 4 Race Relations Bill over 6 months and under 3 years 279 2 Mr. Rose asked the Secretary of State 6 months and under for the Home Department how many 330 20 meetings he with the Northern Ire­ Borstal inmates had awaiting transfer to alloca­ land Government on the subject of the tion centre or recall centre 229 3 Race Relations Bill ; and what reasons others 96 were given by the Northern Ireland Other convicted prisoners Government for their wish that the Bill (e.g. Magistrates' Courts Act should not be extended to cover 1952, sections 14(3), 28 Northern Ireland. and 29) 214 26 Sir F. Soskice: I have had informal Total 1,594 72 discussions on this subject but no formal meetings have been held. In accordance REMAND CENTRES with established oractice on a matter Male Female within the competence of the Northern Untried 207 4 Ireland Parliament, inquiry was made Young prisoners through official channels to ascertain 3 years and over 3 whether the Northern Ireland Govern­ over 6 months and under 3 ment wished our legislation to extend to years 6 Northern Ireland. They indicated that 6 months and under 40 2 they did not. Borstal inmates awaiting transfer to alloca­ tion centre or recall centre 23 2 Young Persons (hnprisonment) others 4 Other convicted prisoners Mr. William Wilson asked the Secre­ (e.g. Magistrates' Courts Act tary of State for the Home Department 1952, sections 14(3), 28 how many persons below the age of 18 and 29) 396 16 years were detained for any period in Total 679 24 Her Majesty's prisons between 1st Janu­ ary and 30th April, 1965 ; what was the longest continuous period any such young person was so detained ; and how Police Forces (Control) l many such young persons were serving i a sentence of imprisonment. Mrs. Renee Short asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Miss Bacon : I regret that information he is aware of concern at the lack of in this form is not available. The num­ public control of police forces outside ber of persons aged 17 who were received the Metropolitan area ; and if he will into prison under sentence of imprison­ introduce legislation to bring these police ment during the first three months of forces under his control. 1965 is provisionally estimated to have been 45 males and 3 females. Of these Sir F. Soskice: No. The arrangements one male was sentenced to five years, for the control of police forces outside two to four years, one to 18 months, London were recently strengthened by three to six months, and four to three the Police Act, 1964, and I do not accept months imprisonment. Thirty-four that they are inadequate. 207 Wrillen Answers 18 MAY 1965 Writte11 An swers 208 populaition figu.res are available~ there OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT were 530,000 reitiremeillt pemsioners in Scotland, representiing a htitle over IO per Agricultural Officers ceillt. of the ro1laJ1.Scottish population. Sir F. Bennett asked :the Minister of I regret iliai!: s~aitistics rel,aiting to the Overseas Development how many agricul­ number of retirement pen5ioners in par­ tural officers have left Her Majesty's Over­ ticular local areas a.re noCavailable. seas Civil Service on termination of employment over the last five years ; and what occupations they have subsequently COAL sought. Mr. Oram: I regreit thart: 1lhe informa­ Steel Industry tion requested in ithe firs,t parit of the Mr. Charles Morrison asked the Question will itake a lirotle time to compile Minister of Power what was the annual and iit will not be possible to supply com­ tonnage of coal sold by the National pleite information in reply ito the second Coal Board to the steel industry since paut of ithe Quesition. I shall, however, 1950, indicating the proportion taken wriite Ito tihe hon. Member as soon as by those companies which the Govern­ possible giving all available information. ment propose to nationalise. Mr. Frederick Lee: I have consulted the industries concerned and the figures PENSIONS AND NATIONAL are as follows : INSURANCE Thousmzd Tons Coal National Industrial Death Benefit received Coal Board (Mrs. C, M. James) at iron disposal to Mr. Ellis Smith asked the Minister of and steel the Iron coke and Steel Pensions and National Insurance why Year ovens* lndustryt Total Mrs. C. M. James, 13, Brookland Avenue, 1950 10,848 8,145 18,993 Bluriton, Stoke-on-Trent, was not allowed 1951 11,713 8,034 19,747 full pension on ,the dea.th of her husband, 1952 13,035 7,393 20,428 in v,iew of the facts that he had been 1953 14,120 7,002 21,122 1954 14,478 6,510 20,988 employed in the coal mines for 33 years, 1955 14,964 6,397 21,361 was drawing a pension due to pneumo­ 1956 16,501 5,966 22,467 coniosis for 13 years, and in 1958 was 1957 17,299 5,495 22,794 allowed iindusrt:ria] disablemeDlt benefit for 1958 15,391 4,391 19,782 1959 14,443 3,923 18,366 pneumoconiosis, which was as·sessed at IO 1960 J 7,939 3,919 21,858 per cent., uilltil his death in October, 1961 16,760 3,287 20,047 1964; and why his widow wa,s not given 1962 15,244 2,604 17,849 tlhe benefit of any doubt. 1963 15,925 2,387 18,312 1964 17,736 2,155 19,891 Ml'. Harold Davies : I understand that * Source: British Coking Industry Association. Mrs. fames has appealed to the Industrial t Other than to coke ovens. Source : National Injuries Commissioner against the dis­ Coal Board. allowance of her cliaim for industrial deaith The Iron and Steel Board estimates beinefit. I will wriite to my hon. Friend that at least 95 per cent. of the total a,s soon as the Commissioner's decision sales in each year were to steel com­ has been given. panies which the Government propose to nationalise. Retirement Pensioners (Scotland) Mr. Russell Johnston asked the National Coal Board Minister of Pensions and National Insur­ (Capital Investment) ance if he will publish a table showing the Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister number of persons drawing old-age pen­ of Power what was the annual capital sion, and that number exoressed as a investment by each region of the percentage of tihe populaitiori. in Scotland, National Coal Board on each of the last the seven croHing oouillties of Scotland IO years ; and what are the annual and tlhe County of Inverness, respectively. estimates for the next five years. Mr. Pentland: It is estimaJted tbaJt at Mr. Frederick Lee : A breakdown of 30th June, 1964-the latest date for which capital investment by regions appears in Vol. 712 2N3 r I 209 Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Wrillen Answers 210 the published annual accounts of the National Coal Board. Pit Closures The level of future investment will be Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister determined in the light of the national of Power if he will list by region the coal fuel policy and national plan to which pits closed each year for the last five I referred in my statement to the House years, showing the number of men on 12th April. employed and output of coal one year before each pit was closed. Annual Production Mr. Frederick Lee: I am asking the Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister Chairman of the National Coal Board to of Power whait was the total annual coal write to the hon. Member. produotiO!n and the total for each r,egion of the Nainional Coal Board for each of the last 10 yearrs. ELECTRICITY Mr. Frederick Lee: The figures of Maximum Charges deep-mined coal productiion are published in ,the Mmistry of Power Statistical Mr. Crawshaw asked the Minister of Power how many electricity boards have Digest (Tab1e 32 of it!he 1963 edirtiiion and co.-.responding tables in earlier edi,tions). now fixed maximum charges for electrici:ty resold for domestic purposes ; and if he Profit or Loss Per Ton will make a staitement. Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister Mr. Frederick Lee: Eleven, including of Power if he will give the average profit the two Scottish Electricity Boards. The or loss per ton for each year in each other three Electricity Boards expect to region of the National Coal Board for follow shortly. The maximum charges each of the last 10 years. will apply from 1st July, 1965. Mr. Frederick Lee : The figures of average profit or loss per ton, before MINISTRY OF POWER charging interest, are published in the National Coal Board's Annual Accounts Electricity, Gas and Coal (Prices) and the Ministry of Power Statistical Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister Digest (Table 33 of the 1963 edition). of Power what was the average rise in the price of electricity, gas and coal, Employees respectively, sold to consumers in each Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minis,ter year since 1950. of Power what was the number employed Mr. Frederick Lee: Figures of pro­ in each region of the National Coal Board ceeds per ton of saleable coal and of on 31st December in each of the last average net selling values of electricity 10 years. and gas are published in the Ministry Mr. Frederick Lee : Figures of wage­ of Power Statistical Digest (Tables 26, 84 earners on colliery books are published and 100 respectively of the 1963 edition). in the Ministry of Power Statistical Digest (Table 32 of the 1963 edition and corre­ Energy Consumption sponding tables in earlier editions). Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister of Power if he will give figures showing Miners' Coal the breakdown into coal, oil, gas and Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister electricity of the total energy consumed of Power what were the total annual in Great Britain in each of the past tonnage and the average price paid per 10 years ; and what are his estimates for ton of miners' coal for each of the last each of the next five years. ten years. Mr. Frederick Lee: The analysis of Mr. Frederick Lee: Figures showing total energy consumption in the United . the quantity of miners' coal and the Kingdom by type of fuel is given in amounts charged are given in the Ministry Table 8 of the Ministry of Power Statis­ of Power Statistical Digest (Table 30 of tical Digest, 1963. the 1963 edition and comparable tables The use of oil, electricity and town in earlier issues). gas is expected to continue to increase -:1

21J Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 212 and the direct use of coal to decrease but I cannot give precise forecasts at this Prisoners, Barlinnie (Remunerative stage. Work) Mr. Dempsey asked the Secretary of Fuel Consumption State for Scotland how many prisoners Mr. McNair-Wilson asked the Minister in Her Majesty's Prison, Barlinnie, are of Power if he will give a breakdown of engaged on remunerative work ; how the primary sources of energy generated many days per week they work ; how in Great Britain in each of the last 10 many hours per day they are employed ; years. and what is the average daily wage earned by these prisoners. Mr. Frederick Lee : I am not entirely clear what the hon. Member means by Mr. Ross : In the last week in April, " a breakdown of the primary sources of 584, working a 5½ day week of 6½ hours energy generated". Production of the from Monday to Friday and 3½ hours on principal fuels is given in Table 5 of the Saturday, and earning an average daily Ministry of Power Statistical Digest, 1963, wage of ls. an analysis by primary fuel of inland Teachers fuel consumotion in Table 6 and an analysis of fuel used for electricity gene­ The Earl of Dalkeith asked the Sec­ ration in Table 7. retary of State for Scotland, in view of the teacher shortage in Scotland, what steps he intends to take to discourage the PUBLIC BUILDING AND drift of teachers into politics ; and how WORKS many have been lost to the profession in this way in the last 20 years. Ministers (Lunches, Dinners and Mr. Ross : Serious though the teacher Receptions) shortage is, I should be the last to seek Mr. Stratton Mi!ls asked the Minister to limit the contribution which teachers of Public Building and Works if he will make to the work of this House and to list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the lunches, political life generally. dinners and receptions which have been held by Ministers at public expense since Hydro-Electric Schemes 16th October, 1964, to the nearest con­ venient date ; and if he will itemise for Mr. Russell Johnston asked the Secre­ each, the Minister acting as host, the tary of State for Scotland if he will list the proposals he has rece.ived from the date, the cost, the number attending, the purpose of the entertainment, and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board number of overseas buyers present. for new hydro-electric schemes within its area, together with the approximate cost Mr. C. Pannell: No. of such schemes. Mr. Ross : The following four schemes have been submitted to me for confirma­ SCOTLAND tion: Estimated Cost Township Roads f Mr. Russell Johnston asked the Secre­ Nevis 4,200.000 tary of State for Scotland whether, in Laidon 1,450,000 reviewing the road programme for Scot­ Fada-Fionn 6,600,000 land in July, he will give attention to the Loch a'Bhraoin 2,250,000 problem of township roads in the seven crofting counties. Hospitals (Geriatric Beds) Mr. Ross : Grants for the improvement Mr. Russell Johnston asked the Secre­ of township roads are made under the tary of State for Scotland how many Congested Districts (Scotland) Aot, 1897, geriatric beds are available in Scotland, and are considered separately from the the seven crofting counties of Scotland motorway, trunk and classified road pro- and the County of Inverness, respectively. '.grammes. The problem of township roads Mr. Ross : At 30th September, 1964, is important and I oan aissure ,the hon. the latest date for which figures are avail­ Member that I have it very much in mind. able, there were 7,907 geriatric beds in Vol. 712 2 N4 213 Written Answers 18 MAY 1965 Written Answers 2/4 Scotland, of which 492 were in the seven Mr. Cousins : I have on various crofting counties, including 101 in the occasions indicated that my Department's county of Inverness. Jn the Northern attention is first being turned to the prob­ Region a large number of geriatric lems of the four industries for which I patients are also accommodated in beds have sponsorship responsibility. In not set aside specially for geriatrics. addition I am starting a study of indus­ trial and process control instrumentation, Mr. Russell Johnston asked the Secre­ and I am having a special survey made tary of State for Scotland what is the of engineering standards. waiting iist for geriatric beds in Scotland, the seven crofting counties of Scotland, Sponsored Industries (Employees) and the County of Inverness, respectively. Mr. Charles Morrison asked the Mr. Ross : The total geriatric waiting Minister of Technology if he will give the lists of the hospital authorities in Scotland number 1,200. total for the total numbers employed in each of the about The industries for which he is sponsor, indi­ seven crofting counties is about 70 and cating the number of graduates in each that for the County of Inverness 28. Wait­ industry. ing list figures have to be interpreted with caution, because they are not all Mr. Cousins : Numbers in employment compiled on the same basis. at June 1964, in establishments in the United Kingdom classified to the indus­ Mr. Russell Johnston asked the Secre­ tries sponsored by the Ministry of Tech­ tary of State for Scotland how many new nology were as follows : beds for geriatric purposes are expected Telegraph and Telephone Appara- to become available in the next five tus ...... 75,500 Radio and Other Electronic Appara- years in Scotland, the seven crofting tus ... 295,300 counties of Scotland and the County of Metal-Working Machine Tools 87,800 Inverness, respectively. There are no separate official data on Mr. Ross: Over 1,000 additional beds employment related to computers since for geriatric purposes are expected to these are classified as a product of the become available in Scotland in the eleotronics industry. period ending in March, 1970. Of these Pending the resul-ts of the survey now 26 are in the seven crofting counties, but being carried out in respect of January, there are none in the County of Inverness. 1965, the la>test official data on employ­ ment of qualified scientists and technolo­ gists are for January, 1962. These statis­ TECHNOLOGY tics cover G.11eaitBritain only. Deparhnental Staff Employment of qualified scientists and technologists in establishments with 100 Mr. Charles Mol'rison asked the or more employees in the telegraph an(; Minister of Technology if he will give telephone apparatus and the radio and the total number of staff currently other electronic apparatus industries employed. in his Department with a break­ together was 7,484. down into Civil Service grades. Employment of qualified scientists and Mr. Cousins : I would refer the hon. technologists in rthe machine tool indus­ Member to pages 102 and 103 of the try i-s not separately distinguished under Civil Estimates 1965-66 Class IV which the general heading of the mechanical gives information about the staff of my engineering industries, but the Machine Ministry in the form which the House has Tool Trades Association has estima.ted approved. that its members employed about 1,000 L.i 1963. Studies and Surveys Nationalised Industries and Mr. Charles Morrison asked the Post Office (Computers) Minister of Technology if he will list the detailed studies of particular indus­ Mr. Charles Morrison asked th e tries and of particular technological Minister of Technology if he will list the· problems now being carried out by his computers being u-sed by na,tionalised in­ Department. dustries and the Post Office, showing the 7 215 Wrillen Answers 18 MAY 1965 Wrilteti Answers 216 cost, date of installation, name of manu­ Mr. Joseph Slater: Details of the value facturer, type of computer, and function of losses from postal parcels through for which it is used. pilferage alone are not available. But Mr. Cousins : The information is being the total amounts of compensation and collected and I will circulate it in the the number of claims paid in the years OFFI CIAL REPORT when it is complete. in question for the loss of and from in­ land postal parcels are given in the follow­ ing table. I am sorry that it is not prac­ POST OFFICE ticable •to give separately ,the figures for Northern Ireland, England, and Wales, Parcels (Pilferage) and Scotland.

Mr. Pounder asked the Postmaster­ Compe11satio11 Number General what has been the value of losses Year Paid of Claims from postal parcels through pilferage 1961-62 £184,954 55,885 during 1963 and 1964, respectively ; what 1962-63 £178,433 52,327 has been the number of claims during 1963-64 £214,164 59,980 this period ; and how these figures com­ 1964-65 £238,160 63,134 pare with those in 1962, in respect of Northern Ireland, England and Wales, and Scotland, respectively.